If a government minister does not know the difference between meeting someone at his ministry, or at a reception, and going on his private jet to see a football match, taking with him his son and his nephew to boot, then he is extremely politically naïve. This is exactly how Finance Minister Tonio Fenech came across in the interview he gave to The Times to defend himself against the very strong criticism levelled at him for accepting the invitation to fly on a well-known entrepreneur's private jet to Spain to see a football match, the tickets for which were offered by another big businessman.
In doing so, he has not only put himself in a very tight political corner, but has also greatly embarrassed the government of which he forms part. One reason for the controversy that the trip has kicked off is that the entrepreneur owning the private jet, George Fenech, operates two casinos and is known to have bid for the Dragonara casino management contract. Another is that the government has come up with a law that would introduce new controls in the sector.
Not without good reason, therefore, many in the gaming parlour sector have seen the Minister's acceptance of the invitation as unethical. And, indeed, it is.
What is most surprising is that the Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi, gave him the go-ahead for the trip. Not only that, but Dr Gonzi publicly defended the Minister, arguing that claims of a possible conflict of interest formed part of a mud-slinging campaign by parties who wanted to influence the government's decision on who would get the licence to run the casino. True, flying to Spain on a private jet of an entrepreneur just to see a football match is not, hypothetically, exactly as if the Minister had accepted the gift of a villa somewhere in Tuscany, or any other substantial gift. But the nature of the gift is immaterial, because it is of course the principle that counts, not the value of the gift. The Minister's indiscretion raises the serious question of whether he has fallen foul of the ministers' code of ethics. This says that ministers should not accept gifts or services that might be deemed to create an obligation, real or imaginary. This applies also to ministers' spouses and minor children.
The code goes even further, laying down that when ministers are carrying out government work abroad they should not accept offers for free travel from governments or other organisations, except as stipulated in the official programme.
Whether or not he is in breach of the code, in accepting the invitation, Mr Fenech has given way to the formation of perceptions against him that could do harm to the carrying out of his duties as a government minister.
The Minister has vehemently denied that he has done anything to further the interests of the entrepreneur, and there is no reason to believe he is not telling the truth, but he can hardly deny now that he has created the wrong perceptions against him.
True again, politicians are not magistrates and judges, who are not supposed to socialise in order to avoid situations that could obstruct the course of their work on the bench, but prudence calls for far greater perspicacity than that shown by the Minister.