Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1159832
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 AUGUST 2019 26 August 2009 Sparks fly as Frattini and Mifsud Bonnici face off on air TUESDAY'S (yesterday) interception gener- ated more friction between Rome and Val- letta, as the Italian authorities once again accused Malta of passing the immigration buck to Italy. As the Italian media continued to lambast Malta over its rules of engagement with mi- grants encountered at sea, and its policy of granting "right of passage" to the migrants who refuse to be rescued by the AFM, the issue was once again the subject of a contro- versial debate on RAI's RadioUno yesterday morning between Home affairs minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici and Italian Foreign minister Franco Frattini. The Italian minister took the opportunity to reiterate Italy's belief that Malta's vast search and rescue area (SAR) is too big for the island-state, and proposes that Italy takes it over. Frattini insisted that Malta's SAR area should be reduced, since its area was dispro- portionate to the country's size. "To give you a rough picture... Malta's SAR is as large as Italy when Malta is the size of Rome," Frat- tini said during a RAI's Radio Anch'Io pro- gramme. However this statement was immediately countered by Mifsud Bonnici, who made it clear that Malta wouldn't be giving up any of its SAR, saying this was part of the country's sovereignty. "Italy doesn't need our SAR, it has a large- enough area to watch over, unless there are ulterior motives," he said. Mifsud Bonnici explained that no inquiry about the five Eritrean migrants was being conducted in Malta, and hinted that from the intelligence gathered about the alleged tragedy, "it must have happened in Libyan SAR waters." Towards the end of the programme, both Ministers agreed that the EU must do its bit to help alleviate the burden faced by the two states, and expressed hope that fellow EU member states would recognise the urgent need for a policy that dictates the redistribu- tion of illegal immigrants among all member states as the solution to the problem. Meanwhile, the government's position about Malta's SAR area received formal sup- port from the Opposition, with PL leader Joseph Muscat insisting that Malta should not give in to pressure being exerted by Italy. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Public officials must be open to public scrutiny Editorial "We are in a period of mass extinction... If you tell me that I'm not worried, not only am I worried, I sometimes lose sleep over my worries." José Herrera, Minister for the Environment THOUGH claims that government had in- creased MPs' salaries 'by stealth' have proven unfounded, the controversy itself may have inadvertently placed its finger on a much deeper underlying malaise. Among other indicators, Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi pointed towards a discrep- ancy between certain MPs' declarations of assets, and the amount they were supposed to be earning. Azzopardi noted that some parliamen- tary secretaries declared an annual income of €60,000… when the official 2013 salary (which is not supposed to have increased since then) stood at €42,000 pa. The discrep- ancy works out at around €18,000. In the end, Principle Permanent Secre- tary Mario Cutajar categorically denied that members of Cabinet had been given a pay rise. It emerged that, in many cases, the discrep- ancy could be accounted for by the inclusion of a €7,000 refund, in the event that the MP declined the use of a 'second car' provided by the State. Similarly, other allowances and perks also served to artificially inflate the as- sets declarations. Significantly, however, Cutajar added that "the declaration of assets by the members of Cabinet left much to be desired, as it lacked a detailed revenue breakdown." Much of this controversy could, in fact, have been avoided from the outset, had the procedural rules surrounding Parliamentar- ians' declarations of assets demanded such a detailed breakdown of income in the first place… instead of simply allowing MPs to declare a lump annual sum, as is still the case today. Yet not only has there been no attempt to make the declaration exercise more transpar- ent, as the exigencies of a modern democracy demand… but the present government has in some ways done the opposite. In 2015, the ministerial code of ethics was amended in a way which substantially wa- tered down the requirements involved in MPs' assets declarations. This newspaper had pointed out, at the time, that "the direction currently being taken is one that will further weaken a crucial democratic exercise that is already widely regarded with casual noncha- lance by most government ministers here." All too often in the past, there was a ten- dency to treat this exercise as a perfunctory but ultimately meaningless token gesture to satisfy the democratic criteria of openness and transparency. Individual ministers often failed to submit their declarations altogether, or were afterwards discovered to have made significant omissions. Some even openly ridiculed the exercise, by also declaring their household pets (a tor- toise, in one particular case), and other such trivial nonsense. Apart from being unbecom- ing of an MP, such behaviour denotes the lack of seriousness traditionally accorded to this important democratic tool. More worryingly, there is evidence that the annual declaration of assets is not taken seriously by the public at large, either… with ominous implications for the state of Malta's democratic health. A survey conducted in this newspaper in 2013 revealed that a staggering 64% do not believe the declarations of assets submit- ted by Cabinet members. A total of 3,616 respondents took part in the poll, which saw 2,313 respondents voting they did not believe the declarations. According to these readers, there was no way of knowing whether some declarations were an accurate reflection of the actual assets held. From this perspective, one thing that the Azzopardi allegations confirm is that – to date – there is still no mechanism in place to verify such declarations, as Cutajar himself admitted. The only existing mechanism is retroactive and punitive: false declarations are subject to the same criminal provisos applicable to per- jury, including (in theory) prison sentences. But this cannot be described as a system of checks and balances to stifle possible abuse at source. Given that our lack of checks and balances has invited such scathing criticism of Malta's rule of law situation – especially in the last two years – it is unconscionable that the general public still has no means of ascer- taining the precise income of public officials. This represents a major stumbling block in the fight against corruption. If, in practice, it proves impossible to quantify a minister's as- sets, it will prove equally impossible to deter- mine whether that same minister is in receipt of illicit, undeclared income. This is why failure to declare a healthy foreign bank account, or to misrepresent an entire portfolio of properties, is automati- cally suspect in all countries which take cor- ruption seriously. And there is good reason for the public to be suspicious: recent his- tory shows that corruption has been a major problem undermining all past administra- tions of government... as well as independent polls confirming that the perception of cor- ruption – founded or unfounded – is higher in Malta than in any other EU state. There are other considerations, too. Along- side annual income, public officials are ex- pected to also list the value of any properties they own. In practice, however, they are free to supply their own valuation of such proper- ties… which are not separately confirmed by an independent authority, as they would be for tax purposes. As such, the public is left with no other option but to simply take the public official's word on trust. Clearly, this is not a satisfacto- ry way to reassure the public that the country is being administered in an open, transpar- ent, and above all, clean manner.