Another infantile controversy

Politics has become weaved into practically every action in the public sector. In the private sector too, we find political discussion, if not also confrontation, on every street corner, shop, bar or where ever else a minimum of two people congregate. But that is the privilege of individuals who fail to realise there is more to life than just partisan politics. The way politics is shaping up in the public sector is more of a concern.

The game of politics must be played, but surely not at the infantile level it is descending to- Lino Spiteri

For starters, the public sector has to be under political and public scrutiny. It is run by the executive but financed by all those who contribute to public finances. It is right that it should be kept under the magnifying glass, primarily to see whether the public is being given adequate value for its money, and also to keep an eye out for possible abuses. But if scrutiny is coloured by partisanship, the public has to filter that out to reach reasonable conclusions.

The issue of the appointment of four applicants to medical positions requires such filtering. The basic point to remember is that the fact that the selected candidates, though fully qualified from a medical point of view, were not registered under Maltese law. That did not emerge following any political ferreting, it was revealed in the 2011 annual report of the Public Service Commission.

Surely, the first and primary question that concerns accountability is why that rather incredible gap occurred and who was responsible for it. Instead the first issue became, in the political field, who were the chairmen of the relevant four selection boards.

Rather crazily the government fuelled the early opposition political fire by blatantly refusing to name the chairmen, for whatever that mattered. Political controversy duly flared up, with a rather banal defence by the government for its silly inscrutability – that everything eventually became known in little Malta. Some ministers clearly need a refresher course in public accountability, assuming they had been dutifully introduced to it on their appointment.

The belated naming of the chairmen was then subjected to government spin, with the Health Ministry pointing out that on one of the selection boards was a prospective Gozitan Labour election candidate, Franco Mercieca, himself a respected specialist. On its part the opposition fired away the charge that one of the selected candidates was the son-in-law of Education Minister Dolores Cristina.

Both points were non-sequiturs. What’s the relevance of Mercieca being a Labour candidate? He was not appointed to the selection board for his political beliefs, but in the course of his specialist employment in the public sector. What is the relevance of one of the selected candidates being the relative of a minister? He was selected on the basis of his clinical eligibility, meaning that he was medically qualified for the post, as the other three candidates were also qualified.

The political treatment of this latest affair in messed up bureaucracy went further than that. The Labour media spun out the fact, if fact it is, that the two chairmen – Godfrey Laferla and Thomas Fenech – are professed nationalists. That had two implications.

One that the government’s inexplicable and foolish delay in publishing the names of the selection boards was intended to cover up the two chairmen. It beats me why they should need covering up.

Both are acknowledged by their peers and satisfied patients to be stars in their field. That is the reputation that matters to them. As for the selection boards, they were there to do a job, primarily resting on clinical eligibility. There is no reason to believe they acted in bad faith.

Unless, that is, we are swayed by the second implication of Labour’s attack, which is that all four selection boards, with their members acting as the chairman’s puppets, intended to favour the four selected applicants for partisan political reasons. The thought that Laferla and Fenech would act in such a blatant manner seems to me inconceivable. There is a related observation – that besides Cristina’s son-in-law all the other three selected candidates are Nationalists.

While irrelevant in view of their qualifications, that is possible, but it takes to stretched extremes the attributes of political conspiracy.

The controversy was lit by the government. The opposition, as all oppositions do, gleefully waded in.

The two sides will continue at it hammer and tongs, making sober minded public employees wonder whether they are in the right quarters.

Public sector human resources should be above political controversy, committed to serve faithfully the government of the day through their best-ability service to the public.

That statement is challenged by the fact that some public sector grade employees are allowed to contest general elections while retaining their jobs, usually because they are (also) on the University’s staff list.

That does not mean they are to be presumed to be political in the public service. There are examples to draw on.

Guido de Marco, nationalist, remained a law lecturer throughout his political career. Louis Buhagiar, labour, remained in his public sector post throughout his period as an MP.

Nobody ever cast a doubt on their objectivity as university lecturers and examiners nor, applicable only in Buhagiar’s case, in his hospital care of patients of whatever political persuasion.

The game of politics must be played, but surely not at the infantile level it is descending to.