Editorial

The Iron Curtain is thankfully no more than a situation/era one comes across in books tracing the political history of the recent past. But, alas, some governments and individual politicians still impose another form of curtain, whether made of silk or thinfoil. They persist in "managing" information, do their level best to exercise control over what their officials say and, in the process, try to manipulate the free press.

The Times has been faced with a situation whereby it is unable to publish an interview with the Film Commissioner because something, somewhere has evidently disturbed the ministry (for which one can justifiably read the Minister) of IT and Public Investments. Once the commissioner accepted to grant the interview and what he said was all on record The Times could have proceeded to carry it, no matter what. But it preferred to be courteous with the commissioner and accede to his request to hold it.

Not so was the ministry. The fine line running through the exchange of e-mails between a senior ministry official and The Times was that the newspaper should either interview the minister or the Film Commission chairman or nobody else.

The ministry official admits there is nothing wrong in the interview. He says too that The Times is free to speak to whoever it wants to. But then the ministry piles pressure on the Film Commissioner to demand that the interview does not appear. And while it offers The Times the possibility to interview the minister or the commission chairman at no time does it make such an offer with regard to the Film Commissioner.

How dare the ministry decide who the free press should speak to? But, there again, this particular ministry, and more so Minister Austin Gatt himself, have quite a record.

Section 47 (1) of the Press Act lays down that: "The government shall establish procedures to give representatives of the press the information which helps them fulfil their public task". Now, it is not known whether such procedures are in fact in place or not and, if so, what they consist of. However, the spirit of the law is clear: an accountable government open to public scrutiny. Only last week, Chancellor Gordon Brown said during the main eulogy at Robin Cook's funeral that power must be continuously accountable to the people.

The Public Investments Ministry - or, rather, Dr Gatt - seems to think differently. This was made crystal clear in an interview Dr Gatt gave to the Business section of The Times last March.

The interviewer pointed out that she did not have direct access to the people who should answer the questions people were asking. Was that acceptable, he was asked. "Yes, totally acceptable", was his immediate reply. "Since it is a government entity and the government is responsible for it - and I am responsible in Parliament for it - then what goes out as a press release has to be carefully worded."

But what's the point of appointing chairmen if you then emasculate them, the minister was also asked. His reply: "Is it emasculating them because they do not talk to the press? Come on."

One is not talking here of implementing government policy or following set guidelines. Dr Gatt is adamant he - or a person he determines - does the talking, all the talking. In the entertainment industry one-man shows are applauded; in politics one-man rulers are given a denigrating appellation that usually sticks throughout history.

Dr Gatt ought to consider his position. If not the Prime Minister should.