A strange episode happened last week. Or perhaps one could call it disturbing. Last Saturday, 9 September, a constituent hailing from Rabat called at my office to see me regarding an investigation being carried out into the taxable income of a company owned by him. He had just received a letter from an official at the Income Tax section of the Inland Revenue Department giving the department’s opinion as to under which category part of the company’s income should have been taxed.
I discussed the matter with the person concerned, and come Monday morning, I phoned the officer concerned with the said file and tried to discuss it with the said official. I indicated that in my opinion the department was not right and further enquired in view of what was stated in the said letter whether certain searches into the transfers of the said company had been carried out. The answer, which should have been a “yes” or a “no”, was evaded.
Instead, I was told to refer the matter to the official’s superior as the decision has been taken at a higher level. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I told this official that in such cases it would be much wiser to carry out such searches. That was the end of the call. What seemed beyond my comprehension was that in spite of the fact that the official I spoke to had signed the letter, the said official refused to assume responsibility for its contents as one would normally do in the normal course of affairs. The said official tried to pass on the baby to someone else.
On Tuesday morning I received an email from the superior, now one of the top brass within the said Income Tax section, stating that his subordinate felt pressurised by the fact that I had called – and this because I am a Parliamentary Secretary and that I should not have spoken to the official but to him. Had he originally wanted this, he should have signed the letter himself and not stick up someone else in the front line and let the said official get the onslaught. Possibly, this is some strategic tactic wherein the private soldier gets the shots and the general comfortably directs from his office.
Moreover, the said top brass official felt that he had to advise me as to whom I should contact and talk to.
To be frank, this is not only ridiculous but also preposterous. So much so, that we are now faced with certain top officials within certain departments who expect that the politician should not address matters at the lower level at which these happen but refer the matter to them so that, as happens in many cases, they just give us lip service and the constituent remains blocked in slime and mud.
There are lessons to be learnt form such an episode.
Each elected parliamentarian, be he/she a member of the government or opposition side, a parliamentary secretary, a minister or even a prime minister, is primarily a representative of the people and more so of the constituents of his/her electoral district. The civil service has to understand this.
People in Malta understand, and this is the common practice across the board, that they may refer to their local MP or to any other MP who, in their opinion, can get their complaint addressed. They seek redress within this context.
This applies more and more so when people go to government departments and are met with a brick wall in human form, which is not ready to hear reason or even consider their complaints. Too many complaints remain unanswered.
But to have officials demanding that MPs do not address directly department officials is unacceptable. I also expect redress and if need be disciplinary action to be taken in this context. Not only are politicians to stand up and be counted, but also officials within the Civil Service. No one is untouchable.
It has now become convenient for certain officials to state that if the citizens’ complaints are addressed by MPs – they find themselves pressurised. This is all nonsense. There are times in which the complaints are totally unjustified, and the civil servants are justified in not entertaining the requests of the complainant. However, to now try to create a screen so that what are at times illegitimate and unreasonable orders from top Department officials cannot be contested by MPs is – just not on.
As a Parliamentary Secretary within the office of the prime minister, I have certain duties and obligations. I am also responsible to see that there is good governance so that the administration is not embarrassed. However, I cannot accept, not even in the least way, any intimation by any civil service official who tries to deter any member of parliament from carrying out his primary duty to his constituents. Regrettably, I must re-state that even as Parliamentary Secretary within the Finance Ministry between April 2003 and April 2004, I was not always given the true reasoning behind certain decisions by certain civil servants.
The Inland Revenue Department does a lot of good work and its workforce is the main receiver of our country’s much needed revenue. But it is not necessary to exaggerate and render certain officials overzealous in trying to extract more than its pound of flesh.
Tony Abela is parliamentary secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister