Of this, I am quite sure. I am sure that last Sunday morning Dr Joseph Muscat had no idea what we were going to come up with, i.e. the fact that we had access to the Swiss Leaks list and he did not.
Yet in just three hours (assuming he was up and about at 7am), he had his response ready, which he then expounded in the address to the party faithful.
That tells me there must be a relatively short and vertical party structure to allow him to come up with a response that was later approved by the party's grass roots.
In this, Dr Muscat seems, like his predecessor, to prefer the front wheel drive mode where the leader takes the decisions and they are accepted. Thus, no need for lengthy consultations with the top levels or round robin type of phone calls.
His counterpart, Dr Simon Busuttil, seems to prefer the opposite mode of leadership. In fact, he delayed his reactions regarding Ninu Zammit and Michael Falzon, although, to be fair, he had switched his mode of operations when he reshuffled his Shadow Cabinet and put most of the past Cabinet out to graze.
Whatever, in just three hours Dr Muscat had his reaction ready: he pounced on the MaltaToday story on Giovanna Debono and spun that out to be far more heinous than Ninu Zammit's €3 million plus nest egg in Switzerland. The essence of spin is precisely that: regardless whether it stands on its own two feet or not, what matters is that it is believed by the masses.
One is based on hearsay, the other on files and notes made by Swiss bankers. Objectively, both are stories of corruption but only one is proved and to date no one has dared say Swiss Leaks is not true. At the same time, without minimizing what may have happened in Gozo, there is an objective difference between the two.
To counter one story (not that it regarded Labour, unless one asks how come an amnesty was applied) with another is only considered by weak minds as having counteracted the first case. Only people such as those Dr Muscat had in front of him, would rejoice that a PN corruption story had been found to counteract, ironically, another PN corruption story whose only difference is that it came not from the Prime Minister's mouth but from an organ of information that is not perceived as being manipulated by PL.
Being quick off the mark, in other words, may not always be the best policy. I am not one of Ms Debono's admirers and I had written, months ago, that she should not be on the Front Desk. I have no idea whether she did what is being alleged about her. Dr Busuttil removed her from the Front Bench (but did not do the same with her fellow minister, Chris Said) but the pressure on him to move her following MaltaToday's story and Dr Muscat's canny use of it must have been intense.
Dr Busuttil came up with the rather lame response to first await the police investigations, which may have made him sound like Lawrence Gonzi but was a fair and just reaction and a refusal to bow to popular pressure.
Back to the Swiss Leaks story or stories. The case with regard to the two former ministers would now seem complete. Mr Falzon has apologized, although that was before it was discovered that he had submitted twisted and false Income Tax returns even as a minister. Mr Zammit has remained silent.
On Sunday, the Labour Party reacted fiercely to suggestions that the amnesty was granted by the Prime Minister saying it was the same that had been promulgated by different PN governments and was administered by the Central Bank, which in Mr Zammit's case was, and still is, headed by Mr Zammit's former ministerial colleague Josef Bonnici.
The aim of the Swiss Leaks circuit is not just to name and shame people with political responsibilities who short-circuited the taxman in their country, but also to get them to admit where they got their black money from.
This is an angle that has so far remained steadfastly covered. Both are architects and Mr Zammit in particular deals in property. The existence of such sums is mind-boggling to the rest of us who live on a fixed wage or salary and rarely make ends meet.
To say these two are the tip of an iceberg is an understatement. This is one case that, thanks to the stealing of files from HSBC Geneva removes the thick covering that veils the real raw world of some people with money to burn.
Some may be politicians, but others definitely are not. To blacken politicians' names without considering the many others who are not politicians is precisely what this and any other country does not need. Condoning the politicians because 'everyone is doing it' drags the country into accepting corruption high and low.
For the prime minister of the country to counter the first allegations by throwing in yet another name, that of Austin Gatt who the Labour grass roots love to hate, is neither here nor there. Why counter the allegations at all? To counter the second allegations by throwing in the name of another person hated by the Labour grassroots again begs the question? What on earth is all this?
A prime minister's place should definitely be against corruption, any and every corruption, especially one which seems to be so pervasive. If a politician is perceived as a soft touch or soft-pedals around corruption allegations, or tries political tricks out of them the country would do well to ask: on whose side is the head of government?
Our Prime Minister sometimes gives us more than just an impression that he has not made the grade from a Super One reporter to a party leader to a prime minister. His fingerprints are still on the spin lines that come out from One News where spin is more important than the basic facts.
I note that a police investigation into the allegations regarding Giovanna has been launched with alacrity and offices sealed. Maybe it has escaped me but I do not seem to remember any investigation into the two former ministers exposed in the Swiss Leaks.
[email protected]