Still on holiday but …

Some happenings during silly season have to be reported for posterity’s sake. I had thought that we had seen it all for summer of oh-nine with Karmenu Mifsud-Bonnici (lifelong bachelor and no children) claiming lower birthrates in Europe are thanks to the EU promoting contraceptives and the post-Communist Żminijietna protesting the ban on barbeques in Għadira presumably because the workers will have nowhere were to grill their proletarian sausages.

I was wrong. A letter in today’s Times, which forms part of an ongoing silly season debate on whether we should remove the George Cross from the flag and, if we do, what will we have in its stead:

Both the above-mentioned regimes [the British and their George Cross and the Knights and their eight-pointed cross] represent only a few years of our history and are not Maltese. Let us have a real Maltese emblem, one that is unique and over 5,000 years old, namely, the Neolithic temples. We already use this on our euros.

Er, the Neolitic temples? Every single stone of them? For accuracy’s sake, what’s represented on the Maltese euro coins is only the main altar of the complex. But the writer probably did intend all of the temples (Ħaġar Qim, Mnajdra and Tarxien, presumably). After all this country suffers seriously from horror vacui (anyone remembers the first official photo of the President?).

So we could have the temples. And while we’re at it why not a ġbejna? Zalzett and a ħobża tal-Malti anyone? And a dollop of bigilla please. With a galletta sticking in it. I could go on and on but I’m waiting for the Times‘ commenters to see what they can come up with.

On holiday

This blog goes on holiday until further notice. Readers shouldn’t worry as the silly season, probably because there are no immigrant boats to report, this year looks like it will be seriously silly.

So far my favourite stories have been Karmenu Mifsud-Bonnici claiming that low birthrates are caused by the EU “spending large amounts of money promoting the use of contraceptives” and Communist Party paper Żminijietna criticising the barbeque ban in Mellieħa Bay as it gives the public “less space for recreation, especially in times of increasing cost of living”. Barbequers of the world, unite!

So I pack my blogging bags reassured in the knowledge that there is still much to read and that I will not need or feel the need to blog about it. Some news items do not need any commentary or elaboration, they stand on their own.

So have a smashin’ summer and, remember, you can still enjoy ħobż biż-żejt at Għadira.

What is and what isn’t

From maltastar.com:

The Malta Council for Culture and the Arts decided to exclude a Maltese artists’ exhibition of 16 photographs which put together images of politicians, including ministers, and “representations of strangely erotic acts”, claiming that the artworks were “libelous”.

Thankfully, what the Council did was not described as “censorship” — which it is not. Censorship is a categorical ban states do (which, after all, is the only institution which can impose a categorical ban). Thus, Stitching was censored and it cannot, unless the decision is reversed, be staged anywhere in Malta. This exhibition can still be held in the curator’s garage while he waits for sixteen court summons to come in.

But the fact that no mention was made of the “c” word does not mean that it was not implied:

When contacted by maltastar.com, the artist, Raphael Vella, 42, said that foreign artists are comparing the situation of the arts in Malta with that of the Soviet Union and Germany before the war.

They could have compared us to France 2008 when French magazines felt they had to airbrush Sarkozy’s love handles in a real photograph not a photo montage as is in this case. Or Germany in 2002 when then-Chancellor Schröder sued a German news agency over allegations that he dyes his hair.

On matters of freedom of expression Malta gets more punishment that it’s due. The Stitching ban was unfortunate. While it reminded us that the Board of Film and Stage Classification has powers it shouldn’t have it gave the wrong impression that in recent years they have deprived Maltese audiences of much. Some of the criticism on the prohibition to insult religion, a legal provision applied earlier this year at the Nadur carnival, may have been justified. But let us not forget that, for the sake of not insulting Islam quite a few European governments have been mulling the idea.

Which leaves us with libel. Yes, Malta’s libel laws may be somewhat punitive (and they have been relaxed in recent years) but even there, I get the impression there’s much freedom of interpretation for the presiding Magistrate. What is certainly not unique is having libel laws.

Which brings us to this case in question. Is it grounds for libel? Here’s more:

The excluded artwork was to be part of a collective exhibition, “The Life Model,” curated by Patrick Fenech, which opened this week, as part of the Malta Arts Festival. Yet, the Council argued that the images are “potentially libellious” because some Maltese individuals in the images were still recognisable, despite the artist having “blurred them partially.”

Partially, understandably. Or how would viewers have realised that they were politicians “including ministers”?

But why politicians? Is it just because they happen to be the category of people we love to hate, a bit like Americans and their lawyers. There is a bit of explanation from the artist:

Dr Vella made it clear that the content of his work is not pornographic. “I am not interested in cheap pornography as an ‘art form’, but I am very much interested in the fact that politics has become a bit like pornography.”

“Cheap” pornography as opposed to what? Pity the description cuts off there. I would have been equally interested to hear how politics has become “a bit” like pornography. Hmm, sitting through budget speeches might be more interesting than I thought.

Update: It turns out that Raphael Vella, the artist in question, is more level-headed that one would have initially imagined. Here’s his reaction to the original maltastar.com article:

Maltese art is often excessively ‘heavy’ with metaphysical ideas about life and death, the ‘sacred’, and so on, and I felt that a piece that could invert the seriousness with which we still approach subjects like the nude in art by linking it, teasingly, to an even more taboo subject – politics – was necessary in this exhibition.

The curator of ‘The Life Model’ liked this perspective too, and I will venture to add that I think he appreciated it because he is an important Maltese contemporary artist with international experiences, with whom I have had the pleasure to work on other occasions.

This was also the attitude of the ‘foreign artist’ quoted in the article, who jokingly reminisced about the ex-Soviet Union. My reference to this artist’s opinion was not meant as a factual statement about Malta – artists and writers here do not end up in gulags, of course – but it was a way of saying that my work might have been taken too seriously.

There is one point which I note with sadness, however: it’s no longer a case of similarity between “cheap pornography” and politics as we we told in the first article. It’s merely a link between the seriousness — presumably undeserved — of artworks and politicians and their nudity.

But if that’s the case then the link could have been established with just about anyone, the nudity taboo being pretty strong in Malta.

Why politicians then? I get the impression it’s really a question of someone drawing in a moustache and an Elvis forelock on the photo of someone important and feeling happy he can get away with it. Or maybe even get away with plaudits like this (complete with a feeble attempt at sarcasm):

Dear Raphael, how dare you try and criticise the political class? Don’t you know that our lives depend on these kind and hard-working persons who dedicate their lives to us, to give us jobs, food, shelter, entertainment, I would say, even spice up the air we breathe to make it healthier (sometimes with their small cars, sometimes with the effects of their bigger Delimara decisions)? You definitely cannot be allowed to criticise the political class.

Criticise? Hint: the target, remember, is “seriousness”. How about mockery? Not that our politicians are above it but, then, should anyone?

Propologia

Yesterday we had Victor Ragonesi telling us to keep our hands off the “original” entrance of Valletta which nobody has a right to “desecrate”. Ragonesi was Borg-Olivier’s Private Secretary in the 1960s. Which begs the question: did his former political master have any right to desecrate the city entrance the way he did?

Today, Kenneth Zammit-Tabona writes on the Piano plans in Times:

Meanwhile, the government, with pennants flying and trumpets blowing, announced Renzo Piano’s blueprint for Valletta and, if their perennial apologists are anything to go by, are in a right royal miff because it was not received with the right amount of adulation. What on earth did they expect? After waiting for 67 years for something to happen on the opera house site, the government’s brief to Mr Piano was devoid of any thought, sensitivity and without reflection as to what the long-term consequences of this open-air theatre that we need like a hole in the head will mean with regard to Maltese culture or the lack of it.

I don’t know what government’s brief to Piano was and if it said “make the old Opera House into an open-air theatre”. If anything, Piano, it seems, dissuaded the government from constructing a parliament on the theatre’s site. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, Piano is not a starving architect waiting for some commission to come in. I’m sure he has enough artistic and professional dignity to tell the government to find someone else if he felt the “brief” he was given was below him.

But Zammit-Tabona seems to know something the rest of us don’t. He was one of the plans’ first critics:

Art and theatre critic Kenneth Zammit Tabona was not at all amused: “I have never felt so insulted in my life. This is another confirmation of the poor attitude this government has shown towards culture. We’re going to have a roofless theatre which can only be used when the weather permits. But they’re not going to be roofless in Parliament, are they?”

That, by the way, was soon after it was announced that it would be an open-air theatre but before the plans were unveiled. And notice the criticism was directed at the government: Zammit-Tabona, unlike the paTRioTs wIth a caPs loCK prOBlem who comment on the Times, is not so philisitine to accuse Piano of philistinism. Such charges work better with Austin Gatt so that’s were he directs it.

