 |
|
|
|
Opinion •
March 7 2004 |
Karm Farrugia expresses what so many of us feel when we come up against a bureaucratic wall….if you enjoy tales of human angst, read on
Possibly too harsh a description. But how else to describe it at times? Read on and judge for yourselves.
During his recent election campaign for the premiership, the winner (good luck to him - my God, he needs it and Him in his forthcoming struggle to harmonise the wonky economy within the EU parameters!) laid great stress on the imperative to fight bureaucracy so as to encourage new investment and create much-needed productive jobs.
Absolutely right. Industrialists and businessmen are made to carry the weight of the bureaucratic edifice practically everyday, not just in terms of long waiting times for go-aheads, but also in filling a multitude of forms and questionnaires from several government departments and agencies, sometimes demanding computed details of dubious value for the statistician. It is widely accepted that a third of the time of an average firm’s accountant’s time is spent on such form filling. And another third chasing debtors!!
There is, however, another (much uglier) side to bureaucracy, better described as ‘the system,’ which transforms it by degrees from annoying to costly , unfair, unjust, oppressive…and well, even tyrannical in extreme.
Just two examples from personal experience, past and present.
I was once awarded a post-graduate fellowship by UNESCO binding me to serve the government of Malta for 5 years. I was meant to help start up an Accountancy faculty at the University. I had already served three of the five years lecturing when it was agreed between two ministers that I could better serve Malta as one of the officials of the newly-set up Malta Development Corporation, so long as I continued lecturing on a part-time basis. Which I did, and longer. Nobody then found any objection. Nothing was said that I had breached my contract, as otherwise I might have declined the MDC offer.
But wait to hear what happened later when a salaries review commission awarded me arrears of pay. This was withheld from me by way of compensation for not serving my full five years in government service. The MDC did not form part of government! Parastatal bodies were treated as non-government!
As usual my recourse to the courts of justice took years before the judge at the first instance could not find in my favour but strongly advised that I appealed. More years to wait? More legal costs? “Forget it,” I mused to myself, “you can’t beat the system.” Incidentally, my long years as a part-timer made up much more than the equivalent of the two further years I was expected to lecture full-time. The system decried otherwise and won. Doesn’t it always? Read on.
The second is current. A real story concerning Oppressed Limited (an assumed name) at the hands of the VAT department. I am going to be brief but precise and objective. It started in 1998 when the VAT department informed all traders that the new system of indirect taxation would provide for the refund of the already-paid customs-and-excise tax (CET) on stocks as existing end 1998, in order to put their values at par with future stocks not subjected to CET.
Oppressed Ltd’s application was for Lm 52,000, submitted in great detail in April 1999. Quite rightly, the VAT department hired the services of an outside auditor to check its veracity as a safeguard against possible cheating. The VAT auditor based his conclusions on spurious sampling and ludicrous assumptions without as much as discussing them with the company’s own auditor who had originally verified their correctness.
In October 1999 the company was informed that, as a result of the investigation, its application for the refund was refused in toto. No discussion, no details. One could always take the matter before the VAT Appeals Board. Which Oppressed Ltd did.
A year later the hearing took place. The least that was expected was for the details of the VAT’s auditor’s report to be made available and thoroughly discussed. Nothing of the sort. The report was not even shown to the company, let alone copied. Only its conclusions were verbally communicated at that stage. No wonder the session lasted less than 20 minutes, inclusive of courtesies. The company’s impromptu countering on the dissenting points was solemnly heard by the Board and all was over.
Some weeks later Oppressed Ltd was informed that it had exceeded its tolerance limit and not a cent would be refunded from the Lm 52,000 claimed. It was already early 2001. An appeal to the law courts was restricted to points of law. The company’s lawyer tried to plead that the behaviour of the VAT Appeals Board was not fair and proper, but the court decided it was not a legal point.
In the name of justice the company had only one recourse left: the Minister of Finance. He did his utmost to convince the VAT department that its auditor was not infallible, especially since his computations could have been based on wrong or weak assumptions and erroneous samplings. The company was finally allowed at least to read the report in the presence of a VAT official but was not handed a copy. Would you believe it? It was like the security of the nation was at stake. That’s how the system works. Who can beat it? The Minister, of course. You must be joking.
Oppressed Ltd suggested that a new experienced auditor, at its expense, be appointed by the VAT department to make his own reporting and his decision would be binding. The Minister accepted this as being just and far. But do you imagine him beating the system? Not on your nelly! What? Create a precedent? Open the portal for similar cases? Sorry, Minister, the system simply won’t allow it. And the Attorney General backs it, of course. This was barely a week ago.
Did I exaggerate when I described the system as
tyrannical?
|
|
