Ombudslain

In an interview with The Times, the prime minister spoke of the breakdown of values in our society and said that this is due to the fact that we have moved on from a community to a society. It is happening everywhere, at least that is what Fukuyama wrote, we were told.

But the move from community to society also implies an internal transformation that produced organisations and institutions which reflect our society's needs for regulation. It means a framework of laws and other formal regulations and institutions that characterise urban industrial and post-industrial societies.

Does it not occur to the prime minister that the way he is undermining these institutions is also instrumental to this breakdown in societal values he was speaking about?

I will not go into how major drug trafficker Queiroz was let off and is now happily living in his homeland. Or how a pardon was granted to Zeppi l-Hafi, again on cases of drug trafficking. Or how another major drug trafficker, Azzabi, managed to 'escape' from Boffa hospital. We are talking of major institutions here in which the government ought to instil trust so that citizens will have the peace of mind that they have some form of legal protection.

Today I will speak about this weekend's onslaught on the Ombudsman. The office of the Ombudsman is one of the few remaining institutions where the citizen who is not well-connected, rich or educated, can seek some form of redress. The Ombudsman was attacked after he pointed out that when he drew the government's attention to the lack of transparency in the operation of government entities, he was systematically ignored by government authorities.

Even Labour, as is its job, has been scrutinising and criticising unremittingly the way government has been and is operating. We do this in Parliament and outside Parliament. One only has to have the patience - lots and lots of if actually! - to listen to parliamentary debates, especially those around budget time, when we discuss the public corporations, for instance. Or one can have a look at the parliamentary questions we put. Actually more is revealed by what is left out rather than by what is answered.

Labour has oft-criticised government for the creation of so many quangos and their way of functioning. Goverment's reply to this criticism has always been that they are creating these agencies and authorities in order to introduce flexibility in governance. But in reality, accountability is fast becoming a thing of the past with the top jobs being given to those with close connections to the centres of power and thus a whole network of back-scratching and subterfuge is securely in place.

I have written scores of articles, even in The Times, criticising the quango phenomenon and the way government is working, or not working for that matter. I get feedback from all quarters, except from the government. The same can be said to Labour's criticsm over the years on the operation of Mitts, the Water Services Corporation, Enemalta, the many education foundations..... the list is endless.

All the criticism - in and out of Parliament - slides like water off a duck's back for a government which doesn't bat an eyelid and life goes on as though nothing is happening.

Now it is not just Labour which has words of reproach. The Ombudsman has spoken again, more straightforward than ever, confirming all that we have been saying over the years, about the Water Services Corporation, about the army, about the Tarcisio Mifsud case, about the compensation given to Richard Cachia Caruana, about the Planning Authority, about employment with Air Malta and so on.

And the government, after having rubbished or totally ignored Labour's criticism on all these matters, had the gall to have it out with the Ombudsman for, again, bringing these matters to light.

Having experienced the arrogance of this government and its strategy to pooh-pooh all that the Opposition says, the only hope left for our citizens was that when a person like Mr Sammut - after having examined each case meticulously and compiled a report on each case - criticised the way he did, government would have had the decency to reflect for a while and see how much lower our country can sink in this quagmire.

Instead, the prime minister decided to shoot down another institution. It doesn't even cross his mind that it can be hubris, because he has the peace of mind Fukuyama has given him, that the malaise is all due to moving on from community to society.