According to the annual Corruption Perceptions Index Report published in January 2007 by Transparency International, Malta ranked 28th out of 163 of the world’s least corrupt countries in 2006.
Since 1995, Transparency International has published this report annually ordering the countries of the world according to the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. This means that according to the 2006 survey, the countries perceived to be least corrupt are: Iceland, Finland and New Zealand (9.6 each), Denmark (9.5), Singapore (9.4), Sweden (9.2) Switzerland (9.1), Norway (8.8) and Australia and The Netherlands (8.7). This also means that in the European Union only Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Slovakia, Greece and Croatia are more corrupt than us.
But is 6.4 or the 28th place together with Slovenia and Uruguay, a good grade for Malta? When one compares that we have been surpassed by Hong Kong, Chile, Barbados, Estonia, Singapore and Macau, I am sure that the result is not something to make us proud. There is little consolation in the fact that we rank 28th out of 160 countries, when there are 14 European countries which are less corrupt than us.
The word ‘corruption’ has been the order of the day in the past two weeks, mostly political corruption. Political corruption is the misuse by government officials of their powers for illegitimate private gain. It is true that, as Minister Tonio Borg was quoted as saying, corruption will always be around, but that does not mean that the government is to give anybody a second chance. The second chance is sending the message that kleptocracy, literally “rule by thieves”, prevails in this country.
Many of us wonder why some politicians bend over backwards and sacrifice their political integrity for these corrupt people. The answer is twofold: either these politicians fear these people or they do not understand the seriousness of the matter. People can tolerate everything from our politicians except their support for corrupt people.
The PN secretary-general Joe Saliba made a fool of himself on Reporter last Tuesday when he distinguished between Minister Jesmond Mugliett and ex-minister John Dalli and how the latter had to resign and the former not, and how he came up with the new definition of when the case is res judicata or final and conclusive by saying that the Presidential Pardon renders any criminal proceedings final. I suggest that the Registrar of Courts should make available to the criminal courts and the courts of criminal appeal, applications for presidential pardons so that the accused can fill them in and send to the Palace for the final say on their case.
How low can we go to protect corruption and corrupt practices? How low could the Public Service Commission go when, against the very Public Service Regulations, it advised that the person found guilty by the Court and interdicted, transferred to another section of ADT where he would not come in contact with cash, was subsequently transferred to a government department? In other words he got a reward or a promotion for being corrupt. And the government and the Public Service Commission defeated the courts and the law by placing an interdicted person (interdiction means that such person is civilly dead, he cannot sign, he cannot enter into any contracts or agreements; he cannot do anything), in the civil service. That is the way we handle corruption here: with rewards for those who are corrupt and punishments for those who abide by the law.
In the political arena, it is always difficult to prove corruption but it is impossible to prove its absence. Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions and other services for their campaigns. If it is that it takes Lm1 million a year to run a political party in Malta, then it is impossible for any party to be financed solely by collections and lotteries. There is more to that. This places the political parties and politicians in apparently compromising positions because no organisation or individual funds any politician without expecting nothing in return.
In Malta we do not need more commissions. The Commission against Corruption does not have the resources to do its job. What we need is a good system that fights corruption and the example should start from the Head of State by giving away all the gifts he received during his term exceeding a certain limit, to the country. In the United States, for example, any gift over USD200 made to the President of the United States is considered to be a gift to the Office of the Presidency and not to the President himself. The outgoing President must buy it if he wants to take it with him. In the United Kingdom, the outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair did the same thing. In Malta, the President and the Cabinet must follow and the sooner there is legislation about it the better.
Other measures which ensure transparency are the legislation of the Whistleblower Act, the yearly publication of the persons given Presidential Pardons, and of the persons who receive grace from the Attorney General upon his decision not to prosecute.
I am more than sure that Lawrence Gonzi will pay a high price for sacrificing the party and the government for these corrupt officials!