But then Zammit-Tabona goes on:

Last Tuesday, La Traviata, starring Renee Fleming and our own Joseph Calleja, was transmitted live from Covent Garden to an enthusiastic and numerous paying audience at Argotti Gardens. A son of Malta has really made it to the top echelons and will, any minute now, reach iconic status. A suggestion, which, I hope, the ministry will take up should this lovely event happen again, is that it should be shown free of charge in all the towns and villages in Malta that have a suitable open space.

It’s heartening to note that on this occasion — end of June — it was a case of “weather permits” in an “roofless” venue as was the Argotti Garden. And why does Zammit-Tabona suggest that the screening be held in “towns and villages in Malta that have a suitable open space”?

No fear of wind, rain and hail? Adrian Buckle, who had been one of the most vociferous opponents of having parliament built on the old opera house site, spoke in favour of an open air theatre because, bar the ludicrous venue at Ta’ Qali, there is no such thing in Malta. Both Buckle and Zammit-Tabona seem to be aware that the performing arts have stiff competition in the summer and both realise that an open venue is the answer.

But while Buckle’s reaction is the obvious reaction of someone who got something he could have wished for, Zammit-Tabona persists in criticising the plan and the government (not Piano). Why? Is it the cheap and easy way to sophistication?

Coda: Another point in Zammit-Tabona’s op-ed is worth addressing:

This [foreign governments' attempts to popularise opera] was an exercise that took up the trend set by Pavarotti, Carreras and Domingo when they performed together in that unforgettable Three Tenors Concert in Rome 19 years ago and which I had the unforgettable privilege of attending. In those days one could hear men attempting to sing Nessun Dorma in the shower as they lathered themselves: so much for the irrelevance and mustiness of opera Lou Bondì.

That’s a hypothesis. Here’s another: Pavarotti’s Nessun Dorma (one of the worst renditions of the piece, one should add) was the theme song used for the BBC’s coverage of the 1990 World Cup finals. Most people learnt of the piece (and its existence) thanks to that, not the Three Tenors concert. Which might explain why it was men attempting to sing it in the shower.

Was the BBC’s then attempt a laudable case of “popularising”? Yes. But as “propologia” is pig-Greek so is Puccini-before-a-football-match “pig-opera”.

Open spaces we don’t really want

To my surprise, the greatest objections to Piano’s plans are being made to his plans for Freedom Square. Not to the Parliament building as such. There were objections to that, of course, from people who cannot see that it fully complements the military architecture of Valletta (St James Cavalier in the back and the new city gate at the side) or people who fail to appreciate the role of a parliament in democratic life.

No, I mean the ones who lament the loss of “much needed open space”. But before we move to that let me remind the “traditionalist purists” (“give us the old opera house!”) that until the late 1960s that space was built. No walled city in the world would have placed a square next to the main gate. The gate tends to be the weakest spot in the wall, the point where the enemy would be most likely to breach and having a tight space would have given defenders a last-ditch opportunity to fight back from close quarters (if not confuse the infiltrators as they make their way in). Mdina is a great example: the “civilian” square is in the centre and the “military” square is at the point furthest from the main entrance.

And of course calling Freedom Square a “square” is an excessively generous description of what’s little more than empty space. No, it’s not simply the victim of that Maltese habit of using space either for parking or to clutter with plastic chairs and umbrellas. A square is a focal point (which is why they tend to host markets) and Freedom Square is simply space on the side of the route people usually take moving in and out of the city. Indeed, the Square is, in my view, the point which needs most urgent addressing. The ruins are a monument to our failure to act and the gate a monument to our sense of aesthetics but it’s Freedom Square the real mutilation to the architectural and urban structure of the city.

But back to the main subject. Alfred Mifsud wrote in today’s Indy. He’s generally positive about the entire project, by the way, and the point he makes about pedestrian access from Floriana to Valletta, imperiled as it is with the buses that go by is valid. Here’s Mifsud on the Piano’s proposal for Freedom Square:

I am sorry but this is just crazy. Not because there is anything wrong in having a parliament building in the City entrance; but because Valletta needs more not less open spaces. Freedom Square should be a people’s parliament not a representative’s parliament. It should be where people meet, talk, discuss, argue, demonstrate and do whatever is democratically allowed in the pursuit of freedom of expression. And this can be done in a pleasant environment with full view of St James Bastions by redeveloping exactly as Piano has suggested but without parliament dual building, which should be replaced by landscaped gardens instead of the present car park cum shopping complex.

Let’s put aside the silly (and communist-sounding) distinction between “people’s parliament” and “representative parliament”. Let’s also put aside the fact that a landscaped garden and a space where people demonstrate are hardly compatible ends. Why does Valletta need more open spaces, whatever they are?

Readers will hopefully forgive me for having to rely, once more, on the excellent writings of Mark-Anthony Falzon. Some months ago he wrote about communities, largely imagined, in whose name political agendas on the use of public space are being pushed. And since the rhetoric is so compelling, government (and opposition) buy in. Here’s Falzon on the “desires” of these “communities”:

There are three main types of desire. First, a perceived need for specialised — and sanitised — spaces of recreation (this is the speciality of the local councils). Second, desires that have to do with practices (festi, for example, or Good Friday processions) linked to local church/parish ‘communities’. Third, things like local facilities for team sports, which may be read as collective celebrations of the ancestral attachments I mentioned earlier.

My point is that ‘local communities’ tend to be formulaic. They also have depressingly unimaginative ideas about what they ought to look like. A couple of years ago, for example, Cospicua council in conjunction with the government (there, dialogue) embarked on a project to create a new recreational space for the area. Hundreds of thousands of euros on, we have the ghastly — and utterly useless — ‘Cottonera Garden’. The (good but misguided) intention of the council was to provide the people of Cospicua with a recreational space, irrespective of the indigenous patterns of leisure of the place. The mistake of the government was that it listened.

Falzon’s choice of example is salutary in the “Freedom Square as garden” debate. I don’t know how many more rehailitated gardens it will take before government, central and local, realise that, in effect people are not really interested. Oh, they might pay lip service but they vote with their feet and public gardens end up as places for teenagers to get sloshed or junkies to get high, if we’re so lucky to have them used. Which is why many local authorities abroad are transforming gardens into centres for community gardening (privatisation, in a way, of public space). Which is why the part I find most suspect about Piano’s plans is the garden in the ditch.

As someone who’s worked in Valletta for many years I cannot fathom why any office worker should want to spend time in a garden with high buildings all around. For, if there was something my colleagues and I were on the lookout for — as an alternative to the many hidden watering holes in the city — was vistas. That of the Grand Harour from the Upper Barracca. Of Marsamxett from il-Mandraġġ. And of the open sea from near Fort St Elmo which gives you a greater sense of freedom than any grotty garden would.

And Valletta residents? Don’t worry they have their open recreational spaces, away from spaces where “outsiders” hang out. They won’t be enjoying the fresh air in Freedom Square Garden.

Heard in the Times

The discussion following the presentation of Piano’s plans for Valletta’s entrance continues. As they say, it’s generating more heat than light. Here’s a sample:

I hope I am not the only one by suggesting that the parliament looks like an alien super UFO who has just landed from its journey from Mars … lets take this opportunity and turn Freedom Square into a typical European city square, paved in the same manner like Republic Street and in the middle, a grand monument to the knights of Malta depicting their victory over the Ottomans (aka lord Nelson type monument in Trafalgar Square but with our La Vallette towering over the city with his famous sword by his side).

Spaceships come in various shapes and sizes but this would be the first one that’s “very squarish” as someone else called it. And a “typical European city square”, whatever that is, is usually found at the centre of the city not at the entrance to the side.

But if you think the La Vallette on a column was tacky (with his “famous sword”, the one with which he cut off Dragut’s head, by his side) here’s more:

I wish the Prime Minister read my Recommendations in my Dissertation, which includes the whole area. I recommended the Opera House re-built with a touch of modern architecture, the arches changed into round marble with Designer shops underneath and the Square, with a beautiful large Romanesque Fountain with Dolceria and coffee businesses around the square. I also suggested auditioned Street theatre. Now that is what Valletta needs and it also compliments the rest of the city. As far as City Gate is concerned, I made that entrance into a modern Tri Glass Pyramids where Art Exhibitions and other that can utilize the space in line with our Cultured mindset.

An Opera House in neo-classical (19th century) with “a touch of modern” (21st century), a large Romanesque (circa 10th to 13th century) fountain and tri-glass pyramids (20th century Louvre?). Sublime.

Burying Barry

I remember a tongue-in-cheek argument which went something like this: assume you are the voice of the people, assume the voice of the people is the voice of God (“Vox Popoli, Vox Dei”, no?), ergo your voice is the voice of God.

The argument is logically sound, it’s the premises that are fatuous. Not that that ever served to hold back commenters on the Times from making claims on behalf of the people, with one letter today going as far as to claim that the people “have voted” just by commenting online. Oddly enough these opinions are often accompanied with the tired quote that Valletta is a city “built by gentlemen for gentlemen” — when “gentleman” obviously signified a class distinction to show detachment from the hoi polloi.

