It seems to be open season on Alfred Sant. The ghost of that bizarre Birzebbugia performance has to some extent been laid to rest following Sant’s frank admission that it was an attempt at humour gone badly wrong.
But now we’ve graduated to That Which Could Previously Not Be Mentioned – the fact that he wears a wig. This past week my inbox has been full of rug jokes. It’s nothing very new. Back in 1996 there was a joke about the hair, or lack of it, on the heads of Alfred Sant, George Vella and George Abela doing the rounds. I don’t remember it very well but it was something on the lines of “Going, going, gone”. Now we’re back to the wig. It’s ridiculous, it’s a manifestation of vanity, a weakness and a refusal to accept the natural state of baldness, goes the chorus. He’s got something to hide, they say. If he’s dissembling about the very obvious fact that he’s bald, he’ll lie about anything, they go. Very soon we’ll be told that wearing a wig should disqualify one from pursuing public office.
It’s supposed to be all very mature of course. Talking about the wig, that is. It shows that as a nation, we have come of age, and can now talk in the open about topics which were previously only referred to with furtive little giggles. This being able to talk about the wig business is being taken as some great achievement insofar as free speech goes. And I suppose it is – I wouldn’t like to live in a country where we couldn’t poke fun at our leaders for their ridiculous hair-dos, facial topiary or nonexistent dress sense. But I’m wondering where it will get us. How relevant is a politician’s style, dress sense, hairpiece or lack of it, to his ability to be an honest and upright public servant? Are we going to set minimum aesthetic standards for our politicians? What will we do if they don’t reach them and turn up in parliament with crimplene jackets, nasty nylon trousers and comb-overs? Stage a beauty revolution and march them over to the Makeover Prison?
Even assuming that Alfred Sant sporting a Hugh Hefner–like top is not the height of cool (could it be worse than Silvio Berlusconi’s spaced-out hair implants?), how exactly would it impinge on his ability to formulate policy or his democratic credentials? Would Malta be a better place if all our politicians had full heads of hair and no badly concealed muffin-tops and manboobs squashed into cotton vests under cheap vaiella shirts? Perhaps we should demand that all our MPs be as good-looking and well-groomed as Jesmond Mugliett. On the other hand, look at where Jesmond Mugliett got us.
Don’t get me wrong. We shouldn’t have to keep mum about the appearance and stylistic challenge of our representatives and they shouldn’t be too touchy about a bit of ribbing. (They are, you know. The usually impervious Margaret Thatcher was hurt when an interviewer wrote that she had hairy knees and Barack Obama was offended when a columnist described his ears as sticking out). However, talk about Sant’s wig, Lawrence Gonzi’s complexion, and Harry Vassallo’s furrows are just conversation-fillers. We shouldn’t let style trump substance every time but look at politicians’ track records and policy. Me, I’d go for the candidate who has proved to be honest, sensible and intelligent every time – even if he or she was wearing a tutu and a string vest.

I once interviewed the mother of an autistic boy. He never smiled and was withdrawn and uncommunicative. Then, his mother took him for therapy sessions to Razzett tal-Hbiberija. Part of this therapy involved interacting with animals. The boy was put on a horse and as he was sitting astride the animal, he turned towards his mother and smiled for the first time in his life. Other parents have told me that they have witnessed similar breakthroughs as their children petted or watched the other animals. This, then, is what the persons who stole and killed the animals, have destroyed – a source of comfort and joy for children who already have so many other problems to face. The rest of us should seek to remedy this heartless deed, not only by condemning it, but by chipping in and donating to Razzett tal-Hbiberija.

Last Wednesday I mentioned Michael Falzon – the Water Services Chairman and the issue of potential or perceived conflict of interest. It’s a subject which is less amusing than those photos of Falzon slipping on trunks to swim in what seems to be a permanently turd-filled Balluta Bay, but one which deserves more attention. That’s because a discussion about conflicts of interest, be they real or potential, apparent or perceived, reveals a great deal about standards of probity and propriety in public life.
Common orthodoxy has it that conflicts of interest are inevitable, especially in small countries such as ours where there are extensive family ties and everybody knows everybody else. Even if this is the case, there are mechanisms which are meant to introduce a measure of transparency in the way public corporations and institutions are run. One such mechanism is that of disclosure. Persons occupying public office or who are entrusted with the stewardship of public enterprise are obliged to disclose any interests or associations they have, which might actually or potentially, conflict with the activities of the enterprise they are charged with. So if Mr X is the chairman of a hypothetical public corporation Y which is responsible for the embellishment of roundabouts, it would be ethical for X to reveal the fact that he was or is a partner in a company which is tendering for the contract to carry out such services.
In this way, all the relevant facts would have been disclosed and the public can reach its own conclusions as to whether public money is being well spent on the best value-for-money deal or on wonky flowerpots and wilting dahlias supplied by the company which has ties with the corporation’s chairman. Of course, there are many people who couldn’t be bothered, but that’s another matter altogether. The thing is, with this information at hand, the public can make up its mind as to whether all tendering companies were treated in the same manner or whether one was given preferential treatment because of its links with the chairman.
Which brings me to Michael Falzon and his business associations. Last Wednesday in the MaltaToday Midweek I wrote that questions about whether he had a conflict of interest arose because he owns shares in a company, which in turn, owns shares in another company which tenders (at times successfully) for contracts of works issued by the WSC of which Falzon is chairman. This is incorrect. In actual fact, a company which Falzon owned, together with three other companies, became shareholders in a second company set up to conduct development projects. Falzon has stated that one of those four companies is a Polidano Group company, which group also provides services to the WSC.
So the issue of disclosure does not arise because Falzon owns shares directly or indirectly in a company which is awarded tenders, but because a company which is a fellow shareholder with his, forms part of a group which has been chosen to carry out services for the WSC. There’s a difference, so all apologies to Falzon for the incorrect statement. Still, I wonder if the questions being posed about the chairman’s business association are simply the fruit of silly socialist minds or Sant minions hell-bent on bringing about Falzon’s downfall.
The fact remains that persons involved in companies which are co-shareholders are not complete strangers or mere acquaintances. They are business partners or associates with a particular level of interest in each other’s solvency and continuing activity. They would probably have had dealings with each other over a course of time and will have some degree of trust in each other. It is conceivable they will look out for each other’s interests. There’s a perception that they’re involved in common dealings – maybe that they’re looking out for each other.
Best practice demands that such associations are revealed in a timely manner and not when the media has sniffed them out. Otherwise the links between public servants and business will remain as murky as the waters of Balluta Bay.

------------------------------

DECLARATION

Claire Bonello unreservedly retracts the allegation made in this column last week (3rd October), that Michael Falzon, ‘owns shares in a company which in turn owns shares in another company which tenders (sometimes successfully) for contracts of works issued by the WSC of which Falzon is chairman’.
Claire Bonello accepts Mr Falzon’s assurance that no company in which he has shares, whether directly or through another company, has ever tendered for Water Services Corporation contracts or given WSC contracts.
Moreover Claire Bonello declares that she acknowledges that there has been no improper behaviour by Michael Falzon in his position of WSC Chairman and apologises to Mr. Falzon for any inconvenience caused by her baseless allegations.
In view of this declaration, Michael Falzon is withdrawing the legal action taken by him against Ms Bonello.