Hard to believe

election result and admitted to having invented the allegations first to hit at Lino Spiteri, then to win the confidence of people closest to Alfred Sant and then to harm Alfred Sant himself as a result of the harsh 1998 budget.

Mr Muscat's different explanations are difficult to believe, and it is certainly hard to understand why Mr Muscat would keep on telling lies to those around him for so many years and risk his whole reputation and political career.

Many of Mr Muscat's statements are also contradictory. If he so badly wanted Alfred Sant to be leader of the party, and not Lino Spiteri, then why would he make up such a story which greatly harmed Dr Sant? And why did Mr Muscat not vote in the second round of the leadership election in order to tease Mr Spiteri if the same Mr Spiteri was leading after the first round of voting by 70 votes? Surely Mr Muscat would have cast his vote for Dr Sant?

Labour's Board of Vigilance is right to recommend Mr Muscat's exit from the party, but no objective individual can be satisfied with the conclusions of such a report. Many of the statements are contradictory, and many of the explanations simply do not add up. It would have been far better had the whole issue been taken before a court of law where people would have to speak under oath.

This episode does nothing to improve the public's perception of politics in Malta. It is not surprising that politics was listed (spontaneously) as the sixth main problem facing Maltese society in a survey commissioned recently by The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Maltacom's future

The Malta Labour Party's vigilance and discipline board has now concluded that the voting procedures during the 1992 party leadership election were "transparent and correct" and there was little space for possible abuse. The board came to this conclusion after a month long investigation into the allegations made by former Labour Minister Lino Spiteri regarding the election of Alfred Sant as Labour leader in 1992.

The board said that Paul Muscat, the mayor of Cospicua, whom Lino Spiteri had alleged was responsible for vote rigging, should no longer represent the party and should not be involved with the party at local, district or national level.

In a letter sent to Mr Muscat, the chairman of the party's vigilance board, Tommy Roberts, said that one could not tolerate someone inventing a story to hurt someone. Mr Muscat has therefore been made the scapegoat of this whole affair, and he has been accused by the board of inventing the vote rigging story because of a personal grudge against Lino Spiteri.

When he testified before the board, Mr Muscat denied having rigged the In the process of privatisation, the government has the responsibility to achieve the best long-term results for the country. Selling government shares and control in a company is not only a question of money, although the money factor is an important one. The recent announcement that a management buy-out of Maltacom is on the cards has once more raised the issue of Maltacom's privatisation.

Is a management-buyout the right option of the company and for the country? What real change will that produce? A careful assessment must be made before any plunge is taken. Maltacom is one of Malta's most precious gems in the national tiara. How best can the government make the most of this asset represented by its majority shareholding in Malta's major telecommunications company? What is the best way forward?

Other options exist. Seeking more institutional investors is one of them. It was the option chosen by the Labour government. It may well have had its merits at the time, although some doubt whether it was the right long-term approach. Does it however still hold any attraction for the sale of the majority shareholding?

Some see the option of a strategic partnership with a known international operator as more attractive. Particularly if for the chosen strategic partner Maltacom's international infrastructure and Malta's geographic position hold a special attraction, integrating company and consumer with an international player in this worldwide market. Whatever the decision, it must look forward in time, with the best results for the company, its shareholders, its employees, its customers, and the country as a whole. Moving forward is a must. Rashness cannot be recommended.