Election eye-openers

In the 1996-1998 Labour government I was appointed High Commissioner in London. The Prime Minister, Alfred Sant, had made a clear and solemn public declaration that the philosophy and practice of his administration was to be remembered as being one of smooth transition: “tomorrow is just another day.”

For the first time in Malta’s post-independence years there were not going to be any tremors in the civil service establishment. This applied from the post of permanent secretary to the lowest grades.

In London I found four sitting diplomats besides 11 locally-engaged employees. All had been there under previous outgoing Nationalist Party administrations. They were practically all party cadres.

The chancery at 36-38 Piccadilly is a prestigious address. It is a refurbished building officially opened in June 1995. Behind very expensive, embossed, bronze front doors, it looks professional and user friendly.

The building sits on land owned by the British Crown. In about 90 years the people of Malta will not own the property any longer and will have to forfeit it.

The High Commissioner’s work area – pompously referred to as the Suite – is on the sixth topmost level. I mention this detail as I found it, deliberately. One cannot walk through the street door and take the elevator unchallenged.

A crucial point I want to highlight in my experience is about anybody wishing to see the High Commissioner, and how the request is tackled. The negative attitude is structured.

I came to know sometime after the events about Maltese citizens who had wanted to see the representative of their country only to be told that the High Commissioner was not in.

The truth being that I was at my desk working and someone, secretary or otherwise, was deliberately putting the person off behind my back.

One such glaring affront about which I learned much later concerned the secretary general of the General Workers’ Union who was turned away in this manner. The intentions of the incoming Labour government were honest and sincere.

History was to prove that it was not so on the part of the recipients. Their overt and covert actions proved the direct opposite. They not only failed to cooperate with Prime Minister Sant’s solemn declaration; they did their utmost to undermine the new High Commissioner.

They connived with their fellow travellers at the Foreign Office in Malta as well as with their allies in other government departments. They behaved with passive resistance.

I have documented evidence to prove my statements.

The High Commissioner is the Head of Chancery and as such the head of a virtual department overseas. His office imposes on the incumbent whether to recommend or otherwise any promotion based on merit and achievements.

During my tenure of office I was to review two of the diplomats who had come up for promotion or otherwise. Both were staunch Nationalist Party supporters and had been posted to London because they carried the party ticket.

The male candidate I had no problem in recommending straightaway and I did it without hesitation. He was a young, competent career diplomat. I must add to his character reference that even up to the time of writing I have no reason to believe that he ever tried to undermine my authority. He was also a very cultured member of our foreign service.

This is hard-boiled factual evidence intended to enlighten those who are not aware or prefer not to know the shady history of the Nationalist Party

The other second secretary was a 26-year- old law graduate. She had no idea how to carry out an inventory. I found this person to have been put by my predecessor in office as the diplomat in charge of administration and accounts.

It was my wife, a trained accountant, who in the final analysis had to carry out the inventory of the Chancery and the official residence. The mind boggles how the people’s property in one of our embassies was safeguarded.

The female candidate had the same party credentials. But, apart from this, her achievement and progress left much to be desired.

Basing my studied written report on her progress and on another senior diplomat’s views on her competence, I put down in my recommendation that the person was to be continuously monitored for six months and at the end of the period her position was to be reviewed.

A political appointment is not received very kindly within the civil service echelons. The more so when the appointee happens to come from a different tribal background. The permanent secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, a rabid supporter of the Nationalist Party in Opposition, overruled this just evaluation. The candidate was promoted.

Strong protestations that were made with the Public Service Commission were futile.

Her appointment was upheld.

Why am I resuscitating all this 17 years later? It is to expose the inherent wickedness in the Nationalist Party’s current behaviour and public statements now once more in opposition. They protect their own politically, irrespective of their capability or otherwise. They are bad losers.

What I am exposing is not fiction. It is hard-boiled factual evidence intended to enlighten those who are not aware or prefer not to know the shady history of the Nationalist Party. It is, moreover, intended to show the perpetrators in their true character.

The sanctimony of the contemporary Nationalist Party, new leader and all, is nothing more than a very thin and transparent veneer.