Most of us were told this story when we were young.

A young boy entered a sweet shop with his mother, and while the shop assistant was looking elsewhere, picked a sweet and put it in his pocket. His mother saw him, and all she did was smile. No reprimand, no “put it back, say sorry and don’t do it again”. The two left the shop and the boy happily ate the sweet he had stolen.

The next day, the boy picked up two sweets and put them in his pocket. Again, the shop assistant did not notice, and his mother did not say anything. She gave him an approving look, and the boy could once again enjoy his “free” sweets when they left the shop.

On the third day, the boy slipped a whole packet of sweets into his pocket as the shop assistant was busy with other clients. Again, the mother saw what he was doing, but her silence encouraged the boy to take the sweets without paying for them.

The story goes on that when the boy grew up he became a professional thief, but his luck ran out and he was caught and sent to prison for a long time.

The moral behind it is that if his mother had forced him to return the stolen sweet the first time he surreptitiously picked one, he would have learnt the lesson right from the start and would not have become a criminal.

By condoning his behaviour, the mother carried most of the blame for what her son turned out to be.

By not teaching him the difference between right or wrong, she instilled in him the mentality that he could do what he liked so long as he did not get caught.

By adopting a culture of impunity for wrongdoing, the mother was telling the child that stealing is acceptable.

Tendency

Transpose this story into what has been happening in the last nine years and you will understand why, today, many think that they could get away with anything.

When the Labour Party was elected to government in 2013, one of the first controversial situations that cropped up was related to the employment of people in the various ministries while at the same time retaining their programmes on the Labour Party media.

In spite of criticism that it is unethical and highly inappropriate for people receiving a salary from taxpayer money to also have a job with a political station, the Labour government and party saw nothing wrong with the practice.

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, that situation was a strong indication of how the Labour government, then under Joseph Muscat, intended to operate. It was wrong to have people in offices run by the government or its entities also running discussion programmes on the party station, but Labour’s endorsement made it acceptable.

The “u ija, mhux xorta” (it’s ok, nothing is wrong) mentality had been born. And it continues to happen right to this very day.

It quickly permeated into all other aspects of our life.

Because, if they can do it, so can we. This is what many people started to think.

Castille

Soon enough, this way of thinking which started at the top permeated to all other rungs of our society.

There is a long list of situations in which top exponents did not behave appropriately, but remained in their place. Here are a few which occurred in recent months.

A minister in the OPM, Carmelo Abela, breached ethics with the publication of a newspaper advert that was intended to boost his image, rather than provide information of value to the public. This is from a report drawn up by Standards Commissioner George Hyzler. Abela is still a minister.

Another minister, Ian Borg, gave testimony in a court of law which the magistrate found “hard to believe”. The testimony was given in a libel case instituted by a third party against this media house. Borg is still a minister.

Another minister, Edward Zammit Lewis, was revealed to have exchanged texts which showed him to be close with the man who stands accused of being a mastermind in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Yorgen Fenech. Zammit Lewis is still a minister.

Previously to all of this, there was the to-the-hilt defence of Joseph Muscat to all that Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri were doing. The Panama Papers revelations should have led to the immediate outright dismissal of the two, but Mizzi remained a minister and Schembri was retained as chief of staff, positions they were given again after the 2017 election. Muscat chose to keep them against the interests of the country, and in the end all three were brought down together in 2019.

There might be some who argue that Robert Abela was stricter with Justyne Caruana, who gave up her post as minister a week after she was appointed in his government when her then husband’s ties with Fenech were exposed. Caruana was “unlucky” to have been caught up in the hullaballoo at the start of Abela’s reign, and maybe he wanted to show he means business at the time, so early in his tenure as PM.

The kind of discipline Abela had shown with Caruana the first time she had to resign did not last long, as we saw in the Carmelo Abela, Borg and Zammit Lewis cases. And, added to this, Caruana soon found herself back in the Cabinet when the opportunity arose. She did not learn the lesson from her brush with inappropriate behaviour, and was forced to resign a second time when she was found to have been in breach of ethics when she gave a contract to what she describes as a friend.

Abela showed a stronger hand was in the case regarding Rosianne Cutajar, who lost her post as parliamentary secretary also because of her alleged links with Fenech. But then he made up for it. Maybe he pushed her to resign because Cutajar wields less power than the other heavyweight ministers mentioned. Then again, the “reprimand” she was supposed to be given by the Standards Committee never happened. She has now been rewarded by being appointed chair of a parliamentary committee.

So there was impunity there too. More than this, she was rewarded in spite of her ethical breach.

Joseph Muscat

Joseph Muscat was himself found guilty, prima facie, of breaching the code of ethics.

More than once.

In January 2020, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life found him to have breached ethics when, as Prime Minister, he was selective in his choice of media when he gave a statement about the investigations on the murder of Caruana Galizia. Hyzler was dealing with a complaint by then Newsbook’s editor-in-chief Sylvana Debono. It is discriminatory, he noted, to invite some media and not others.

In July 2020, Muscat had also been found to be in breach of the code of ethics when he received three bottles of expensive wine from Yorgen Fenech, who was later accused of being a mastermind in the Caruana Galizia murder.

In October 2020, Muscat had also been found by Hyzler to have abused power and breaching ministerial code of ethics by giving former Minister Konrad Mizzi a consultancy job with the Malta Tourism Authority days after Mizzi had resigned as Tourism Minister.

In February 2021, the OPM was found to have breached ethics when it locked journalists inside a room after a press conference held in November 2019, when Muscat was still Prime Minister.

The reports about the four cases were issued after Muscat’s resignation as PM.

When the case regarding Konrad Mizzi was to be brought up before the Ethics Committee, Muscat had already resigned as MP and the Speaker had ruled that the committee had no remit to continue investigating the case.

Muscat defends himself saying that he assumed his responsibilities by resigning from Prime Minister. That was the least he could do, given the circumstances that led to his quitting. But, aside from the disgrace of having been found guilty of breaches, there was no punishment.

Konrad Mizzi

Konrad Mizzi, then, initially chose to bring up one excuse over another not to respond to a summons by the Public Accounts Committee. Like everyone else, Mizzi has his rights, such as that of having a lawyer or two by his side. But what he did was clearly an attempt to delay proceedings, in the hope that an election is called and all is forgotten.

That the members of the government then refused to agree to condemn Mizzi for this kind of behaviour was another confirmation that, for Labour, anything goes.

His testimony before the PAC has been running since November. What with an eight-hour presentation, medical emergencies, the Christmas break and a demand for a ruling from the Speaker, we are still waiting for crunch-time. He has the advantage of knowing what the PN MPs will be asking, given that they have already asked the questions which Mizzi failed to reply, saying he wanted the Speaker’s protection.

Now we wait for his answers, but don’t hold your breath.

It would not be a surprise if an election is called before the testimony is concluded, and the process halted, perhaps forever.