We are slowly getting used to obtaining information from this government through some leak or better still through foreign news or media. There can no longer be any doubt that Joseph Muscat’s government is anything but forthcoming on any kind of information – just take a look at PQ time in our snazzy new parliament to get an idea.
Major contracts are hidden from view and rarely tabled as the government hides behind feeble excuses such as “commercial interests”. For a government that leaps at every chance to speak of “national interest” this one seems to be quite reluctant to acknowledge the obligation and duty that it has to act openly and transparently in order to be constantly held accountable.
A stint in government is not a stint at 5-year periods of despotism. The mechanisms of the state are such to allow constant monitoring of decision taking at government level. Both the fourth estate and the opposition have a fundamental role in all this. We are getting more and more used to “Freedom of Information” requests by newspapers to obtain information that was being held close to the chest by government. Sometimes, as happened with the head of the State Aid Monitoring Board when questioned by the Times, an ingenious technicality is invoked. Mr Paul Zahra invoked the obligation of individual members of the board to regard all information as secret and confidential. A pity then that the request was directed to a member of the board and not to the Board as a whole under the FOI provisions.
Ministers often hide behind “commercial sensitivity” to explain why a private companies’ rights trump those of the public to know the truth. So where does that put Tonio Fenech and his Google Finance Group? Sharing of data and information that would otherwise not be made public has to be seen in two contexts. The first is the context where that data and information ought to (and will eventually when enough pressure is put on the government) be made available but the government will drag its feet on making it available. The second is the context where the data and information is indeed classified.
It is evident from the official government reaction to the idea that information was being provided to the opposition that the first is as much of a worry as the more legitimate second. The concern that such information could “damage” government is only a concern if the government is not doing its homework right. If all is fine and dandy then there would be no worry that such information is made public. What we have here is a clear attempt at trying to tighten the grip on public information and thus an attempt to choke accountability.
After all this feeds to the government idea of “persons of trust” – read incompetent persons placed in sensitive positions solely on the fact that they blindly back Labour. This is supposed to be the reason why we should accept the Phyllis Muscat’s of this world – because they would never send data and proof of their hapless management to the opposition and the public would never be able to learn how their money is being squandered to pay the salaries of incompetent sycophants.
One last thing. I sure hope that the existence of the Google ring was discovered thanks to some error by those involved. Heaven forbid that the government’s IT division hacked into a private google account in order to make such a discovery. In that scenario we would be reaching the bottom through a new set of violation of civil liberties – all in the name of Taghna Lkoll’s Chinese Wall of Secrecy.