Renzo Piano is not some poor, starving architect desperate to get some sort of commission. He has a long track record, a reputation and admiration to go with it and, I’m pretty sure, a long list of potential clients in his waiting room. You may not like his Centre Pompidou (which, it is worth reminding, houses a museum of modern art and a research centre for acoustics). But that is definitely not enough grounds to dismiss him considering his portfolio is long and extensive.

Which also means that the “money motive” was hardly the strongest in this case. This point is worth making for no other reason that the commenters on the Times, think they smell a rat. Architects’ fees in Malta, by the way, are fixed by law and it has already been made clear that the law will be applied and Piano will be paid as much as any other architect would have been paid for a project of that size.

Now to the main changes proposed. First, the characterless Freedom Square is to go. The attempt to redesign Valletta’s entrance in a monumental style in the late 1960s was not only lamentable, it was thwarted to render any sense of “monumentality” the design concept might have had into sheer blandness. Loss of open space, somebody complained, in a city that’s surrounded on three sides by sea. A walled city which can afford some extra space for … parking cars. Oh, and Carnival, although for some four centuries before the space was cleared, space or perceived lack thereof did not seem to be a constraint on the revelry.

Second, city gate. No longer to be a gate just a breach in the wall, say some others, oblivious to the fact — probably due to the fact that it’s convenient — that that’s what Glormu Cassar Avenue already is. The Turks might even considering staging another siege. If they do they will presumably not take note of what the Germans did in the last one rendering the military value of the walls to nil. The bastions may be “firm” and “high” as they are praised in the ludicrous song “Viva Malta” but the Luftwaffe and the Regia Aeronautica seemed unimpressed. And they got to the Opera House without the need to breach walls. Piano’s proposal gives Valletta a more welcoming and open look while, at the same time, retaining and emphasising the austere and sparse geometric feel of the rest of the city’s military architecture.

Which brings me to the third element of the design, the site of the Royal Opera House. I had previously noted that the calls to rebuild it “as it was” had died down. Well, not on the Times comment pages, I regretfully note. Just as a reminder to those who lament Government commissioning a foreigner that Edward Middleton Barry was British. Piano is manifestly a man interested, if not in love, with Valletta having had a keen interest for some twenty five years. Barry did not even visit Malta let alone the site which, at first, he thought was flat. When informed of the slight slope he simply added a “platform” which, thankfully, alleviated the nauseating effect of the colonnade.

Barry’s achievement is that he managed to combine an attitude of condescension (include here the neo-classical features, so favoured by the British colonial authorities) with the Maltese love for over-wrought lavur. The result was something which, incredibly, few seem to have found at odds in the “baroque city” — that catch-all category which somehow could include the elaborate faced of the Auberge de Castille, the military geometry of St James Cavalier, the “libertine” style of Palazzo Ferreria and Barry’s ħamallata.

Or maybe they did. In the immediate post-War we almost got something that was not Barry, a design by Italian architects (yeah, foreigners … unlike Barry) which only got shelved because of other pressing priorities. And it would not have been unique. None of the significant Valletta buildings that came down during the War were rebuilt like the original. Well, almost. The facade of the old Auberge d’Auvergne Provence was reproduced in the case of the Law Courts with the unfortunate addition of … wait for it … a colonnade! A homage to Barry and all things neo-classical? Don’t know but that should have been enough warning.

A final point on the open air theatre. A poor man’s version of a theatre is has been said. Exposing possible operaic performances to the elements. They stage open air opera in the Verona Arena but — if we’ll ever afford to stage an operaic performance — the exception maltaise applies. Here’s Joseph Vella-Bondin, Malta’s “acknowledged leading bass singer”:

A project cannot be justified on the rationale that open-air venues in historical ruins like the Terme di Caracalla do well. Malta is a small island in the middle of the Mediterranean and consequently, with its specific climatic conditions and its particular demographical, religious and social situations. In the context of a permanent open-air theatre, these factors may require a careful assessment before scarce resources are committed to such a project.

Now somebody please tell me why being a “small island in the middle of the Mediterranean” should give you any specific climatic, demographical, religious and social conditions which are not the case in Rome.

Wont of something sensible on the subject and can’t find it? May I suggest Mark-Anthony Falzon’s column last Sunday. Here’s a lengthy extract:

For my part, I choose to belong to that community which will most likely win the competition (provided the project actually materialises – I have said before that I will only believe it when I put my finger into the wet cement). Let’s call it the ‘let Piano do as he pleases’ community. Just as well it will win, for the following reason.

An architect is a bit like a judge. A judge presides over court proceedings and listens to a number (at least two unless the defendant pleads guilty) of interpretations. At some point, however, the judge must perform the violence of stopping the ping-pong process in favour of one interpretation.

Likewise, an architect has a number of options available, each of which usually expresses the desires of a particular community. Because they must at some point build, however, the architect performs the violence of ‘freezing’ a community and representing it in brick and mortar.

That is why we need such a great architect for such a great space. The skateboarding and melitensia boffins simply wouldn’t do. Whatever Piano chooses to freeze will very likely be worth the trouble, because he is Renzo Piano.

Ditch campaign spending limits

I had intended to write about this for some time and a post about ditching single transferable vote (STV) and an excellent (as usual) op-ed from Times columnist Mark-Anthony Falzon provided the final push. This time it’s about ditching the limitation on campaign spending. For two reasons. First, in our particular case, because it is ridiculously low. Second, as a matter of principle, limitations on one’s freedom to express onself a fortiori as part of an electoral campaign should be a very rare exception, not the rule.

First of all, the relevant provision (Section 46) from the Electoral (Polling) Ordinance:

Subject to such exception as may be allowed in pursuance of this Ordinance, no sum shall be paid and no expense shall be incurred by a candidate at an election or his election agent, whether before, during, or after an election on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of such election, in excess of one thousand and three hundred and ninety-seven euro and sixty two cents (1,397.62):

Rev. Joe Borg, who has commented on this on a couple of occasions, points out:

A number of politicians are under the impression that this limit only starts when the elections are called and applies for the 30 days of a campaign. Nowhere in the law is there that sort of stipulation, though I hasten to add that I don’t know whether there were any specific cases in court which gave some form of interpretation or another.

That’s because the law is intended to be well and truly punitive. Some leeway is allowed for the European Parliament election with the limit going up to €18,169.08 which is not enough to send one leaflet by ordinary mail to all the households in your constituency. And while one may claim that the Electoral Ordinance was enacted in other times when the value of the lira was higher than what it was today and if lawmakers can be accused of anything it’s neglect the limitation on expenditure for EP elections was imposed by a legal notice published in 2004.

Why do we continue to actively impose such a ludicrous restriction? Falzon has an explanation:

So why pick on money? I suspect it has to do with an unfortunate cultural aversion to money. Like sex, even as we all want more of it, we persist in thinking it’s evil. The less tentative answer is that expenditure can be controlled while charisma, softened consonants, chiselled features, and the shape of down below cannot. It is also an answer which leaves us at square one, that is, it is impossible for each of us to have an equal chance of being elected.

Falzon then gives some examples why recognition for what he stands for helped Norman Lowell and not Mary Gauci and why Simon Busuttil raced far ahead of his colleagues in votes when he had not done the same regarding spending.

That’s probably true considering that we’re ready to close an eye to a hugely unfairer advantage than money. I’m pretty sure Attard-Montalto outspent Marlene Mizzi. But what did it was not money, which in the first count left the standing MEP five thousands votes behind Labour’s newcomer, but the alphabet. Thanks to that, in the twenty-sixth count, Attard-Montalto received the lion’s share of Claudette Abela-Baldacchino’s votes, putting him in pole position. At electiontime it’s always better to be an Abdilla than a monied Zerafa.

Falzon makes another important point: wealth is entwined with social life to the point that a candidate can hardly be said to be spending money on, say, entertaining friends, without that being campaigning. Falzon emphaises the inevitability but the point he makes also go to show unreasonable is a law which, while superficially may regulate campaigning, also intrudes on our social and personal lives and our right to spend our money in the way we like.

Considering that in Japan they have a silly prohibition on door-to-door campaigning we should count ourselves lucky.

Think global, act local

Bloggers have been chipping in on the future of the Green Party following its abysmal performance at the EP election earlier this month. Most of them are present or former officials or, at least, sympathisers so one cannot doubt their bona fides when they give advice.

Most of what they propose mistakes means for ends, not unlike Nationalists’ attempts at soul-searching, which assume that doing things differently will result in outcomes which are both different and desirable. That, as everyone should know, is not necessarily the case.

