Last Sunday this newspaper carried a letter by a correspondent who recalled that way back in 1947 the Minister of Health in Paul Boffa’s government resigned because he realised that he could not properly discharge his ministerial duties while pursuing his career as a surgeon. The point made by the correspondent was that the person involved took the correct decision without having the need to be guided by a written code of ethics.
Why is the PN’s behaviour scrutinised so much by the public that seems to be more lenient vis-à-vis the Labour Party?
Ethics is all about one’s behaviour and how people are expected to conduct themselves. It has been defined as “a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behaviour helps or harms sentient creatures”.
Different positions in society imply different responsibilities which, in turn, lead to different expectations about what should be one’s correct conduct. Having written rules serves as a guide to one’s proper conduct but just observing them is not what makes one’s conduct as it should be.
Man knows that theft and murder are wrong and that they are wrong because they flout natural law and not because it is so written in the Ten Commandments or in the criminal code.
Criticism of ministers who have been accused of flouting the ministerial Code of Ethics has tended to emphasise what the written code says. The ideas that one can ‘update’ a Code of Ethics or even be exempted from observing it seem to reinforce the notion that a Code of Ethics is just another set of rules devised by man and therefore can be changed by man at will.
In fact, behaving ethically is an important issue because it transcends written rules and the concept should stand alone even when the rules are unwritten.
Codes of Ethics attempt to codify rules for ethical behaviour and identify behaviour that is not acceptable but they are not an end in themselves. Nor do they impose the way one should behave because they have been expressed in writing by some legislator.
There is no Code of Ethics for the holder of the Office of President of the Republic. But this does not mean that the President is not bound by ethical behaviour – an issue that has unfortunately also surfaced recently.
Rather than arguing about what is written in a ministerial Code of Ethics devised in 1994, one should look for the reason people are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consonant with their responsibilities.
As members of the country’s executive, ministers and parliamentary secretaries and the ordinary citizen have a particular relationship resulting from their responsibility, which the Constitution defines as “the general direction and control of the Government of Malta”. In a situation where one is working privately as a self-employed – a professional or otherwise – there is a particular personal relationship with clients. Being an employer or an employee means that one has another type of relationship with others.
The relationship Cabinet members have with all citizens in pursuance of their responsibilities as members of the executive of the country, necessarily precludes any other relationship between them and particular citizens. Anything else is an unacceptable muddle.
This should be obvious whether it is written in a Code of Ethics or not – and irrespective of how it is written or how many times the written code is ‘updated’. Whether this clash of ‘relationships’ also exists in the case of a Cabinet member giving formal lectures to students at the University is a moot point.
There is no doubt that this relationship is more superficial as giving lectures is simply imparting knowledge to others without any personal involvement. It is much more of a ‘one-way’ street.
Whether one’s behaviour is correct and proper has nothing to do with whether the intention behind one’s actions is good or bad or whether one’s conduct is leading to some personal or pecuniary advantage. Trying to justify unethical behaviour by using such misleading arguments and puerile excuses only makes things worse, not better.
Simon Busuttil was absolutely correct last Monday when he told Joseph Muscat that he draws a red line on ethical issues, insisting it is wrong for someone accepting to form part of the Cabinet while carrying on with their private practice.
This brings me to an old chestnut of mine: why is the PN’s behaviour scrutinised so much by the public that seems to be more lenient vis-à-vis the Labour Party? Why does it seem that Malta’s national psyche allows for two sets of behavioural standards – one for the PN and another for Labour?
While hearing me repeat this question for the umpteenth time some days ago, my son recalled one of my tantrums of days gone by – when I apparently ‘explained’ this by saying that every time the PN passes gas the whole country protests at the stench, while Labour seem to be able to excrete all over the place with impunity.
Of course, I had said this analogy using much more earthy language – but quoting my ranting verbatim would not be prudent. Some would even say it would be unethical.
micfal@malatnet.net