Alex Saliba, Labour Party MEP candidate
Members of the Armed Forces of Malta are not considered public officers under Maltese law, not regulated by the Public Administration Act or the Public Service Commission. Their engagement and promotions procedure is regulated by the Malta Armed Forces of Malta Act.
The system of army promotions has long been the subject of controversy.
A 2007 parliamentary question highlighted 288 complaints received during Lawrence Gonzi’s leadership. And in 2002, then-Ombudsman Joe Sammut published a report in which he declared the system encouraged “unjust decisions”, contributing to a lack of trust in the Armed Forces’ management, and lack of morale. Former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami’s reaction was a fierce attack on the Ombudsman, accusing him of being unfair, arrogant and political. Fenech Adami had also said that the Ombudsman cannot give lessons to Cabinet.
The fact that the Office of the Ombudsman criticises certain aspects of present governance is healthy, and an assurance that the rule of law in our country governs. Attacking the institutions is not called for. Luckily, this government has always taken a different stance, even though the number of complaints is definitely less than in previous administrations.
Firstly, 269 complaints on Army promotions were registered with the Ombudsman from 2005 to 2012. During the current administration, 52 complaints were registered. The injustices which happened under PN administrations prompted the Ministry for Home Affairs to establish the first injustices board in 2013. The majority of the complaints investigated were found to be justified.
Secondly, the Senior Advisory Committees in 2011 and in 2013 were composed in exactly the same way, the only difference being that it was composed by the Ministry for Home Affairs instead of the Office of the Prime Minister since the AFM now falls under the remit of the ministry. Thirdly before 2011, there were no standards for the selection process of officials. The previous head of the Armed Forces of Malta, Brigadier Martin Xuereb, was handpicked unlike the current brigadier.
Irrespective of these controversies, it is clear that the present Armed Forces of Malta is rising to the occasion whenever faced with tough challenges from immigration and humanitarian crisis, to two hijacks during the past six years (one on-board an aircraft, and another on tanker Elhibru 1), and recently Malta’s worst storm since 1982.
It is no surprise that, according to the autumn edition of the EU Barometer, the AFM holds 77 per cent trust of the Maltese population. The government has increased, and not diminished, rights for the disciplined corps especially with their right to join a trade union.
The report of the Ombudsman is a sign that this country has a system of checks and balances which is working in an effective manner. The respect for institutions by this government continues to strengthen our democracy.
Peter Agius, Nationalist Party candidate for the European elections, former head of the European Parliament Office and cabinet member of the President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani
The Ombudsman’s report points to systematic political discrimination by design in the assignment of promotions in one of the county’s most important institutions. An institution, which by its own tradition should be the expression of autonomy and hence detachment from any political interference.
In the words of the Ombudsman, the promotion process introduced by the Labour government immediately after its election in 2013 served as “a screen for the selections that had to be made”. The ombudsman criticised the fact that ‘persons of trust’ were controlling the selection boards for such promotions, which instead of promoting merit or service ended up promoting political affiliation or other non-merit based criteria.
The Ombudsman report itself is damning enough to require political responsibility from a government rising to power with the call of meritocracy.
What is even more shocking is the minister’s reaction to the Ombudsman’s report. In any normal democracy, faced with such damning findings, a minister would give clear signals of the government’s resolution to address the shortcomings in question. Not so in Malta.
The minister and the government did not indicate so far any intention to effectively address the mentioned shortcomings and give a remedy to those affected.
This government’s disregard to merit and the rights for non-discriminatory treatment are leaving many victims behind. First and foremost, those who had the courage to face up to this abuse. We thank them for their courage. Their actions speak for the nobility and service of the officials of our armed forces. Secondly, there are others who did not speak out, and for who we expect justice nonetheless. Thirdly, the discrimination uncovered in the Ombudsman’s report is spreading beyond the armed forces to many other government services in the public sector.
Since I accepted the call to be a candidate at the European Parliament elections I have met or been contacted with tens of government officials who speak of being sidelined due to their loyalty in the past. I heard stories of officials representing us in Europe for years with results to show for our country, being demoted without much of an office chat with their manager, replaced by a ‘person of trust’ now representing the national interest in Brussels instead.
We have nothing against ‘persons of trust’ per se, but what kind of public service are we to promote if we systematically choose political alliance over competence, if we choose familiarity over qualification and investment in ‘who you know’ over ‘what you know’?
We all stand to lose in a society that shrugs off meritocracy. The Nationalist Party submitted seven concrete proposals for an independent public service based on competence. We expect government to and consider our proposals. Our public officials deserve nothing less.
Martin Cauchi Inglott, Secretary General of the Democratic Party and MEP candidate
The Armed Forces of Malta (AFM) is an eco-system where clarity in decision-making is cardinal since the nature of the business is often life-threatening. A solid, transparent, chain of command is, consequently, essential as soldiers must have trust, respect and confidence in their leadership, which is won through fairness and assurance of welfare.
Fairness implies that all servicemen are given equal opportunities. For officers this means rotation between staff (office) and operational roles, overseas and local duties, as senior officers are expected to possess sound operational experience (sea/field/air) and proficiency in formulating policies and plans.
If officers spend their careers in operational or staff positions, without rotation, their decision-making process will be unbalanced, which could lead to less chances of promotion, more so if officers spend a career in operational positions.
Though the AFM leadership is best suited to determine the most appropriate candidate to fill vacancies, the AFM promotion policy was never enshrined in law, so the minister of the day is able to change policy as he deems fit. And if selfish officers opt to take short-cuts by lobbying politicians, and the AFM leadership subdues to this interference, unfair promotions ensue, morale drops, and other officers are encouraged to take such short-cuts, leading to a downward spiral.
This is probably why senior posts have frequently been occupied by officers of the same politicalleaning as the government at certain stages of the AFM’s history.
I am of the opinion that politicians must stay out of military matters and stick to their remit of defining defence objectives and capability requirements. While the Commander and Deputy Commander must have the confidence of the government, promotion of all other senior ranks should be determined by a military board with very limited input from the minister, which, as the Ombudsman recently pointed out, did clearly not happen in post 2013 promotion exercises.
Moreover, I feel that senior officers should mature in their ranks for a number of years before being considered for further promotion. Conversely, it would be unfair not to point out other ranks’ complaints to the Ombudsman dropped drastically post 2013, with just three recorded in 2018.
Unfair promotions have led to several senior officers losing trust in the hierarchy, which is translated into less initiative and willingness to shoulder responsibility/take calculated risk, factors which are essential for military business.
This implies a less efficient and effective force, but it is evidently what tribal Malta desires as political promotions have also happened in earlier years. Perhaps remedies to promotion systems within government in general should be enshrined in the upcoming constitutional review, but this is currently in the hands of both political parties, which is already not a good sign.
If you would like to put any questions to the parties in Parliament send an e-mail marked clearly Question Time to editor@timesofmalta.com.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece