The right tone and the decent thing – and I somehow thought he would
Michael Falzon’s public, unreserved apology for having let down his prime minister (it was Eddie Fenech Adami), parliament and the electorate who trusted him with their vote is a perfect example of its kind.
In the three days since the story broke, he must have understood the full implications of what he had done, and how it was a betrayal of those who trusted him.
I am so glad he has done this. It reminds people that there is a code of redemptive behaviour even for those who have failed the accepted standard somewhere along the line.
It also sets out what the main issue is here – something I have written about incessantly since last Saturday. That the law was broken is indisputable, but when the individual concerned was, at the time, a government minister, it goes beyond that. The main issue becomes one of a gross betrayal of trust.
The title of my column for The Malta Independent last Sunday was ‘Michael Falzon should have come clean in 1987’. He has acknowledged this in his apology. It is the central, pivotal point.
Many of those commenting on the internet since then clearly do not understand this. They think the big issue is the law-breaking, the hidden money. But the big issue is how that hidden money, that law-breaking, was a betrayal of the trust others placed in him.
It could have been much worse. The hidden money could have been discovered whileMichael Falzon was a government minister with a very important portfolio: public works and the infrastructure. The story could have broken then. It would have been an absolute disaster for Prime Minister Fenech Adami and his government. It would have sent shock-waves through the electorate. Public trust in politicians, already weak, would have been torpedoed. Falzon would have lost his ministerial portfolio and would have had to resign his parliamentary seat, of course – and he would also have had to face severely punitive fiscal sanctions by the Inland Revenue.
He got away with it. So yes, the decent thing to do now was apologise for including others, by default, in the risk he took for himself.
This is the full text of Michael Falzon’s very proper apology. Now he needs to tell us when and how he repatriated the money, and that he has given at least half the money to Dar Il-Providenza as a form of atonement.
I refer to my statement of last Saturday wherein I explained how – prior to 1987 – I was involved with other professionals in the provision of architectural and civil engineering consultancy services outside Malta and that, considering the political situation prevailing at that time, I opted to retain my earnings abroad.
I acknowledge that although my fiscal position has long ago been regularised, this is not sufficient for a politically active person. I recognise that I ought to have repatriated the funds on the first possible occasion after the 1987 election and that I ought to have included the said funds in my Ministerial declaration of assets. As a result of these omissions, I have failed my Prime Minister, my Parliamentary colleagues and the electorate who had given me their trust by voting for me.
In view of this, I unconditionally apologise for my failures.