After the Panama Papers, will anyone ever feel that their data is secure again? Whether it was a breach of the internal data system or the e-mail server at Mossack Fonseca, secret documents are not necessarily safe. At every digital gateway or platform, hackers might be trying to break the lock.

The contents of the data are shocking, but the leak itself is not. Data mining happens regularly. Swissleaks and Wikileaks are still fresh in our memories. Last year there was even an online dating site whose clients were embarrassed to be exposed by a breach of the system.

Digital technology is transforming politics. It plays a decisive role in massive events. The Tunisian revolution in 2011, for example, was not caused by social media, but the sharing of information online was one reason why the government eventually lost control over events.

This also applies to incidents on a much smaller scale. A videoclip of a man beating his fallen horse in the street in Swatar went viral last week. The film was taken by a passer-by and widely shared on social media, causing outrage. This type of public awareness pressures the government to pay attention to animal welfare and ensure that robust legislation is in place. While the traditional press faces threats of lawsuits about the Panama Papers, a parallel universe of online information flourishes undisturbed. On Facebook and Twitter an endless stream of videoclips, memes, photos, comments and jokes about Panama is viewed by huge numbers of people, and the government cannot control it.

Privacy and secrecy are disappearing in the digital age. Every time you send an e-mail message or make a phone call, you leave a trace. People are wary of digital surveillance and the infringement of privacy, but on the other hand, transparency in government is expected.

Any attempt to block free speech or access to information is frowned upon. Trying to muzzle people is a bad idea. For example, an art design competition is not in the same league as a national energy deal, but the mindset is revealing.

In the renewed competition for a statue of Dom Mintoff, participating artists are forbidden from speaking about it. This restriction is utterly pointless and only engenders suspicion about the entire process.

The Prime Minister’s aide Keith Schembri avoids press questions on his foreign companies and accounts, even though he is involved in the making of major government deals. This does not inspire confidence.

His consultants Nexia BT, local representatives of Mossack Fonseca, are reputed to have a desk at the Office of the Prime Minister but resisted answering press questions about it. Don’t they understand that this information cannot be kept secret? It is in the public interest to know who has a desk at OPM and who is influencing the decision-makers. Castille is not a private fiefdom.

The number of times the newspapers report that their questions were not answered by government entities, or that information was denied, is much too frequent

The number of times the newspapers report that their questions were not answered by government entities, or that information was denied, is much too frequent.

The representative of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has repeated a telling remark in his interviews. The Panama Papers will change the face of things, as secrecy is a main product of jurisdictions like Panama. If they can no longer sell secrecy, they no longer have a product.

Secrecy alone is a major reason why Konrad Mizzi’s position was immediately considered untenable by many people when the story about his Panamanian company broke.

He opted for secrecy, protecting and hiding his assets through an unnecessarily complex structure, when already Cabinet Minister. Whether he had yet managed to channel any funds into this structure or not is irrelevant, and the plea of political naivety is absurd.

Other politicians who have defended Mizzi, such as Owen Bonnici and Deborah Schembri, have only succeeded in damaging their own reputations too. If they could not recognise the gravity of the matter then they must be politically naïve as well, or worse.

In the public eye, Mizzi was not helped by the fact that he also opted for secrecy in the massive energy and health deals which he spearheaded as minister. To date, these major contracts have been withheld despite repeated calls to see them. The excuse is that their publication is “not in the national interest”.

There was also secrecy surrounding official visits to Azerbaijan to discuss energy deals, which excluded civil servants and the Maltese press. This did not look good at all.

The details about Mizzi’s wife’s achievements as Maltese consul in China are also kept under wraps. In recent weeks, it was reported in the press that “Malta Enterprise is maintaining total silence about Sai Mizzi Liang’s future as its envoy to Asia, also failing to give information about her achievements over the past three years”.

For quite some time, her contact and work details in China were also shrouded in mystery, even though she is employed by Malta Enterprise. So much for the transparency of the Mizzi family.

No wonder the public simply would not believe that Mizzi’s intentions in setting up a Panama company and New Zealand Trust for his family, and his attempt to open a Dubai account, were straightforward.

petracdingli@gmail.com