It’s not about honesty. It’s about commonsense.
The finance minister is embroiled in a bit of a mess. He has not been embroiled by others. He has embroiled himself. I point this out because he appears to think that this is a tale of a good man brought low by thieves and liars and that it is all a question of honesty and morals. It is not. It is a question of commonsense, and the lack of it.
The finance minister has only to hear what is said and read what is written to gauge that people are not worried about his honesty. They are worried about his judgement. Basic commonsense and a modicum of foresight should have told him that accepting hospitality of this nature would be a bad idea. A simple risk assessment, undertaken mentally in a split second and not mulled over for weeks, should have led him to conclude that the negative consequences of accepting any such invitation would far eclipse the paltry benefits.
Indeed, the benefits were so paltry, and the risk to his reputation and authority so huge (to say nothing of the damage caused to the government of which he is a key member) that the incident is not shocking. Rather, it is sad. The finance minister has rendered himself ridiculous, trading his kingdom for a horse.
That is the real problem, and he has yet to grasp this if his interview in The Times two days ago was a correct indication of how he feels about the imbroglio. He insisted that he did nothing wrong, because to his mind, ‘wrong’ would be discussing the gaming laws with a casino-owner on his plane, or shaping policy to suit this particular individual or any other, in return for some hospitality. He appears not to understand that the wrong lies in accepting that invitation in the first place – not wrong morality or wrong ethics, but wrong judgement.
It was poor judgement because in his position as finance minister he should not be chumming up to influential individuals against whose interests he may have to draft legislation or proceed in other ways. They chum up not to make life easier for him, but to make life easier for them – a process which, he has now discovered, is almost certain to make his job more difficult.
More to the point, he should not be chumming up to influential individuals if he has to draft legislation or proceed in other ways that might – entirely coincidentally – be to their interest. However many protestations to the contrary he might make, and however honest and decent he might be, commonsense should tell him that this will be interpreted negatively.
The government of which he forms part has enough trouble already dealing with negative interpretations which cannot be avoided. It should not be forced to contend with those that can be avoided with the two-letter word, no.
The newspapers are busy quoting codes of ethics. To my mind, all that is quite irrelevant. I am astounded that any grown man, still more a cabinet minister, should need a written set of guidelines to tell him how to behave and what sorts of things will draw opprobrium on his head and in turn cause needless, pointless trouble for his prime minister.
The fact that cabinet ministers have guidelines in print to teach them the norms of behaviour that others take for granted says much. It is the equivalent of giving a book about table manners to somebody born in a barn.
Codes of ethics are irrelevant to this discussion because it is quite possible to be both unethical and sensible – just as the finance minister has demonstrated that it is quite possible to be ethical and not sensible. An unethical man who is also sensible would not have taken that trip. Ethics deal in morality, not manners. In this case, ‘code of ethics’ is a misnomer for what is actually a set of behavioural guidelines in which morality figures little, if at all.
Ministers are told, in this set of guidelines, not to accept gifts or services because acceptance may be wrongly construed. It should be obvious that acceptance of a gift or service is not in itself immoral or unethical, even if you are a minister and whoever gives it to you – unless, of course, the gift-giver is a drug-dealer or other sort of criminal.
The immoral or unethical act would be responding to that gift with something else – something that one should not be giving. So refusing gifts, services or the sort of hospitality now being discussed has nothing to do with either ethics or morality. It is all about commonsense and having your head screwed on right.
It is precisely because the finance minister is not a bad person or a conniving one that he went on that trip. He was foolish, just as he was foolish to tell the press that if it were up to him, as a committed Christian he would ban all forms of gambling, when he’s there to help Malta make money and many millions every year pour into the state coffers from internet gambling companies alone. Odd though it might seem to him, lots of people find foolishness almost as worrying. A conniving person would have done nothing to draw attention to anything untoward that he might be planning. Conniving people tend to be as sharp as butchers’ knives.
This incident might turn out to be useful in teaching senior politicians of both parties, and even some junior ones, a crucial lesson: playing with the big boys is not a perk of political life, but a risk and a danger. To those who have come out of nowhere, the treats and thrills of an all-too-brief period of glamour (or what passes for glamour here in Malta) are difficult to resist. But thrills bring spills. Refusal might be tough and boring when you are faced with all those people lining up to give you things and massage your ego, but it really is the only sensible option.
When a politician succumbs to proffered treats and can’t resist the pull of a nice jaunt, he comes across as weak and a bit silly, and the net result is that he loses authority. This might not be a terrible problem for a backbencher – on the backbenches, the weak and silly ones are lost in the crowd – but the loss of authority when you are a cabinet minister is a serious matter.
Let’s put it this way. Nobody could ever imagine Eddie Fenech Adami, when he was a politician, jumping at the offer of a couple of football tickets and a quick trip on a private flight. That’s part of the reason he wielded so much authority.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
29 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Subtle, subtle, subtle!
No, it was not just a question of bad judgement. If you read last Wednesday’s MaltaToday (not your favourite paper/editor, I know) you will find that George Fenech has already receive substantial favours – one of them (amongst others) being that he was allowed to classify the Portomaso casino as an “annex” of the Oracle Casino, thus running two casinos on the strength of one licence.
[Daphne – 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 5, Twanny. You are assuming that (1) it was a favour and (2) that it was done because he took the finance minister to Wimbledon. I am neither that naive nor that simplistic in my reasoning.]
There was only one Fenech Adami.
… and, thankfully, only one Guido …
Min hu bhal Eddie!
I’m a bit in doubt about whether Tonio’s trip was morally or ethically acceptable in this day and age. A similar story, but one on a larger scale, unfolded in Malta in May 2007 when President Sarkozy came here on Le Paloma, a luxury yacht belonging to a business magnate called Vincent Bolloré. We all know that Sarkozy is still the president of the French Republic.
Nearer home, from Malta Today of 29 October 2006:”Their latest (may I add UNPUBLICISED) trade mission to Dubai, in which a Labour delegation composed of MPs Charles Buhagiar and Charles Mangion had a ‘chance encounter’ with the Smart City magnates, was also accompanied by entrepreneurs Denis Baldacchino, Ray Vella, Patrick Dalli, and Carmelo Penza. Ray Vella had a hand in building Labour’s new headquarters in Hamrun and together with Denis Baldacchino, is a shareholder in Medina Construction Services and El-Ikhlas, whose directors include Charles Buhagiar MP. Patrick Dalli and Carmelo Penza, along with Baldacchino, had also formed Unita Group Holdings, a now defunct company which grouped their individual construction. And Dalli, the husband of Labour MP Helena Dalli, is also tied to Charles Mangion in the company Elcar Developments.”
They were anticipating an electoral victory in 2008.
And someone later caught poor Michael Falzon (Labour Party) dining with Charles Polidano at Le Meridien. The celebration party for “il-hatra ta’ Joseph bhala mexxej” took place at wine vaults owned by the same man.
What am I trying to say? The political class is like a classroom where a teacher chides the good boy at the front whom she caught making funny faces, while she turns a blind eye to others who continually do worse things.
Somehow such behaviour is not expected of Tonio but would be OK if others commit it. It could also be that someone wants someone else to be finance minister.
[Daphne – Yes, we all have a much lower threshold of tolerance for bad behaviour and general performance for Labour than we do for the Nationalist Party. The country as a whole expects far less from Labour than it does from the Nationalists, and sets its standards very high for the Nationalist Party while it is content if the Labour Party merely avoids breaking the law or getting involved with violence. But that does not mean that you or I should be happy to see the Nationalist Party lower its standards because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. On the contrary, what we should demand is the raising of standards in the Labour Party. All of us, and that includes Labour supporters, seem to operate on the basis that Labour is a special needs case from which we can only expect so much, and we should be happy if we get it. No violence? Vote for them. No corruption? Vote for them. They aren’t rushing around beating people up and violating human rights? Vote for them.]
There is no comparison between the Tonio Fenech debacle and the Dubai non-story.
In the first, we have a businessman offering valuable freebies (which were accepted) to a minister who is about to take major decisions in a sector where the said businessman has deep interests.
In the second, we have the politicians inviting the businessmen (not the other way round) to tag along, at their own expense, on a trip where they could make valuable contacts and, hopefully, obtain work and contracts which would be of benefit to themselves, their employees and the Maltese economy.
no..it’s about money like always.
haha daphne the more i see the Pn trying to make people fear PL the harder I laugh..do you think a biased one sided report will change the people’s votes. ahahhaa..or are you truly scared the events of 30 years ago will happen once again if the PL is in power
and don’t think you can stop my freedom of expression…just becuase you informed your Times of Malta collaborators to block any comments I make Dapnhe…taking away the freedom of speech is much worse for democracy than racism..I’m sure you managed to convince them with your lies that I’m a racist just becuase I’m always debating on illegal immigration…all I have to do is change the name and IP address I have adsl dymanic if you know what that means..so I can change my ip if that is what it takes to pass your worries to the public..this is not about blocking ideals..it is about blocking ideas…which is very different..rest assured there are other methods like youtube where your friends nazimaltawatch are trying to lure youngsters into saying something which will land them in court after being provoked by these same people. It will not help you..if the goverment wants to solve the issue he should be serious and consult all the public instead of such shameful tactics to lure and arrest our youths. what we aren’t able to say with our mouths will still remain in our hearts eternally..and that you will never take away..I will not write anymore on your shameful sickening one sided website..obviously I understand that this site would be biased..but to see the Times of Malta in cahoots with you also is shameful. I thought they were independent..guess not. wikipedia on times of malta..quote; Whilst The Times of Malta purports to be politically independent, it is perceived by sections of the Maltese public as being conservative-leaning. I guess we as maltese should update that it always leans in favour of pn
bbye dont worry I wont write on this site anymore your topics are totally unrelated to the real issues in Malta. So for me it’s a waste of time.
Nista naqbel jew ma naqbilx mal-artikli li tikteb, pero’ jien dejjem sibthom interessanti. Li jien nixtieq, jekk huwa posibbli, li l-artikli tieghek nibda naqrahom bil-Malti ukoll, anke fuq l-internet jekk hu possibbli.
Jien ftit tghallimt skola fi zmieni ghax ghall-familja tieghi l-ewwel kien ix-xoghol imbaghad l-iskola. Illum il-gurnata jiddispjacini’.
Nixtieq, Daphne, li dan li ktibtlek ma tehodiex bhala xi kritika. Jien nirabja mieghi nnifsi meta jkun hemm xi kliem li ma nifmhux bl-Ingliz. Dan naf li mhux tort tieghek.
Nixtieq li tikkonsidra dan il-kumment.
Grazzi u nselli ghalik.
[Daphne – Hemm problema wahda biss: ta’ hin. Mihiex kwistjoni ta’ kemm taqbad u taqleb ghall-Malti artiklu miktub bl-Ingliz. Trid kwazi tikteb l-artiklu mil-gdid, ghax il-‘forma ta’ hsieb’ huwa kompletament differenti bl-Ingliz u bil-Malti. Meta nikteb bl-Ingliz nahseb bl-Ingliz u meta nikteb bil-Malti nahseb bil-Malti. Naf li xi kull tant nista nikteb bil-Malti – ghal dan il-blog, ovvja, ghax ma nistax ghall-gazzetta, imma ddecidejt li nikteb biss bl-Ingliz ghaliex hemm hafna izjed nies li jaqrawh li ma jafu xejn bil-Malti milli hemm li jafu biss ftit bl-Ingliz.]
Alfred, laqatni il-kumment sincier tieghek. Alla jbierek kemm taf tikteb bil-Malti, hemm nies li marru l-universita li ma’ jafux jiktbu l-Malti tajjeb li taf tikteb int. Halli nghidlek: la jinteressak dak li tikteb Daphne, bla ma’ taf, tkun qieghed titghallem l-ilsien Ingliz miktub. U fejn ma’tafx: ghamel bhal ghorrief …..staqsi. Tislijiet.
Malti eccellenti, bir-regoli l-godda b’kollox kiteb das-sinjur. Ma tantx jidher xi persuna li ‘ftit tghallem skola’. Mhux dak is-sinjur li dejjem se jmut, emm ghandu jkun jismu Frans (Sa mmut!) dan hux?
Bedtime reading for MPs. There once was a pretentious politician, who accepted a precarious perk, a mortal faux pas, but he did not know why, and ended in a right proper pickle. Moral: ‘Position Thyself Properly’, or, in layman’s terms–‘Smarten the f–k up! Herein endeth the lesson.
He took the doggie position and got it well and truly up his derriere.
I totally agree with your article. There is nothing one can do now, I suppose, once the finance minister botched things up. It is definitely not a question of honesty. I do think he should have known better. If he really wanted to watch the game he should have flown Air Malta – if there were no direct flights he could have got a connection and saved himself this fracas.
He’s so, so naive…it’s the second mess in a short span.
No.1 – He boasted that a businessman reported fraud in the VAT Department, when he and his men should have caught the culprits themselves, through audits.
No. 2 – He thought it so cool and exciting to travel with leading businessmen in a private jet, to watch an Arsenal match.
And I always thought that accountants are shrewd, sharp and cunning – but there is always an exception.
@ Ks : I beg to disagree. Once he was informed about fraud in HIS ministry he did the right thing not to get involved in the investigations. Fraud is a crime and it falls under the responsibility of the police. Not having the systems to cross-check what his underlings were doing for years was not his fault.
The adjectives with which you labelled accountants are more befitting some members of another profession which helps such fraudsters to escape the wheels of justice.
Brilliant! Well said. The medicine is necessary. Whether he likes it or not Tonio Fenech will always be remembered for his poor judgment as Alfred Sant will be always remembered for his ‘repeater class’. Hope the MPs who are there to serve the people will learn something from this. Daphne, that’s why you are influential: you say publicly what is wrong with this government, even though you personally suffered under the MLP.
[Daphne – And even though I will still vote for the Nationalist Party and will not vote Labour. That’s an important point.]
qas jitkellmu ma jifilhu tal Pn jahasra daphne fuq l kwistjoni meta se jindunaw li qed jamlu suwicidju politiku ma jaghtux widen lin nies tal Pn…dal kaz..immigrazzjoni illegali…il progett piano…no wonder you are losing votes every day …I pity the Pn ..it was a strong party at one time…much better than the ridiculous Sant…but now Gonzi has a better contender a young one full of inspiration and justice. I can see no future for Pn the way it’s heading. I’m sorry for you. For me it doesn’t matter if it’s Pn or Pl in power as long as they hear the people and move this country forward..issa ha jergghu jibdew bil libelli kontra libelli bhal zmien ta sant..u halluna tridx.
enjoy your near future in the political dustbin just like ad if you keep heading this way..thanks..i know I wasn;t going to send you any more messages but I feel Pn still has a chance to turn things round if they wanted and it’s a shame it’s being shamed like this. bye hopefully I will not feel inclined to send any more messages since they bother you so much.I will do my best to let you drown in your own pool if that is what Pn really wants for its party and future.
What a load of crap. Daphne .. say something terrible.
Didn’t this guy say “bbye dont worry I wont write on this site” anymore” further up? Why is he still here?
Let the theatrics begin ..
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091015/local/tonio-fenech-files-libel-suit
[Daphne – I have to say I agree with the finance minister. There is the world of difference between saying, as I did, that he was foolish to go on that trip because it made him look silly in his eagerness to chum up to the ‘big boys’ (weakening his authority and exposing himself and his prime minister to all sorts of trouble), and saying, as Malta Today did, that there must have been some fishy business. I have no doubt that the men who invited the finance minister on that jaunt were trying to influence him: he is not the sort of person whose company they enjoy and they are entitled to do whatever is legal in the pursuit of the best interests of their respective businesses. However, it doesn’t follow that he was influenced. I think that, above all, it is a matter of pride and dignity. If I know that somebody is inviting me along only because they want something from me, I just don’t go, no matter how ‘interesting’ the invitation – unless, of course, I also want something from them.]
Well, the thing I find amusing is this: the finance minister filed the libel suit because in his opinion the aim of the articles in Malta Today was to attack his credibility.
What this man refuses to realise is that his own actions have reduced his credibility and he continues to tarnish his reputation by refusing to admit that he made a mistake.
[Daphne – There I agree with you. However, that’s the formulaic libel suit, so to speak. They’re all worded the same way.]
Also your last words were “unless, of course, I also want something from them”. Would it be taking it too far if one were to entertain the possibility that the minister wanted “something from them”? Maybe, yes. Can we be entirely sure that it’s not the case? No.
[Daphne – When I wrote ‘unless I also want something from them’, I mean in a work-related context. For example, I will accept an invitation from an advertising client or a potential client, but not from somebody who just wants free publicity in one of my magazines. Yes, I can be entirely sure that the finance minister did not want anything personally from the people who invited him. He is quite simply not that sort – I mean it; he really isn’t. However, it would be completely legitimate – anzi, desirable – for him to ‘use’ such individuals instead of having them try to use him. Business keeps the wheels of any country turning smoothly, and it is necessary for politicians and captains of business to cooperate rather than work against each other. There is a lot of valuable advice which business people can give politicians, and they should be asked for it. I am pointing out here that it is not the business/politics relationship which is wrong – though many seem to think it is – but the balance of that relationship as it appears to be here. The politician should always be the one to call the shots, never the other way round. It should be the finance minister who issues invitations to business leaders, and NEVER the business leader who issues an invitation to the finance minister. Invitations from the finance minister to business leaders should always be strictly formal and made at the finance minister’s expense, not the other way round. For example, he could ask business leaders X, Y and Z to lunch at his office between 1pm and 2.30pm, thank them for their views, and send them back home. It is they who should be honoured to receive an invitation from the finance minister, and not the finance minister who should be honoured to receive an invitation from them. He should also be careful to invite as wide a spectrum of business leaders as possible, to avoid any suspicion of collusion or preferential treatment.]
Daphne, what concerns me about this episode is that they invited Tonio Fenech not because he is Tonio Fenech but because he is a minister. If he was not a minister he would have not been invited. I never got such invitations. Also, the minister invited is highly related to their operations.
[Daphne – That was my point.]
Secondly, I think if he accepted invitation, they have some sort of friendship going on, and I am sure that the minister did not get acquainted with them before he was elected to parliament.
[Daphne – It is entirely normal, desirable even, for a finance minister to be acquainted with business leaders. I would be far more worried if he didn’t know them.]
My conclusion is that the man in the street dislikes such associations, as small businesses and self-employed strive hard to earn a living and when they are let down (e.g. public tenders ) they say ‘dazgur, ahna mhux bhal dak ……………. u l-iehor.’
[Daphne – You’re quite right. And that’s why finance ministers should conduct their relationships with business leaders in an above-board manner. He should issue a formal invitation to them through his secretary, and pay for any entertainment like lunch (never dinner). And he should also invite as wide a spectrum of business persons as possible. He might wish to invite some alone, and others in groups of 10 so as to listen to their opinions. More crucially, when business people are invited in groups, they should not be closely acquainted with each other, still less own companies together, so that there is never the suspicion that he is in cahoots with them or they in cahoots with him.]
I am not stating that the minister is corrupt, but such behaviour is unacceptable.
Daphne, what you wrote in the last paragraph of your response (which does not solely apply to finance ministers but to anyone in public office) is the stuff of kindergarten ethics.
That’s what I find so incredible about this whole affair. The Prime Minister and the whole PN Parliamentary Group – so no one will feel left out – should take some time off, bring in a consultant/specialist, and do some catching up on what to do and what not to do in their everyday dealings with business people.
The VAT scandal was mentioned and some even went so far as to demand the resignation of the finance minister. Seems they have short memory. Maybe somebody will be good enough to tell us which Labour minister resigned when at the Inland Revenue Department there were two such scandals. I am referring to the ‘best of judgement’ objections scandal which involved a prominent friend of the Labour government and the second scandal regarding many thousands of liri lost through the refund system.
