Corruption: fact or fiction?

This may be the case, but the fact remains that however jaded we have become, we are still shocked every time we hear about a corruption claim, particularly when there is more than just smoke to indicate that the claim is based on fact.

The case of Frank Sammut was a hot topic of discussion this week, both on the internet and in the real world. As expected, the opposition and its supporters were quick to claim that this proves that the Nationalist government is corrupt to the core and even attempted to implicate Austin Gatt in the debacle. His ministry's decision - or, to be more exact, the lack of it - regarding the gas pipeline all of a sudden took on shades of bribery and dirty dealings. However, the PN answered that a minister cannot be held responsible for every case of corruption, particularly when nobody had brought the shenanigans to his attention. They also pointed out that Mr Sammut was trusted even by the last MLP government, which is a valid comment. In his years as a minister I have heard many a colourful description of Austin Gatt, however I have never heard anyone calling him corrupt, and I very much doubt that even the opposition truly believe that he is.

Lawrence Gonzi and his party have always claimed to be tough on corruption. They blame the rising perception of corruption on recent cases which have been successfully prosecuted. However, it is a very well-known fact that corruption is one of the most difficult crimes to weed out and prove. There is no doubt in my mind that those who are saying that the proven cases are merely the tip of the iceberg are absolutely correct. As Transparency International puts it: "Perceptions are used because corruption is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption."

I have a hunch that Transparency International are spot on. Our perception of corruption is increasing, because corruption is increasing - it's as simple as that. So there you have it: Malta is at par with the likes of Puerto Rico and Bhutan when it comes to public sector corruption. So it would be pertinent to ask exactly what has been done so far to rectify this situation. The answer is that the government has strongly condemned corrupt practices and encouraged the prosecution of any suspicious cases, but that in reality it has taken no concrete action to step up the fight against corruption in our country.

The first problem is that the punishment for the crime does not reflect the gravity of the crime in question. A guy importing or pushing a few grams of hashish is surely causing much less harm to our society than a judge who is willing to be bribed. To add to that, the drug importer/pusher is taking a higher risk of getting caught than a corrupt official. In the case of drug related crimes, which have a 50:50 chance of getting caught with resulting penalties of 15 or 20 year sentences, there is a clear deterrent that keeps most of us on the straight and narrow. When it comes to corruption, however, where there is a pretty good chance of getting away with it and just a year or two of jail time if caught, the deterrent is not that great, especially if one is looking at the opportunity of making thousands or millions of euros! The law needs to be changed - the threat of spending a decade or more in prison would work wonders when it comes to deterring anyone in the public sector from ever considering accepting kick-backs.

The second - and, in my opinion, more serious - form of corruption is much more elaborate and institutionalised. This is what the parties (and particularly the PN, as it has been in power for so long), have not only ignored but actively turned a blind eye to. In Malta, corruption and trading in influence seems to be illegal only for individuals, but not for political parties. Showering a person with gifts to get a favourable deal from a government institution is definitely corruption. However it appears that when one throws money at a political party it is not considered corruption, since there is the handy excuse that a MEPA permit, VAT fine amnesty, or lucrative contract comes from the government, and not from the party! If any party wants to be considered tough on corruption, it should take party financing very seriously.

Last, but definitely not least, our police force needs to be given the tools to fight corruption. As the latest corruption scandal has shown clearly, corrupt individuals are rarely amateurs and are very adept at concealing their traces. We definitely need a well-equipped unit, with the power and authority to take all the steps necessary to uncover corruption. In cases of corruption, the victim is usually unaware that a crime has been committed - there is no dead body or smoking gun. The long-promised whistleblower act would go a long way towards encouraging anyone with inside knowledge of corruption to come clean without fear of retribution. When corruption is strongly suspected (as in the case of the BWSC saga) getting to the bottom of things takes extensive detective work. It appears that tracking bank transfers and bugging calls are used extensively by the drug squad, which is why three judges have been caught out communicating with drug lords. Why can't the same tactics be used for corruption? Are our politicians afraid of what will be brought to light?