Cabinet’s talent

The comments made by the prime minister to a former US Ambassador to the effect that he wished he had the luxury that the American government enjoys, in that it is able to appoint any citizen to the Cabinet, have been taken almost completely out of context.

Here is the exact quote from Friday’s WikiLeaks cable: “In a conversation with the Ambassador prior to the election, PM Gonzi lamented quite bluntly to the Ambassador that the elected Nationalist Party MPs offered a limited talent pool from which to select ministers that are matched well with their competencies and are able to form an efficient working government. (The PM wished it were possible to draw ministers from business or academia, something that is not possible in Malta.)”

We feel the headline to the story used by our sister paper in yesterday’s reportage of the WikiLeaks flood was the most appropriate: PM expressed wish to draw ministers from business, academia – not political sphere.

That is because the scene is perfectly clear even at a rudimentary glance. The prime minister was not saying his Cabinet at the time was lacklustre, even though some reports misreported the conversation to have taken place after the last general election and not before, hence speaking of a totally different Cabinet.

What he is saying was that perhaps the American government, the representative of which he was speaking to, is more efficient because it is able to match portfolios to competencies and expertise from a pool of talent that stretches across the whole of the country, and which is not limited solely to the elected representatives.

At the bottom of the different interpretations of the cable, there is a very important point to be pondered, and that is whether Malta should consider changes to its Constitution to allow for such appointments.

For example, how could any elected MP possibly be expected to be an immediate expert on the portfolio he or she is assigned, out of the talent pool available from the party’s just-elected representatives? There is undoubtedly always a learning curve when a minister or an MP is given a new ministerial portfolio. Wouldn’t it be better, at least in some cases, to assign perhaps certain portfolios to trusted experts who have been working in the relevant field for decades?

If we are looking to really have the best talent to ruin the country, should we not be looking at as big a talent pool as possible when it comes to matching competencies with portfolios?

In cahoots?

If there is to be a concerted strategy between this newspaper and the governing Nationalist Party as regards public relations for the next general election, it will be announced on this editorial page and nowhere else – and least of all in an antagonistic and insinuating article in another newspaper as happened this week.

We will not speak on behalf of any other media organisations referred to in the article but, on the basis of someone’s imagined accusations in our respect, we suspect the whole of the story was simply concocted.

Just as we had declared ourselves on the recent divorce issue, if there is a declaration to be made in the run up to the next election, it will be made loud and clear - by us.

Not only is the article in question devoid of professional respect - we would have welcomed, for example, being asked for a comment on the supposed plot – but it is also as unethical as another story carried by the same title this week, albeit lifted from the opposition’s televised news, attacking the justice and home affairs minister while he was hospitalised.

It wasn’t the fact that he was attacked by the media that is disturbing, but rather the content of the attack. The story ran along the lines that the minister would be replaced by his parliamentary assistant and that the minister’s health would be used as an ‘excuse’ for his removal. Yesterday morning, the minister in question underwent a major surgical intervention and is recovering.

Quite an elaborate ‘excuse’, one would think.

1,000 issues and counting

With today’s issue, The Malta Independent on Sunday heralds its landmark 1,000th issue.

We have come a long way in these 1,000 issues, even a casual observer would agree. We have changed, but we have remained true to our founding principles, which are perfectly reflected in our title – Independent.

Next year we mark our 20th anniversary of providing a truly independent voice in what is otherwise at many times a wilderness spin, misinformation and disinformation.

We will continue to bring our readers the unbiased news they have come to expect and we will continue to call a spade a spade without fear or favour - not only because those are the values that we pride ourselves upon, but also because that is what you, our readers, want, expect and should be given.