Well, it has certainly been one exciting summer, what with pseudo resignations and some real ones, corruption, bribery, that video clip on YouTube, and an ill-advised yacht trip around the Med. Not to mention the latest chapter in the never-ending tug of war over who really decides programming at PBS.

The one thread running through all those events is not so much what actually happened as the way it is being perceived by the public.

Let’s take (Nationalist Party’s Secretary General) Joe Saliba’s little jaunt. When I asked around, most people agreed that – while, obviously, the man is entitled to his holiday – taking a holiday on the yacht of a well-known businessman was not too wise. “It just looks bad,” people said. In a country where almost every alliance is viewed with suspicion, because we are, after all, a typically Mediterranean culture that relishes in concocting intrigue and conspiracy even where none exist, the image of Joe “I am the Party” Saliba sunbathing on Zaren Vassallo’s boat raised eyebrows so high, some haven’t even come down yet.

As a nation, the Maltese are very cynical, and few are those who take everything at face value. Even our language is replete with idioms to this effect: “Il qasba ma ccaqcaqx ghalxejn” (loosely translated: where there’s smoke there’s fire), “hemm xi haga minn taht” (something is going on) and the even more damning: “il-huta minn rasha tinten” (trouble usually begins at the top). And this summer, it’s like the Nationalist administration is inadvertently proving every single one of these idioms true.

Jason Micallef’s thoughtless remark –“that just between us Labourites” a future Labour government will take care of its own – was pounced on with glee by PN spin doctors, who seem to be desperate for Labour to put a foot wrong. But here again, people’s perceptions got in the way and the ploy backfired. After all, theypointed out – what’s the big deal? Isn’t that how Maltese politics have always worked? And they’ve gone on to list how the Nationalists have virtually taken care of their own for the last 20 years. (Ironic, isn’t it, that the system of patronage and nepotism so carefully cultivated by both the political parties over the decades has now become so ingrained that jaded voters take it for granted while the politicians are the ones who are acting outraged.)

Then there was that remark by Ta’ Cenc developer Victor “give them half a villa” Borg, whose off-the-cuff insinuation that MPs could be bought hardly caused a ripple among the public. It was only as the serious implications dawned on Members of the House that they stirred themselves out of their hiatus to protest. Isn’t it interesting however, that the man-in-the-street didn’t really find this remark so scandalous? Maybe it’s because we’re all wilting in this humidity but it’s like we’ve become inured to the possibility that politicians regularly accept “gifts” in exchange for political favours.

After all, if civil servants were accepting petty bribes in exchange for licences – how much more tempting must it be when the stakes are raised even higher? Of course, it is the blasé acceptance of this status quo, which is worrying because it shows just how much the corrosion has set in our value system.

(It also says a lot about people’s priorities when they seem to be more concerned about whether Rachel of Tista’ Tkun Int will be making an appearance on another station, now that she has lost her TVM slot.)

And finally, as if to drive the final nail in the coffin of the Gonzi administration, we now have the mess at PBS, with the editorial board, the board of directors and Minister Austin Gatt himself squabbling over something so trivial as a television programme schedule. What I want to know is why has this seemingly innocuous issue taken on such huge proportions, compelling the chairman of the editorial board to resign? Just whose toes have been trodden on here? It would be an eye opener to see the list of programmes proposed by the editorial board compared withwhat the board of directors wants. Has, for example, Bondiplus (to mention one of the biggest bones of contention) magically made its way back on the list? Forget all this business about what the policy document says: what people really want to know is whose programmes have been axed and whose have been retained and on what criteria?

That’s what perception does you see... it colours the way we look at things, forms our opinions and perhaps even leads us to wrong (and occasionally, the correct) conclusions. Because the more things are kept under wraps, the more suspicious we become until finally the truth leaks out... as it ultimately, inevitably does.