When in October last year I tabled a number of parliamentary questions regarding government consultancies, I never imagined that the exercise would have uncovered the lid over some very scandalous compensations with the only condition being that the holders of these offices were unmistakably in Muscat’s good books.

If you remember well, some of the answers to those questions forthcoming from various ministers gave rise to more analysis and in-depth focus on those famous – or rather infamous – positions of trust. Since then this subject has been on the forefront of our political agenda and it is with a certain degree of satisfaction that I note that this has also been taken up by all the independent media.

The subject was further highlighted when, on the strength of a number of other PQs, this paper arrived to the conclusion that this administration employed more than 500 people on a ‘trust’ basis since taking office in March 2013.

The leader of the Times of Malta (February 16, 2016) dealt about this situation, taking the cue from a press conference by the head of the civil service, Mario Cutajar, himself a person of trust and coming straight from the Labour Party’s headquarters, having been politically involved throughout his whole life.

Cutajar would have us believe that this situation stems from the “guidelines issued by the previous administration”, and, “which were too wide-ranging”. He also said that “the government is now working on a new set of rules to better define a person of trust”.

The leader about the positions of trust dealt also with “public behaviour of people in positions of trust”. As if to confirm this need, the Times of Malta of the next day (February 17) ran a story about one of these persons of trust and his latest exploits. It was reported that this particularly ‘trusted’ person openly flaunts his political links to the extent that he himself “repeatedly linked his appointment to his work for the Labour Party, saying the government ‘owed’ him the position because he helped them win the election”.

He was further quoted as having said that “he would use the connections he had to stop people from getting funds after they clashed with him”.

The same editorial mentioned outgoing Labour deputy leader Toni Abela’s multiple consultancies to the government which, incidentally, came to be known through one of my PQs.

It may perhaps interest readers to know that nearly six years ago, this same Abela was taking Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi to task for choosing Louis Galea for the post of auditor in the European Court of Auditors, the same position he will occupy after being offered the post by Joseph Muscat.

Whatever Labour promised was grotesquely oversold and, now, under-delivered

In an article in l-Orizzont (February 2, 2010) Abela said that Galea will now further his career in the European Court of Auditors with a big fat pay-packet.

“What I cannot understand,” wrote Abela, “is why Louis Galea is in such a technical post. Louis Galea might be very learned about social policy and education, but what does he know about auditing and accountancy? I know why.

“Because the Prime Minister [Gonzi] wants to pave the way in case of a reshuffle. Galea’s nomination to such a position, which is very important for our country, was only driven by convenience. When the Prime Minister chose Galea to serve in this court, he was not choosing in the country’s best interest but that of the party... because Louis is immortal!”

No further comments are needed to explain this volte face.

It has been frequently said that the greatest crime a politician can be found guilty of in the court of public opinion is being ‘out of touch’. And no better a judge, in our circumstances, than a person who should really be trusted for speaking her mind without fear or favour.

A case in point is a short poignant letter by that respectful lady, Valerie Borg, a former Labour local councillor for Valletta. She wrote a letter in The Sunday Times of Malta (February 14) in which she enquired what had happened to two particular persons who, after they performed a U-turn towards the Labour Party, were given highly-paid posts abroad.

Borg states that “it pays to be an ex-Nationalist; after all the work they are doing cannot be done by ‘idiots’ in the Labour Party”.

She further asks: “What about ‘lucky’ Labour deputy leader Toni Abela who will soon be earning thousands of euro abroad? Good riddance to him and all the thousands of euro he is to be paid yearly.”

That is what you get when people begin to realise that a politician, a party, or whoever is concerned, used the electorate for their own ends, and it turns out that whatever they promised was grotesquely over-sold and, now, under-delivered.

Labour is reneging on many of its own promises particularly one of the most important foundation stones of its electoral programme: meritocracy. Let me remind you of one promise personally and solemnly made officially by Muscat during his electoral campaign.

Speaking in Gozo on January 26, 2013, Muscat said his new government will launch a pilot project whereby the people will be given the opportunity to elect representatives on certain boards of State corporations, and will evaluate the possibility of holding these elections electronically, via the internet.

“This is the first time,” boasted Muscat, “that public entities will be completely opened to have in them persons nominated by the general public and not the politicians. This pilot-project will be initiated in a number of boards and corporations by which interested persons can nominate themselves and then the people will vote for them online.

“This is the revolutionised way how we will open up government structures.”

That was a highly articulate way to propose a very clear promise. It was undoubtedly meant to appeal to the majority of an electorate which might have been alienated by some actions, or inactions, of the former administration. But it is scandalous to promote it in such an elaborate way and, then, when you are in a position to deliver, everything goes up in smoke. This shows a total distrust in the people who voted you in.

Lately, I am meeting people, mostly in my home visits, who are evaluating the situation for what it is. In one of these, I was told by a young mother: “The public fell for him [Muscat] once and is absolutely determined not to do it again.” In another home visit I was told: “We will never ever forgive Muscat and this is because we can’t forgive ourselves for believing in him.”

The peak of political hypocrisy was reached when on various occasions in the last few weeks, Muscat insisted that “we should never mix the party with government” and in the same process he removed Tony Abela (who is not a government MP) from deputy leader for party affairs and replaced him with a government minister.

This fits in well with what David Cameron commented on his Labour political rival prior to last year’s elections: “I can stomach opportunism and I can stomach sanctimony... but not both at the same time.”

Ultimately it is more than obvious that voters are clamouring for change and for a rigged system to be overturned.

If Labour will still persist with this system, they will only be confirming the basic belief that the electorate was outrightly deceived when they asked to be trusted in government but are now they applying a policy of absolute distrust in the Maltese people.

The way forward, even in this particular situation, was very clearly spelt out in Simon Busuttil’s document regarding good governance. We will be only too happy if the Labour government decides to go along with the solutions being provided by PN. If not, Busuttil already undertook to implement it, the minute he is given the mandate from our electorate.

Kristy Debono is an economist and Opposition spokesperson for financial services, gaming and IT.