But even if it were, that can, at most, be described as some sort of tactics and strategy which a party in such a parlous state would need. The only proposal which comes close to being the latter (except, that is, for Michael Briguglio’s suggestion to go “radical”) is to have the Party build a strong presence at the level of local government where electing representatives has higher political and mathematical chances and, having built the foundations (or, to be greener, grown grassroots), get a fighting chance to score some success in general election.

That might be good approach. But the Greens have been there before. In the first ever electoral cycle of local councils (1993-94) the Greens managed to elect no less than eight local councillors: in Attard, Balzan, Birkirkara, Ħamrun, in the Labour stronghold of Pembroke and even south of the Maltese Weisswuräkwator in Fgura.

Now, I’m in no position to know whether this was the result of a deliberate strategic choice of the Party. But when you compare the number of candidates fielded by the Party in the 1993-94 cycle — 30 candidates in localities all across the country — to the 16 candidates fielded in the latest cycle (2007-2009) standing almost exclusively in “favourable” localities you realise that then the Party was trying harder.

With the wisdom of some hindsight we know that the Greens’ presence at a local level was not of much consequence. The Greens failed to make any impact in the 1996 general election and were decimated in local elections in the subsequent electoral cycles. Change of strategy? Possibly. But it is more likely that here was a case where the national impinged on the local. The Greens’ 1993-94 local successes followed a comfortable Nationalist general election victory in 1992 and their subsequent defeats followed (or just preceded) a Nationalist defeat in the general election in 1996.

An important thing happened in the last EP election. Until now the fact that Labour “won” local and European elections not because it attracted votes but because would-be Nationalist voters stayed at home, gave some justified hope to the governing Party that it’s supporters could be counted upon come general election day. This time round Labour won unequivocally. True, an EP election victory is not immediately translatable into a general election victory but this time Labour’s case of a Party attractive to voters will be stronger. That means that that is less opportunity for the Greens to act as some sort of “half-way house” if, come 2013, voters desert the Nationalist Party.

That may not be a certitude but it’s a liklihood nonetheless. Which adds to the urgency of James’ call for the Party to divest itself of the role it has played for the last two decades or, rather, for the period the Nationalists were in government.

Of course, that it has acted in this role for so long will make it difficult to step out of . Briguglio’s call for more “radicalism”, whatever that means, is hardly a receipe for expanding the Party’s voter base enough to take more serious jolts than the one received some weeks ago. So while it is good to see someone like Carmel Cacopardo so sanguine about the result, the Green Party current predicament is probably rosy in comparison to a post-Nationalist scenario.

Ditch STV

Following my post on how this EP election has pulled the plug on the Greens’ perennial complaint about how the electoral system disadvantages them, a commenter made the point that, still, the electoral system needs to be reformed.

Agreed, and I take the opportunity to say how. There is still reason to change the single transferable vote (STV) system at all levels of election: local, national and European. Reasons? First, it can still result in mathematical anomalies. Not all these anomalies will necessarily result in serious consequences (as was in the 1981 general election) but they are still the source of unfair outcomes. Second, STV is unnecessarily complicated. That might sound as a purely aesthetic reason but I believe that the simpler the system the more transparent the process.

Two premises need addressing. The first — and the most controversial — is to prohibit cross-party transfers. STV’s most important count is the last one when it becomes known who are the representatives elected. This is completely at odds with every single Maltese’s view on which is the most important count: the first. The evidence is all over the place: in 1981 the Nationalists protested the fact that the technical and political outcome of the final count was different from the first and in 2009 Labour is celebrating a victory of 54 to 40 percent of the first preference votes not 4 to 2 MEPs.

This was, in my view, the greatest shortcoming of the 1994 Gonzi report on electoral reform. In its aim to retain the same way of voting but with a different method of counting the commission which drew up the report proposed a system which had two irreconcilable features: proportional representation based on first preference votes and the possibility that these votes move to other parties (thus disrupting the original proportionality) in subsequent counts.

As the suggestion to cross-voting was a prominent over at J’Accuse in the run-up to the election I will take some time to address this feature of STV. Jacques suggested to readers to give their first preference to the Greens’ Cassola, second to Labour’s Mizzi or Grech and third to Nationalist Demicoli. The reason given was that ideally try to ensure that Malta has representatives in three EP groups, in this case the Greens, the Socialists and the People’s Party.

Jacques is wrong mathematically (he also gives the wrong reasons for suggesting a higher preference to Labour candidate than a Nationalist candidate but I will not go into that). STV is not the Eurovision Song Contest where you give douze points to one candidate, ten to another and eight to another (which, incidentally, is the central feature of another preferential system, the “Borda count“). You see, it’s called single transferable vote for a reason. Jacques’ vote could not have contributed to electing more than one candidate: it would move from Cassola to Mizzi only if Cassola was eliminated from the race or if Cassola was elected and Jacques’ vote was part of the surplus (i.e. in excess and not needed by Cassola to be elected).

If Jacques concern was electing an MEP in as many groupings as possible he could have equally voted exclusively for the candidates of the Greens or Labour or the Nationalists and the mathematical chances would have been the same. Knowing from past experience and from polls that the Labour and Nationalist Party would have definitely elected at least one MEP, Jacques could have voted for Cassola and Ebejer-Arqueros only and his original aim would still have been achived. The restriction on cross-party voting would not have altered any of his ultimate intentions.

Cross-party transfers are an unnecessary complication which only stands in the way of national proportionality and serves as a source of possible anomalies (see here and here for examples with regards to casual elections, by way of mentioning just one). Prohibiting them would be one huge step ahead. But here’s a second: end even intra-party transfers. Yeah, that’s right let’s ditch the preferential system completely. Why? Because it is a complete waste of time.

Professor John C. Lane who has studied Maltese STV wrote an essay on the matter. His conclusion? That “STV vote transfers create results which, to a remarkable degree, a simpler process could also have achieved” because most candidates who are in the lead in the first count eventually are elected. The outcome of this year’s EP election adds justification to another speculation: that when candidates in the lead in the first count fail to be elected it is thanks to their rank on the ballot sheet which in Malta is determined — very unfairly — by the alphabetical ordering of their surnames.

So there you have it. Voters vote simply by putting the mark, any mark, next to the name of one candidate. Votes are counted and parties are allocated seats proportionately which are then filled by the candidates for that party who have the most votes. Counting votes would not take days and can even be made electronic (the counting, not the voting) in that the technology that recognises a mark is simpler and, therefore, cheaper than one which has to recognise the myriad ways in which voters write their “1″s and their “7″s across party lines.

We woz right

The results of an election are archived and so it’s time for MaltaToday to pat itself on the back about its “spot-on” pre-electoral surveys. Labour’s final tally was pretty close to the limit of the margin of error in the survey but, rest assured, it could have been a different thing altogether and the paper would have found something to explain why it was still right along the way.

Which, by the way, also makes the EMCS survey carried out in the Sunday Times the week before the election accurate. MaltaToday ran the story — on its front page — that the man behind it was Stefano Mallia, a close collaborator and business partner of Simon Busuttil. Shock. Scandal. The Nationalist strategy behind the survey was revealed: the party was deliberately trying to make the results look better for Labour so as to get out its apathetic vote.

Then it dawned on the paper that EMCS’ survey gave Labour only one percent more (and, it turned out, was one percent more accurate) than its own survey. But still it was unconvinced because there’s always some Nationalists pefidry if you speculate hard enough. And then it turned out that the EMCS survey gave the Greens a much lower figure — which, again, proved to be accurate — and the paper that’s run by a publishing house that’s like the political retirement home of former officials and candidates of the Green Party cried foul.

Post hoc, the paper offers an explanation for the Cassola “fluke”. Only the statistical “fluke” mind you: how lowering the bar for the Greens could have aided the Nationalist cause was never explained. The important thing is that MediaToday papers never get it wrong. And that if Richard Cachia-Caruana gets sent to the European Commission in November someone else — in this case, Simon Busuttil — will fill in the role of the paper’s pet hate.

The also-rans

Maltastar reports that Green Party chair Arnold Cassola was perplexed when asked by a Net TV journalist if he thought that emulating Labour had been the wrong formula. Really? I mean, was he the only person not to notice? In any case, it should not have come as a surpire. The wheels had come off the Greens’ campaign long before.

It all started on the wrong foot by choosing the Party chair to appear on the ballot paper. But it was evident that things were going wrong when, for whatever reason, the campaign changed tack late in the day. The trans-European slogan of “Energy, Experience, Europe” with which the Maltese Greens started their campaign was ditched in favour of “Yes, we can”. It was dull but other Green Paries did fine with it. Our Greens then came with something else: “Yes, we can”. If the first slogan required little thinking the second betrayed a sense of desperation in getting hold of the first thing that came to mind while struggling uphill.

