|
Last week’s front page stories of this newspaper raised many eyebrows. The stories are revealing. They betray as a minimum politically incorrect behaviour and the keeping of bad company. Whether the Charles Mangion story involves a conflict of interest is a moot point. Our paper asked him if he thought it amounted to a conflict of interest which he denied. He is certainly wrong when he affirms that ‘it was not an issue of ethics’. It certainly is. Most of all it is a matter of political credibility and politics is all about credibility.
Charles Mangion acted as the notary on the sale of Pender Place, a property belonging to Government. At first glance, this activity is the call of his vocation, normal practice in the life of any notary. Indeed lawyers who have come to his defence are quick to point out that there should be a clear distinction between the notary and his political career. They opine that as a notary he is free to act as a notary of any property deal irrespective of any controversies or idiosyncrasies around the property or the persons acquiring the property.
We totally disagree. This is an all too convenient argument repeated by the legal profession. The Charles Mangion story is a story because his party and he himself slammed this sale. The Labour media machine criticised the Government for selling the property for a song. At the same time the notary finds nothing wrong with acting on behalf of the purchasers. This is as a minimum incorrect political behaviour which gives rise to legitimate media comment. It has tarnished the deputy leader’s credibility and disheartened genuine Labourites.
Charles Mangion’s reply to our journalist is that this paper is in collusion with the Nationalist party. This is risible. Not surprisingly, we usually hear this comment from Nationalist quarters who periodically accuse us of being in collusion with the Labour party. Both parties like to pigeon hole us. Our agenda remains reader driven.
Tony Abela’s corporate association with a person accused of conspiring to deal drugs is a source of embarrassment for the Parliamentary Secretary. It certainly is in the public domain to make known the company which certain politicians keep. The Prime Minister is happy with all assurances given to him by his Parliamentary Secretary that this association has been terminated. We awaited a far firmer stand from the person advocating that politics be done in a new way.
These two stories show that as a newspaper we have no political agenda. We are influenced by neither side and our commitment is exclusively to our readers. These two stories may appear minor yet in reality they are symptomatic of why politicians and politics are held in low esteem. The political currency and brand is being tarnished by certain politicians themselves. They say one thing and do another. They fail to lead by example. These stories reveal a political-business web which at times cuts across the whole political spectrum.
It has been said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is precisely the sunshine of transparency which citizens are expecting. Doing politics differently is not simply about opening the prime minister’s office to open days and to dialogue meetings where citizens are allowed to meet members of the executive and voice their opinions. Open government is the sunshine required to liven up the dark edifice of the workings of Government. If the legacy of this government is to go beyond the reduction of the deficit, it must forthwith embark on an open government project.
This project should involve the enactment of a freedom of information act giving the media and citizens the right of access to all information available presently to government, barring highly sensitive information. Open government involves that all persons appointed to boards and agencies of government declare their interests and are grilled in parliament prior to be appointed. Open government involves that all members of the judiciary declare their interests on being appointed and not just when cases involving conflict come before them.
Open government involves particularly a national broadcasting station which probes government rather than acting as the mouthpiece of government. Our two stories could have very easily been chased by the national station and both members of parliament could have been given an opportunity to defend themselves. Alas the station found this source of political embarrassment too hot to handle. Instead of the stories being aired and analysed professionally by the national station the two political stations fanned the stories to their own political advantage.
|