The thousands of liri lost through the refund system happened when VAT was first introduced 1995-1996 under John Dalli. Many businessmen bought expensive cars and claimed thousands of liri in VAT refunds. I can still remember my neighbours doing it. The Labour government removed the refund system (and made a mess of the entire VAT system). Anyway, after the recent mess at the VAT Department we still cannot say that VAT is working to perfection. John Dalli couldn’t resign from opposition.
Part of the problem is the huge difference in the remuneration that a politician earns as opposed to a successful businessman. There’s something incongruous about people earning thousands whilst making laws that will add or deduct millions to/from magnates’ pockets. It’s almost impossible to be seen to be manifestly not influenced by such financial clout.
In theory, the solution would be to pay ministers such enormous salaries that they wouldn’t even be tempted to look at something that might be construed as influencing them but in practice the taxpayers would never agree.
[Daphne – And you’d be even more likely to get politicians who are in it mainly for the money. Another point: however much people earn, it is never enough. Hence the invitation to Tonio Fenech, from people who already have far more than they could ever possibly use.]
Lets be careful about not becoming an alarmist society. Lets take this ‘holier than thou’ concept (arguably a product of American Neo-Conservative politics), which in a nutshell states that persons who occupy positions of considerable political responsibility are expected to behave like saints or who have to inhibit their occasional joie de vivre simply because it may be interpreted as weakness, wrong intent or downright corruptibility. I have to be honest, I didn’t read all the comments here before typing mine, but what I do know is that the man did not commit any crime by rubbing elbows with persons of similar social standing or stature. As far as I know there are no clear accusations from any quarter that there are grounds for any kind of investigation.
[Daphne – Married, are you? Try sleeping with another woman and telling your wife that it’s not against the law any more and that there’s no criminal investigation into your behaviour.]
I am not trying to excuse anyone or explain anything here. I am just trying to warn against being deflected from the real priorities which the country is facing, and this is not one of them.
Should politicians (and notably ministers and MPs) be kept in check against malpractice and illicit transactions? Yes, they should, at all costs. Should we hound politicians and lose sight of what is of real importance once some questionable incident becomes a super issue for the remaining parties in opposition and the ‘independent’ media? No, unless you are a victim of sensationalism.
[Daphne – On the contrary, I think it is crucial to discuss these things and a great shame that they have not been discussed before. What we are seeing now is a situation brought to a head. This sort of thing has been going on for years, with cabinet ministers and shadow ministers. The current finance minister thought it was all right to accept that invitation and that nothing would come of it because it has been happening for so long, and right across the political board, that he probably thought it was normal behaviour. But unfortunately for him, he was the one caught in the spotlight when public opinion shifted and people woke up. The ‘fall guy’ whose experience will serve to teach politicians the valuable lesson that times and attitudes towards this sort of thing have changed. And let’s be realistic here. Labour’s former finance minister Lino Spiteri is a director of Tumas Investments plc. Labour’s current shadow finance minister was and possibly still is the notary for many if not most Tumas Group property contracts, and the Nationalists’ former finance minister John Dalli was a consultant to Tumas during the brief periods when he was not a minister. His private business still operates out of an office in the Portomaso tower, though it is now run by his daughters. Is George Fenech wrong to seek these links and maintain them? Not if you take the view that he should do whatever he can, that is legal, in the interests of his business. But are all these former, present and shadow finance ministers wrong to go along with it? The jury is now out on that one. And it’s been a long time coming.]
The media has the right to report on any possible misconduct and the public has the right to debate until kingdom come. That is an unalienable right under the present administration. However, the persecution of politicians with no black marks on their kondotta is a very valuable tool in the hands of those who want to deviate public thought and opinion towards their hidden agendas. I rest my case.
[Daphne – I hasten to say something I should have said earlier: that the finance minister should not resign. It would be far too dramatic a step and it would achieve nothing. Rather, it would be a loss. He is good at the technical aspects of his portfolio and he is clean, even though he is quite clueless about doing politics and even more clueless about communication.]