Thing started going really pear-shaped when the Party decided to become some sort of lighter version of the Labour Party. Vote for the Greens ”to send government a strong message”, Cassola said in the final week. Er, where had we heard that before? And if sending a message is the issue how could it be stronger the voting for the stronger Party promising to do so? In the end even references to the “Green New Deal” disappeared (while Cassola spoke, for example of the Delimara power station) as the Green chairman proudly announced that they’re for a “Social Europe”. You’d half expected him to announce that his will be the name right below Abela-Baldacchino’s on the ballot sheet.

The result was what it was. It should be an eye-opener for at least two reasons. First, it shows the Greens’ 2004 result could very well be an isolated episode and how damaging the Party’s complacency and the over-confidence were in subsequent years despite flunking electoral tests on both a local and national level. Second, the Party has one excuse less: the electoral system. No electoral system with its ”anointing” of the runner-up well behind the quota could have been more advantageous to the Greens. They failed a singular opportunity which is unlikely to appear ever again.

With it is also buried a type of argument which says that, while it is true that the Greens’ showing in general elections is poor to deserve of itself parliamentary representation, a more advantageous system could — hypothetically — attract more voters. Well, here was such an election which, in addition, had none of the high stakes of a general election and none of the fear that voting Green meant aiding another Party to power and still …

Still, the Party is not deterred … in blaming the electoral system. The MaltaToday interviewer rightly asked the Party Secretary General why … there was a national quota this time around. The reply was that “we still have a block-vote culture and that is part of the system”. Galea goes on to complain that he is yet to see one of the bigger parties promoting the benefits of cross voting and that until Saturday morning, people were still asking him whether cross voting would invalidate their votes. Which means that the problem is not the electoral system but that each Party takes care of its own. The concept should not be to strange of the Greens: in 2003 even when EU membership was at stake, they still campaigned for first preference votes, risking Malta’s membership.

And if there are people who are not sure if cross-voting invalidates the vote there are many more who know the correct answer. Quite a few of them in fact gave their first preference to Norman Lowell and, despite not being exactly political brethren, continued with their preferences on the Greens.

Well, what difference would it have made, anyway? Cassola started with over five thousand votes. Cuschieri, last to be “elected”, made it with close to thirty thousand. Still some way off, even with whatever number of later preferences you can expect to draw. The Green Party may not be dead after this election although it is still to be seen whether it will be back from its “also-ran” status. What’s definitly dead and gone is the electoral system excuse and the reason to be indignant about it.

Post-Electoral

It’s over and Labour won handily. Yes, the fourth MEP is only thanks to an act of unprecedented stupidity from id-Dar Centrali effectively throwing away the possibility of a third Nationalist seat. Yes, Labour’s vote tally this year is less than what it was only last year. But then in a general election – for this is what everyone really cares about – Labour has only to stay one vote ahead of the Nationalists to win.

Judging by the Muscat’s campaigning alone the success is well and truly deserved. The Labour leader is almost all that his predecessor wasn’t: he has charisma, he is at ease with people and he has none of the bitterness and paranoia that characterised Sant’s attitude post-1998.

Muscat has also dropped some baggage he can do without. He’s less of a One News journalist; the failure of Abela-Baldacchino’s and Bedingfield’s bids goes to show how that image does not find much favour outside Labour’s core. And his four years’ experience as an MEP and familiarity with big shots in the Party of European Socialists made him perceived as less of a eurosceptic, another image whose lack of “pull” these days was demostated by Ellul-Bonici’s performance. Muscat’s Labour is definitely a winning outfit.

Note please, that I say Muscat’s Labour. The formula has worked in an election where the entire country is considered a single constituency and a national profile counts for a lot. Case in point is Joseph Cuschieri’s election: an MP who’s always struggled to be elected in his district and always through casual election assumed national visiblity just by giving up his seat. It’s, of course, a different matter in general elections where local matters matter more and the less savoury side of Labour cannot be so easily hidden away.

So Labour is justified in celebrating. The question is will the party drag for the rest of the legislature? That’s between three and four years. To date there was always a set of local council elections to keep the morale high and to get Jason Micallef to say, in 2006, that with an EP victory under its belt and two rounds of local elections the Party was cruising to a general election victory. If the proposed reform of local councils goes through we won’t see another round of local elections before 2012 and little to give Labour an adrelanin rush except for, perhaps, a maratona gbir ta’ fondi.

Which could give some breating space for the Nationalist government to recover. Note again, that I do not refer to the Party. It’s likely that the cleanup the Party needs can only come after a general election – whether the Party wins that or not – a matter on which Nationalist voters can usually be counted on. And I hope it will not mean that the Party will become less ambitious. Times columnist Mark-Anthony Falzon has already expressed his concern that the poor result for the Nationalists might lead to relaxation of, say, planning regulations. The Nationalist might lose the battle if they set the bar high (and joining the eurozone showed that that is not necessarily so) but they can still win the proverbial war.

Which again brings me to Labour. Undeniably, Muscat’s “coalition” is highly opportunistic. I need not make a list of gripes but it is obvious that quite a few are irreconcilable: with the new European reality, with the rule of law and even with and of themselves. I’m thinking of things like immigration here where Labour’s “twenty points” would lead not only to a mighty diplomatic war with Italy but enstrangement, if not suspension, from the EU. I’m thinking of the Party’s calls to reduce taxation and increase welfare benefits, compounded of late with the complaint that the government has reduced its budget for capital expenditure.

For Muscat, as I said earlier, is “almost all” Sant wasn’t. One thing the two leaders share is that their concerns never went beyond winning the next general election. Cobbling together a “coalition” (anyone remember Sant’s “maggoranza gdida“?) in opposition is one thing. Holding it together is a totally different matter.

Days of Reflection

This blog is going “ballistic” according to Jacques (he who in the last couple of days has covered this blog almost as much as he has covered the election). But if this blog is going anywhere it’s offline. Thanks to disruption of the internet service, the traditional day of reflection at Thermidor will be extended to two.

Meanwhile, keep on following J’Accuse. Who knows? The blog owner might take some time off waffling and suggesting to readers how to vote and explain how (and why) he managed to mangle a four word campaign slogan. Some people, like Vince Farrugia and David Casa, should be rebuked for resorting to a easy copy-and-paste exercises when they shouldn’t; others for being incapable of something so easy … when they should.

Surveys independent and not

MaltaToday leads with the story that Stefano Mallia, who’s involved in Simon Busuttil’s campaign, was the man behind the last Sunday Times survey giving Labour a 10-point lead on the Nationalists.

The Sunday Times clearly indicated that the survey was carried out by EMCS Ltd and for years Mallia had written articles in the Indy signing off as one of the directors of the company. But somehow MaltaToday still considered this as a scoop and worthy of its front page.

And what’s the big deal? Were the survey results were tinkered with like Sarkozy’s slogan on J’Accuse? And, in any case, to what end? MaltaToday hints how:

Central to the PN strategy is propping up the Labour vote, in a bid to encourage Nationalist voters to come out to vote and minimise PN losses.

So forget the Sunday Times survey, a paper which presumably is so subject to Nationalist manipulation that in the same edition it reported on an email by the same Mallia asking Nationalist candidates not to disclose to journalists the campaign expenses so far. Find yourself an independent survey. Like the one carried out by MaltaToday which gave Labour … wait for it … a lead of a 9 percentage points.

MaltaToday, however, is undeterred:

But subtle differences between the two surveys are worthy of note: the MaltaToday survey gives AD 4.1% of the vote, while the EMCS gives it just 0.25%.

So that’s what it boils down to: the EMCS is stringier with the Greens. But how’s that part of “Nationalist stategy” other than perhaps irritating Cassola who has refused to believe a survey giving “Others” just over 3.5% of the vote? How does minimalising the Green vote, which is just about the only thing MaltaToday can charge EMCS with, encourage Nationalist voters to come out and vote?

There are different, simpler and more straightforward explanations. One is that the Sunday Times is MaltaToday’s competition. The other explanation is a consequence of the first: conspiracy stories sell.

Reduce. Re-use. Re-cycle.

You will not read about this in J’Accuse even though at one point it seemed that the man could not get enough reminding us that the Nationalist slogan for the 2008 general election “Flimkien kollox possibli” was plagiarised from Sarkozy’s 2007 presidential campaign slogan. Sarkozy’s slogan, by the way, was “Ensemble tout devient possible” (“Flimkien kollox isir possibli“) not “Ensemble tout est possible” (“Flimkien kollox [huwa] possibli“) which Jacques regularly uses. But I guess some freedom with translation should be allowed when such an important point is being made.

Then the Nationalist came up with “Flimkien ingibu izjed xoghol ghalik” and Jacques was still on the matter because presumably one word out of five still constitutes plagiarism. By the way, the Nationalist slogan for the 1981 election was “Flimkien ghal hajja ahjar“. And Labour’s in 1992 was “Flimkien nibnu mill-gdid“. There, now you know where Sarkozy got his “Ensemble” from.

