Russia’s state Duma just approved a law to keep MP’s income tax and assets private.

Political scientist Alexei Makarkin commented “De facto, we are returning to the Soviet model”. It’s a blow to transparency. But that’s exactly what’s been happening in Malta for years.

Tax returns and asset declarations of Malta’s MPs are secret.  Only the Speaker sees them.

Ministers and Parliamentary secretaries are meant to submit declarations of assets which are made public.  But we’ve all seen those declarations. They’re not worth the paper they’re written on.  From one prime minister who couldn’t be bothered to include his annual income, to another who simply lists ‘rental income’ without specifying its value, we’ve seen it all. That shameless concealment of finances is possible only because of one man.

In February 2013, Opposition leader Joseph Muscat publicly berated Minister Tonio Fenech for accepting a gift - a Maltese clock worth 500 euro.  “Fenech is well aware that ministers are not allowed to accept gifts of any value - this is a breach of the code of ethics,” Muscat clamoured.  “It is time to clean up Maltese politics,” he declared. 

Soon after, Prime Minister Muscat was accepting two bottles of Petrus costing 5,800 euro from Yorgen Fenech, 17 Black owner and alleged mastermind behind Caruana Galizia’s assassination.  Muscat also accepted luxury treatment at Fenech’s Evian-les-Bains Hilton in the French Alps.  And a 21,000 euro donation from a secret donor in business class flights to Dubai. That’s 42 times more than Fenech’s clock.

We all know that Muscat’s crusade to “clean up Maltese politics” only lasted until his election victory in March 2013.

He made his intentions clear from the start. One of his first actions as prime minister was to order a review of the 19 year old Ministerial code of ethics Fenech Adami introduced. Many were fooled. They thought Muscat intended to beef up the code.  Times of Malta commented that “the PM has made transparency, accountability and public integrity the fundamental themes of his administration”.

Muscat had other ideas. He famously referred to the ethics code as a “Briksa” (a concrete breeze block) on Bondi+. He commented that “the code is too voluminous making it impossible to follow to the letter”.  He meant ‘you’re not expecting us to keep to such high standards?’ He gave all sorts of excuses why he needed to change it. Because it was written at a time when few people owned mobile phones and when mobile phones were huge. He gave his intentions away when he stated that the new code would be “slimmer and carry less detail”.

Even before he changed the ethics code, he broke it.  He decided to allow parliamentary secretary Franco Mercieca to continue to practise as an ophthalmologist while serving in cabinet. The old code specifically prohibited Ministers and Parliamentary secretaries from engaging in private professional duties once they took up cabinet posts.  But mighty Muscat insisted it was “my prerogative as prime minister to give Mercieca a waiver”.

Muscat had barely got his hands on the reins of power. Here he was breaking the ministerial code and assuming imperial powers giving himself “prerogatives”.

It took over two years before the press found out that Muscat’s watered down code of ethics had been completed. But the document was kept secret. Its completion was accidentally revealed by principal permanent secretary Mario Cutajar on Timestalk. He was challenged about why it had been kept secret for so long.  His pathetic excuse was that “other codes were being updated and wanted to publish them as one document”. He lied that the new version was “identical” to the previous, but “more realistic”.

The Times demanded a copy of Muscat’s code-of-ethics lite. It became evident why it was kept hidden.

Muscat’s new ministerial code wrecked all the stringent checks of Fenech Adami’s code. It allowed ministers and parliamentary secretaries to continue with their private practice “if this was in the national interest”.  When Cutajar was asked who decided whether it was in the national interest, he replied “the prime minister”.

There was worse.  Cabinet members didn’t need to include assets of their spouses and children.  The detailed subclauses about assets were completely removed, making it far easier to conceal them. There was no longer a fixed date by which declarations had to be submitted.

Muscat got his way. He could decide who could continue with his private practice. And he, and his ministers, could simply hide their assets in their spouses’ or children’s names.

Muscat was the first to break his own code of ethics.  In his declarations he arrogantly refused to include his annual income. Instead he simply listed “SALARJU TA’ PRIM MINISTRU” (Salary of Prime minister) in big block capitals.

And what Joseph could do, Robert can do worse. Robert Abela hadn’t submitted his cabinet’s declarations of assets by 21 October 2022.  Opposition MPs pointed out this was “the longest ever delay”.

When those declarations were finally submitted, like Muscat, Abela showed his contempt for the public, the rules and transparency. In his declaration he listed “rental income”, failing to declare the value of that rental. In a catch-me-if-you-can game, he referred to his tax form which is not accessible to the public. His ministers took the cue.  Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri, under the property section, wrote “as per last year”. New ministers and parliamentary secretaries were not even obliged to include their annual income. Some arrogantly wrote “0” under income.

Muscat’s hysterical appeals to “clean up Maltese politics” didn’t survive a minute in power. His new code-of-ethics is nothing less than a flagrant scheme for concealing proceeds of corruption and abuse of power. His consultant and continuity candidate is steadfastly perpetuating Labour’s secrecy.  Abela acts as if legitimate questions about his finances and wealth are an invasion of his privacy and an affront to justice.

You know things are bad when Russia has only just enacted legislation to try and reach our level of opaqueness.