The promises of a zero-tolerance policy on corruption,meritocracy, equal opportunities and transparency formed the platform on which the Labour Party won the general election with a landslide victory in 2013.
However, all these promises were forgotten by the new Labour administration, which, once elected to government, lost no time in heading in the opposite direction. Favourism, political nepotism and clientelism quickly became the order of the day, with the taxpayer’s money making good to reward individuals who helped Labour clinch victory.
Within just five days from the Labour takeover, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and a minister, who later briefly became the party’s deputy leader, made their first step towards opening a secret offshore company in Panama.
This scandal has done immense damage to the country’s reputation, to the extent of putting Malta’s suitability for EU presidency into doubt due to arising concern over its ability to push through laws to control bribery by public officials.
Yet the Prime Minister still retained his trust in both officials, and all he considered to be necessary was a simple cosmetic change in the minister’s nomenclature.
The very basic moral principle of right and wrong is being eroded
The philosophy that appears to be prevailing in Malta is that if these two close allies of the Prime Minister can do as they please, then other individuals who helped Labour rise to power should be given a similar privileged treatment.
The bad example set by the highest level of the government is filtering down to the various government entities placed under the control of so-called persons of trust, thus making the process of discrimination between co-workers easier.
The very basic moral principle of right and wrong is being eroded as particular government employees are becoming more and more immune to action against them, irrespective of the gravity of their wrongdoings. This is what prompted me to give a press conference on my first day of retirement from work at the St Vincent de Paul Residence for the Elderly.
Shortly after the Labour victory, the residence was placed under the authority of a public officer in a substantive grade attached to a yearly salary of €30,668, equivalent to salary scale 4 of the schedule of salaries applicable to public officers. On being appointed CEO, the individual’s salary went up to €68,822, according to a package she was given that also included a 10 per cent maximum performance bonus, a fully expensed car and paid mobile and fixed line use.
She made it quite obvious she was using a different yardstick for different employees by showing a consistent reluctance to take any form of disciplinary action against given workers at the residence known to support the ruling government party, even when they committed offences scheduled as serious according to the disciplinary regulations of the Public Service Commission, while at the same time taking drastic action against workers of a different political inclination for much less serious offences.
On his part, the permanent secretary within the Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity remained passive before the situation, despite being well informed about the discrimination practised by the CEO and his obligation to control such abuse. He also authorised the CEO to continue practising as a private doctor and managing her private clinic, thus violating the code of ethics in terms of the Public Administration Act. This created a conflict of interest, because the CEO’s objective performance in the public service could be compromised by her financial interest or other interests in her private work.
The broad discretional powers of the CEO on the provision of healthcare services provided by the government institution under her management gave rise to a scenario whereby her own private patients and customers could be given preferential treatment in the use of those services.
This conflict of interest was confirmed by the discovery of beds at the St Vincent de Paul Residence reserved exclusively for the CEO’s use.
The permanent secretary resorted to sophistry to justify his authorisation of the CEO to perform private work, stating that this was in line with the collective agreement reached between the previous government and the Medical Association of Malta in 2013 that gives one the option to carry out private work. However, he conveniently refrained from mentioning that this provision is only applicable to officers performing their official duties in line with their substantive grade. In fact, it does not go into the merits of an officer who is given a position of trust, as in the case in question, where the code of ethics is the only applicable reference document.
The obligation of a person occupying a position of trust to dedicate all his working time to his public service duties is also treated in the Bill dealing with standards in public life.
Such an obligation on the part of the CEO at the St Vincent de Paul Residence is made all the more obvious by the generous compensation that she receives.
Denis Tanti is a former assistant director (industrial and employment relations) in the Ministry for Health.