Recycling of political slogans is very common. Which is why I wouldn’t have cared much for the Greens using “Yes we can”. But Jacques is busy using inch space on the Indy for vote phishing for Cassola (if Jacques were serious in wanting to spread Malta’s MEPs amongst as many political formations as possible and giving higher preferences to candidates who least stand to be elected he’d be giving his first preference to John Zammit). So duty demands that I step in.

I had already said that the Greens slogan of “Energija. Esperjenza. Ewropa.“, borrowed (or “plagiarised” — depends how you want to see it) from the European Greens was lame. It’s lame in and of itself. But all the more so when applied to the case of the Maltese Greens. Experience is an important political asset. But it’s not the only one and when you don’t have it you don’t use it as a selling point. What political experience does Yvonne Ebejer-Arqueros have?

Halfway during the campaign Cassola patted himself on the back (“I have experience yada, yada, yada”) but ruefully noted that Ebejer-Arqueros was a “political rookie” (albeit with other qualities which, albeit, are not political experience). So the Greens decided to change slogan, possibly when a poll whose result was to their liking came along. And if not much thinking was used to come up with first much less was used for this second one. Anything that been better tested than “Yes we can”?

Neither spin nor scaremongering

Jacques called it “malicious spin that was probably suggested by the gossip inspired mentors hired by stamperija” and James has called it “scaremongering”:

I was shocked by David Casa’s scaremongering about migrants being given the right to vote and determine who wins local elections in B’Bugia and Safi. He went as far as saying that in a local council with 5 members the mayor will be elected by the immigrants who will elect the decisive seat. Talk has never been so cheap. For we should all know that the EU parliament has simply proposed granting voting rights to legal foreign residents and refugees and not to irregular migrants.

Not quite. The Socialists, Greens and Communists in the EP voted for a rider to Simon Busuttil’s own initiative report to grant immigrants the right to vote in local council elections. Here’s Cassola in an article entitled “Three misleading facts” (sic!) where he attempts to ward off Nationalist criticism on how the European Greens voted:

First misleading fact: The word “migrants” has always been used, giving the impression that illegal and irregular migrants will be given the right to vote. Wrong. It is only legal migrants, with regular residence permits, after living a number of years in the country, who would be given the right to vote. Translated into hard facts, this means that only the Swiss, Norwegians, Canadians, Australians, Americans, South Americans, Africans, Chinese etc. living in Malta legally with legal residence would be given the right to vote.

Cassola either didn’t read the report or hopes nobody does. Here it is and the relevant paragraph:

32.  Recalls that a key element is the inclusion of migrant organisations who play unique roles in the integration process by giving migrants opportunities for democratic participation; calls on the Members States to facilitate systems for the support of civil society in the integration process through enabling  migrants’ presence in the host society’s civil and political life, enabling participation in political parties, trade unions and the opportunity to vote in local elections;

Anyone spot distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants? Note the context. Can you explain how the supporters of the rider could have had Cassola’s Swiss “migrant” in mind when they’re talking about inclusion and integration?

That’s not even the fundamental point. Cassola gratuitously claims that the Nationalists “no qualms in sowing the seeds of racial hatred”. That’s rich considering that it’s Cassola who’s taking full advantage of Maltese prejudices which persist in referring to “illegal immigrants” even in the case of those who have been granted refugee or humanitarian status. We have even managed to make a noun out of the adjective “illegal” just to make sure that the arrivals from Africa are forever tarred.

Of course, Maltese prejudices don’t count for much in the EP. What counts is what is stated in laws. And those state that anyone with a refugee or humanitarian status is a legal resident irrespective of whether the entry was legal or illegal. In Malta they can also work and if James was positively impressed with Cassola’s claim that immigrants should be integrated in the legal economy where they’d pay tax and national insurance contributions someone ought to draw his attention to a recent PQ according to which some 1,000 refugees, people on humanitarian status and asylum seekers are legally employed. That’s close to half of those who are no longer in detention.

One final point James find compelling about Cassola is the view that immigrants should not be “repatriated” to Libya unless this country signs the Geneva Convention. Uh? Who’s “repatriating” immigrants to Libya? I assume that Cassola was referring to the Italian practice of returning boat people rescued in international waters to Libya. Even then, that’s what the Italians are doing and, as far as I know, the Maltese government policy of taking in people rescued at sea when the nearest safe port is Malta, has not changed. Cassola should remember that it’s an election in Malta that he’s contesting this year. Not one in Italy.

Dull and duller

Just when you thought it couldn’t get more uninteresting, it does. In the final stage of last year’s general election campaign Alfred Sant produced a document which claimed that the decision to charge for health services was a fait accompli, leading the erstwhile Labour leader to speculate that implementation was postponed only thanks to an election coming up.

One year on, Lawrence Gonzi is still PM and yet, no fees.

But there’s another electoral campaign on. So Joseph Muscat produced another report which makes a number of recommendations one of which is a “registration fees” for patients and a similar claim that the decision will be implemented after the election. The claim this time fell even more flat. First, because it is not original. Second, because while Labour’s campaigning might have given a different impression, Lawrence Gonzi will still be PM after June 6.

The GWU is valiantly playing its part in trying to “save” the story for Labour:

The GWU has called on the government to issue a clear statement that public health services would remain free of charge.

It said it was concerned about reports that the government had commissioned and discussed a report which recommended payment for public health services.

While recognising that health services imposed a burden on state finances, the GWU said it firmly stood by its belief that essential social services, including health services, should remain free of charge for all, and the government, therefore, should not abdicate its responsibilities.

Gonzi has done that a year ago and there is nothing to make one think that government policy has changed. And if there’s anyone who has to be asked the question is Labour who have never expressed a change of heart on fees it introduced on health services while it was in government. True, that was 1998. But then it was also against EU membership, a policy matter which it eventually reviewed after “accepting the people’s verdict”.

Meanwhile, on this same matter Professor Scicluna keeps on finding himself in the limelight when he’d rather weren’t. When an interview with him from last year was aired when he expressed doubts of the continued sustainability of free health services Joseph Muscat simply dismissed it off with “ask him”. Scicluna had to issue a press release claiming that he said not such thing in the interview. Here’s the interview. Forward to 9:00 and watch Scicluna saying that no country can today afford the best health for free without restrictions.

Equally interesting is Scicluna’s claims that the Maltese NHS has been found to be “40% inefficient”. Aside from the fact that I’ve still to hear of a public service that so perfectly well-oiled it runs like a perpetual motion machine, what could contribute to such high percentage? Procurement of more staplers than the service needs? Copies in quadruplicate? Or — to take a leaf from Scicluna version 2008 — overmanning at the Health Division? There’s a remedy if the problem is indeed the last one. But I’m sure no politician wants to go there.

Much to be upbeat about

After slamming surveys when the result was not to his liking, the Green Party chairman feels upbeat when the result is:

Alternattiva Demokratika candidates for the European Parliament Arnold Cassola and Yvonne Aquieros Ebejer were upbeat yesterday at a press conference to publicise the Europe-wide ‘Predict09’ survey that puts the Greens at 6.3% of the vote for 6 June- up from 1.9% in the first edition of the survey.

“It is true that polls are what they are, but scientific surveys may provide good indications,” AD chairman and MEP candidate Arnold Cassola said.

Only a few weeks before, MaltaToday, which carried the report, revealed that Predict09 is not based on domestic polling but “imputed” from the results of the 2004 EP election and the 2008 general election. Hardly what one could call a “scientific survey”.

That won’t dent the upbeat feeling it seems because Cassola goes on:

“On 6 June, we will be voting to elect five seats now and a sixth one in January – depending on what comes out of the Lisbon Treaty Irish referendum,” he added. “We envisage the sixth seat being ours because four seats are elected with full quota and the fifth and the sixth are elected from the leftovers.”

The assumption there is definitely far from being scientific. But that’s tame compared to what comes next:

“Malta is the only EU member state to be represented by just two parties in the European Parliament. This is neither the case with Liechtenstein nor with Monaco.

Pity the poor Labour MEPs who are mocked for pushing the wrong buttons. This is the former Secretary-General of the European Green Party running a campaign where “experience” is an integral part of the electoral slogan. Does he know which European states are in the EU and which aren’t?

Who’ll do the deciding?

This blog has followed the transformation of Professor Edward Scicluna from academic economist to Labour politician. Admittedly, I did not see the final outcome coming but — with the wisdom of hindsight — it did explain a few things which I had found perplexing at the time.

Let’s set aside Scicluna’s botched prediction that Malta would not make it into the eurozone. The man has held some strong views on the sustainability of various cases of state generosity. The shipyards? Subsidy of wages and low productivity for two decades. Tertiary education? Provided for free with a small salary for students to boot. Pensions? The most generous in Europe. The public sector? Over-staffed. He even seemed to have had a problem with the health sector being free.

