Good governance is the buzzword of the day and despite the fact that everyone appears to have jumped aboard the bandwagon, the country’s good governance, along with the public’s trust in public institutions, is being eroded further with each passing day and week.

It seems that everywhere one looks there is a good governance scandal either exploding or brewing, under the watch of a government that campaigned so vociferously on a platform of good governance, accountability and transparency – areas in which, despite its platitudes, the government is failing miserably.

From the government’s dubious choice of person to head its warden agency to the property dealings of parliamentary secretaries and to the Prime Minister’s own New Year’s message to the nation, recent revelations of misconduct on the part of the government and its appointees have left many of its supporters with a bad taste in their mouths.

These instances in their own individual rights would, in most democratic countries, have seen heads roll but in Malta we appear to have a different, and far lower, benchmark when it comes to good governance.

And over the last two weeks alone we have had yet two more lessons in the government’s crash course on how not practice good governance.

This week the media was invited to the occasion of the Local Enforcement System Agency 100-day anniversary, an invitation it undoubtedly regretted with hindsight.  The LESA is headed by none other than Ray Zammit, the once acting police commissioner who was removed from his position in the wake of the shooting incident perpetrated by then minister Manuel Mallia’s driver. After having been removed from that job, he then landed a plum position as the head of the government’s new and improved local warden agency.  This despite the fact that he, his wife and two sons, it later transpired, all had business interests with the Gaffarena family when one of the sons was actually involved in the investigation of a murder in the Gaffarena family.  The shares Ray Zammit and his sons held in the two companies were later transferred to Mr Zammit’s wife, who still holds a 50% stake in each business.

It was also recently revealed in another section of the media that Zammit had somehow managed to purchase prime commercial property from the government at suspiciously low, bargain basement prices.  It was a farcical affair earlier this week when the media, keen to question Zammit on the property deal, vanished into thin air despite the media having been promised that he would take their questions.  This sort of behaviour is completely unbecoming of anyone in any official capacity.

These, however, are not the only problems with the appointment.  The person who heads the centralised government warden agency is, in essence, a politically-appointed person of trust.  That person will at the end of the day be responsible for determining when, where and how enforcement activities by wardens will, or will not, be carried out.

This in itself sets off a number of good governance warning bells.  For example, an appointee selected by the minister responsible for local councils will automatically be beholden to the government.  As such, who is to say that, come election time, for example, there might be an unexplained slowdown in the issuance of tickets in certain politically-sensitive localities, or across the country as a whole, in the process creating a false feel good factor?

This, of course, may not have been the premeditated rationale behind the choice of having a ‘person of trust’ heading the agency.  It does not mean that this kind of situation will necessarily pan out, but it certainly does not mean that it will not happen.  The legislation that created the agency lacks the necessary checks and balances that prevent such circumstances in the first place.  And the person who has been appointed to the role certainly appears to be at one with the government of the day.

Then we had the Prime Minister’s own New Year’s message to the nation – an unnecessarily lengthy, partisan and bombastic affair completely unsuited to the occasion at hand.  While these are not necessarily good governance violations – apart from the fact that a still-undisclosed amount of public funds were spent on what was effectively a Labour Party promotional video – the fact that the Prime Minister himself participated in a number of blatant lies is.

In the video, the Prime Minister visited a young couple in their kitchen and attempted to pass them off as your average newlywed couple who were able to make ends meet thanks to the government’s incentives for first-time home buyers, when the fact of the matter is that the couple’s family runs one of the country’s largest furniture companies.  It also transpires that the couple actually purchased the home back in 2008 – a good five years before the current government was even elected.

For a government to have its Prime Minister stand up and wittingly or unwittingly lie to the nation about anything, no matter how trivial, is a serious offence that would be a major scandal in any other country.  Yes, people have cried foul but the government, as per its usual practice, makes no apologies and shrinks back into its shell until the clear and present danger has passed.  The fact that the government does not even feel compelled to make an apology, or even an excuse, speaks volumes.

From the ongoing Ian Borg to Michael Falzon scandals, to the several contracts the government has signed with the private sector but refuses to publish, to government appointments and direct orders, the good governance the government has promised appears to be nowhere in sight.

The government absolutely must start making some difficult decisions to get its good governance act together if it is to avoid earning itself a legacy it certainly does not want.