Can’t say I ever found anything strange, in those opinions. Hell, I actually agree with them. What I found strange that Scicluna’s list did not include the complaint that in Malta fuel and energy were some of the most subsidised in Europe. Indeed, Scicluna led the charge against the hiking of tariffs which is what made him a strong contender to secure a place on the ballot paper as a Labour candidate. And that’s the point where the transformation from economist to politician occured.

Fair enough. But someone had to pop the question. MaltaToday’s Raphael Vassallo thankfully did:

Still, while Scicluna is scathing about the Gonzi’s administration’s economic skills, it remains debatable whether a Labour government will heed his own advice, and embark on the necessary reforms: which include a revision of the university stipend system, and also control of expenditure on public health. What does Edward Scicluna recommend for a political hot potato like stipends?

Labour will not heed Scicluna’s advice: the Party leader, as has become habitual before every election, is claiming the Government has the intention to start charging for primary health services once polling is over. But if Scicluna is in the wrong party that can hardly be held against him: he’s not the only one as this campaign has demonstrated. It’s his weasel answer which leaves one feeling shortchanged as he morphs once more, this time from politician back to economist:

“It would be very presumptuous of me to say that we should ‘do away’ with stipends,” he replies cautiously. “But even a recent European Commission document suggests that they are a burden on the system. But these are things the taxpayer has to decide. Does the taxpayer want to keep subsidising university students? If not, there are a number of ways the system can be revised. They could be converted to loans, or grants, or part-loans, part-grants… it’s not up to me to decide how to reform the system.”

“The taxpayer has to decide”? Unless there is a box in the income tax form where one expresses himself and which I have missed, taxpayers express themselves in elections. And they do not get to chose between whether they want tertiary education subsidised but between this party and that and this candidate and that. Once elected and given a mandate it’s the politician that has to take the decision, hopefully based on what he promised during the campaign.

Professor Scicluna, come June, that’ll probably be you.

That 80%

Josie Muscat, leader of National Action:

He told a press conference that most of the initiatives going on in Malta, from the environment to education, from changes to the law to building regulations were all being done at the behest of the EU. And while most of this was good and acceptable, as nothing would otherwise have been done, it was important to realise that, with the coming into effect of the Treaty of Lisbon, over 80% of Malta laws would emanate from Brussels and Strasbourg.

That’s a non seq. A sentence which starts with “and while most of this was good and acceptable” you’d expect to finish with something like “some was bad and unacceptable”. Which, of course, would have called for another sentence with elaborations and the details.

Instead we were informed that with the Treaty of Lisbon over 80% of Maltese laws would be transpositions of EU law. That’s a suspicious figure. I’ve seen it bandied about in connection with Nice (2002) and Amsterdam (1997). Which would mean that, despite the eurosceptics’ complaints that more powers are progressively transferred to Brussels, the figure has remained the same.

But even if that 80% were accurate how was it calculated? Is it 80% of the number of laws? If that’s the case then that’s not particularly relevant. It should be obvious that not all laws have same scope, impact and, consequently, importance. And let’s not forget that if this figure was calculated on what’s the case in other EU countries a good part of the EU acquis (e.g. rail transport, safety at nuclear reactors) does not apply to Malta.

Here’s a more significant non seq:

The Maltese, Dr Muscat said, must start learning how the EU worked, for the real Parliament would soon not be the national one but the one in Europe. And hence it made sense to send to Europe not mere representatives of parties, but people motivated by a sense of duty and patriotism who would not hesitate to take on the other 700 if needs be.

People who are “motivated by a sense of duty and patriotism” are not necessarily ones who know “how the EU worked”. They’re the kind who wouldn’t hesitate “to take on the other 700″ precisely because they do not now how the European Parliament works.

Mental break

Watch this video. The accompanying text:

A Catholic church in Malaysia which prays to Allah has prompted a court case over who can use the word.

Muslim leaders say Islam should be the only faith to use it, saying its use in other faiths could lead to confusion and conversions.

This is from the video commentary (at 0:31):

The church says that the national language in this country uses the word “Allah” for “God” …

Significantly, it is the Catholic Church which has taken the matter to Court.

Pride comes before a fall

It may be a few days old (apologies for my slow blogging) but I can’t let the news item of Arnold Cassola having a Harry Vassallo moment go by:

AD was on its way to winning a seat in the European Parliament, chairman and MEP candidate Arnold Cassola said.

Addressing an EP elections campaign activity he said that AD had a very good fighting chance, even more so now that Malta would probably get six seats in the European Parliament.

Surveys quoted by the Times and one carried out by MaltaToday would indicate otherwise. But Cassola has explanations:

He said that surveys quoted by The Sunday Times today gave 56 to 57 percent to the PL and 40 percent to the PN.

“This anonymous survey is very difficult to believe. So according to The Sunday Times, all other parties will get just over 3.5 percent,” he asked.

And 3.5% for the also-rans is, of course, difficult to believe. But there’s information which, it seems, the chaps at Allied Newspapers are keeping under wraps:

Prof. Cassola said that The Sunday Times failed to report that AD’s share of the vote in scientific polls was increasing.

“The reality is that scientific polls show that AD is on its way to win a seat in the European Parliament. We can do it. Yes we can. Malta needs a third voice in the European Parliament. Pluralism will show that Malta is a serious and modern country.”

Which scientific polls are that? And is their some tactical reason why they are being kept hidden? To keep Green Party supporters from thinking that the seat is in the bag and stay home on the e-day?

Preparing a contingency plan would be so much better than speculating in an unlikely direction. If the Greens manage only 2-3% in the EP election and fail to re-elect a local councillor in Birkirkara it’s serious strouble. The general election and previous local council results have shown that the Party’s 2004 was not the beginning of a winning streak but a one-off. In 2009 it might turn out to be seen as beginners’ luck, the novelty of a new election. After that it would be no more than a distant memory.

And now?

The Times‘ “Latest News” service reports:

A group of 33 migrants landed in Qbajjar Bay, near Marsalforn, Gozo this afternoon.

The migrants, 32 men and one woman, arrived on a small boat at about 5.30 p.m.

They have been held by the police.

Meanwhile, informed sources said that a much larger boat also arrived in Sicily this afternoon. The migrants have been arrested by the Italian authorities.

If anyone was observing carefully, when Italy returned migrants back to Libya it rescued them in international waters. But probably everyone  was busy patting himself on the back and thinking “I’ve been vindicated“. Well these 33 newcomers are on Maltese turf and have a right to claim asylum.

Are we still within Muscat’s quota? Would he opt for the “JPO solution” and put them back on a boat and hope they’ll be gone to Sicily? Would Cassola still call Maroni “xenophobic”? (That, by the way, was before Maroni became every Maltese politician’s best friend).

Wasn’t me. Or him.

After trying to pass the buck one way the Electoral Commission is now trying to shift blame in another direction for striking off more than 900 voters off the electoral register:

The Commission explained that the voters were struck off because a proviso of the relevant EU directive had not been reproduced in Maltese law in a manner that was identical to the directive.

The proviso says that EU nationals included in the electoral register shall continue to be shown on the register until they request to be struck off, or until they are no longer qualified to vote.

More than five years have passed since the Maltese law was passed, an election has already been held under its provisions and only now they notice?

Wasn’t me

The decision to strike off 900+ voters has been reversed. The Electoral Commission has an explanation:

The Commission recalled that it had issued a notice inviting non-Maltese EU nationals who wished to vote in Malta to complete the required form. In September, the Electoral Commission’s secretary had a meeting with Julian Vassallo, head of the European Parliament office in Malta, who was given a copy of the notice before its publication. He had not objected to it.

It was in this context that the commission gave the go ahead for the publication of the register.

And yet, the European Parliament Elections Act mentions no European Parliament Office taking decisions on the electoral process. The deserved reply:

In a reaction, Dr Vassallo welcomed the Electoral Commission’s decision but said the commission had completely misrepresented the discussion that was held in September. At the time, he said, his Office had complained that non-Maltese EU citizens who had come to Malta since 2004 were not given enough time to apply to be part of the electoral register. He criticised the fact that the commission was ‘trying to shift the blame’ on the EP office instead of having the humility to admit its own mistakes.

The vanished 900

Josanne Cassar in today’s Independent:

So I was just musing to myself… why would the two major parties strike foreign nationals off the register? Do the spies at Dar Centrali and Centru Laburista know something we don’t know when it comes to their voting preferences?

Then I chided myself for being so paranoid. After all, that would mean that there are databases on every single voter in Malta indicating their political leanings.

Ocham’s razor encourages to go for the simpler hypothesis and here’s one: this Electoral Commission seems to prefer to choose the shorter, easier route.

Last year before the general election it was the decision to re-print the ballot papers of the ninth district after Nationalist candidate Albert Rizzo passed away. This year there was the decision on Norman Lowell’s candidature. An interlocutor in the Chronicle who took some interest in the matter quizzed me on why I did not object. I did explain that I cannot care much for matters which, in themselves, are and will be of no consequence. But that’s beside the point. If anything, an explantion how Lowell’s candidature could be considered admissible was given by Jacques. And if the Electoral Commission can be considerd as the “guardian” of electoral laws, it could have alerted cabinet that, while the Constitution was being amended, the relative part in the European Parliament Elections Act was not.

None of this happened. Probably it would have required too much effort. The Electoral Commission has now built a track record of sorts of taking “ad hoc” decisions without giving a cursory glance to the statute book.

Talking to myself? Could be. After all why should one mind the removal of the name of a dead man from the ballot paper even is such a situation is not contemplated by the law?

It should because, togther with many other dubious decisions, it starts telling us something about the people running the electoral process. Which is why it came as little surprise that the Attorney-General, when asked for advice by the PM (he who supposedly sought to “strike foreign nationals off the register”), said that striking off voters is not allowed unless either they ask to or no longer satisfy the law’s requirements.

Cutting corners, in this case, often means taking liberties with a process that is set out in the laws. Sometimes hardly anyone notices (except for, perhaps, your truly). But when it starts becoming a habit you can expect turbulence ahead.

Playing a retreat

At a Party activity where he said that the EP is “not a place for softies” (presumably it’s like the Maltese Parliament circa 1985) Joseph Muscat spoke about divorce:

Replying to questions by John Bundy, Dr Muscat reiterated a statement he made a year ago that as Prime Minister, he would move a motion for the introduction of divorce, and give the Labour MPs a free vote because this was a personal and not a party issue. He hoped the PN would do likewise.

Uh? A year ago what he promised was legislation on divorce. That was already diluted with the other promise that he’d be given a free vote, the argument that he wouldn’t want to impose on the conscience of his MPs who were again (needless to say, between Muscat and the premiership there’s a general election and if Labour campaigns with the promise to introduce divorce the likes of Marlene Pullicino and Adrian Vassallo have ample opportunity to step aside for them to keep peace with the consiences).

Now all we’ll get is a miserable inconsequential motion which will serve little more than guaging Parlamentarians’ opinion. The Greens are also running the EP campaign promising little more than a motion on divorce but at least that’s in an election for an institution that can do nothing about the dissolution of Maltese marriages. This is even worse: Muscat as PM will be able to do something and, while giving the impression that he’ll do, it will be no more than play-acting.

Update: Not only is the Maltastar report not helpful, it adds to the confusion:

The Labour leader insisted what he had already stated during the PL leader election campaign that a PL government would pass a free vote on the introduction of divorce.

“Pass a free vote”? What the hell is that?

We’re all populist xenophobes now

Some days ago Jacques managed to see irony in a possible Berlusconi divorce and the fact that Berlusconi’s Party is a member of the same European policial party as our Nationalists who, in two decades in office, have failed to introduce divorce. That required not only considerable stretching (“the wife of the leader of one of the major partners of the Nationalist Party …”) but also the Alanis Morrisette ability to see irony in situations where it clearly isn’t.

Or take this post from James at a time, not so many days ago, when things between Malta and Italy were not too well: “It seems that Simon Busuttil is unable to convince his EPP friends in the Partito della Liberta to stop dumping migrants in Malta”. Or his concern that the Nationalist Party “has moved dangerously to the right since the departure of Eddie Fenech-Adami”.

If a non-story about a political party which might be different from another party in the same European formation or differences with a coalition partner of a European partner (stretched, isn’t it?) is worthy of the Maltese political blogosphere allow me to throw some light on the situation with the Greens especially vis-a-vis the European political party they belong to.

Until some time ago, after leaving Malta to take a number of immigrants taken just off Lampedusa and threating with doing the same again, Italian Minister Maroni was constantly in the sights of the Maltese Green Party (not the Italian outfit, by the way: they know which was their toast is buttered). You couldn’t see with all the “xenophobic” and “populist” that were bandied about. Then after Maroni got down to an agreement with the Libyans and patted his “esteemed” Maltese counterpart on the back, the Greens went silent.

Which is strange considering that under Cassola the Greens’ public relations machine churns out more press releases that Chrystal Palace bakes pastizzi on a Sunday morning. Why? Here’s a possible clue:

As an activist militating in the left-wing and ecological camp, I believe in the values of social justice and solidarity. But as a sociologist I know that these values should be implemented in a real social context and not in a make-believe world.

[...]

It is a fact that, as a small country on the EU’s frontier, Malta is receiving a disproportionate amount of illegal immigrants and this could have implications like economic and cultural implications which are not necessarily positive. For example, this could lead to exploitation of workers as I mentioned earlier and, in some circumstances, the introduction of cultural practices which would are not always acceptable in our country.

Malta should have a firmer voice in the EU on this matter, both as regards the fair distribution of numbers of immigrants amongst European countries, as well as pressure on Libya so that it co-operate on this matter.

And Libya is now “co-operating”. That, by the way, was Michael Briguglio, the Greens’ spokesperson on economic and social development as well as one of their two local councillors. Most Greens may be like watermelons but Briguglio is more of a beetroot: he’s a very deep red on the inside and the outside. But in the “real social context” there’s an election coming up. And I guess that’s where the values of social justice and solidarity are to be implemented.

A couple of days ago the Maltese Greens asked Maroni to stop playing with human lives. Presumably by taking the immigrants to Libya he stopped playing the dangerous game. In the same press release they also asked the PM to “report” his Italian counterpart to the European People’s Party to which, by the way, Maroni’s Party does not belong.

Well then, what are the Maltese Greens’ views on the “resolution” of the latest stand-off? And what would the European Green Party think of that?

Update: Andrew Sciberras attended the “What’s Left?” seminar, a yearly appointment for the odd assortment that calls itself the “Maltese left”. He reports:

AD may be more cautious [than Labour] in approach [to the question of illegal immigration] but I was not so happy with Cassola’s statement the other day (in a GWU-youths seminar on ‘What’s Left?’) who claimed that the situation is what it is … we must not discard the people’s sentiment on the issue. I’m sorry to say but the people’s sentiment is disgusting and becoming worryingly more so. The people’s sentiment is very important yes but leaders are also their to lead. It is dangerous to think that the people’s sentiment holds stronger weight than the basic rules of law.

Sciberras still labour under the illusion that Labour and the Greens can still maintain the moral high ground while “xenophobe” and “populist” are only applicable to Maroni and — by association — the Nationalist Party.

Which amendment is that?

The Electoral Commission decided that Norman Lowell, convicted of racial hatred and sentenced to a two-year jail sentence suspended for four years, is eligible to stand for the EP election:

An Electoral Commission spokesman confirmed that Mr Lowell could stand for the June 6 election and said that the 2007 amendments to the electoral law made it possible for people who were handed down a suspended sentence to be eligible to vote.

Once your name appeared on the electoral register, you were also eligible to contest the election, he added.

The Times erroneously reported yesterday that Mr Lowell is not qualified to take part in the euro parliamentary elections.

That’s when my crap detector went off. In none of the elections held in Malta — general, local and European — are qualifications for voting the same as qualifications for candidature. Which is why in the Constitution, the Local Councils Act and the European Parliament Elections Act these matters are covered by different sections of the law. Thus, for example, members of the Electoral Commission itself are obviously not allowed to stand for election while (obviously) enjoying the right to vote.

Then I dug into whatever legal amendments were enacted in 2007. And, indeed, I did find that Act XXI of 2007 at section 5 amends the Constitution so that a suspended sentence (as opposed to an executed sentence) is no longer a disqualification for standing for election.

There’s only one problem though. The Constitution regulates general elections. For the European Parliament election you’d have to refer to the European Parliament Elections Act which, as I pointed out elsewhere, at section 19(1) still states:

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, no person shall be qualified to stand for election as a member of the European Parliament or, if elected, to remain a member thereof if, whether in Malta or in any other Member State -
[...]

(e) he is serving a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) exceeding twelve months imposed on him by a court in a Member State or is under such a sentence of imprisonment the execution of which has been suspended;

The relevant section has not been amended either in 2007 or at any time since the law was enacted. Meaning that a suspended prison sentence, while not disqualifying you from being a candidate in the general election, does not allow you to stand in a European Parliament election.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and I only have access to stuff that’s online. It would be helpful if the Times journalist were to press the Electoral Commission spokesman to quote which was the amendment in question. But you can’t expect a Maltese journalist to show some curiosity and dig a little deeper, can you?

I can’t say I’m terribly unhappy at the probable consequence of this: Norman Lowell taking votes from National Action. But if the law indeed prohibts Lowell to run, it’s truly appalling that honest, law-abiding citizens get struck off the electoral register while, when it comes to candidature, where the criteria should be tighter, a convicted criminal can stand for election.

And now everyone’s vindicated

It’s not only the Greens who feel “vindicated” over migration these days. Labour and National Action have joined the fray. And, as is the case with the Greens I’m perplexed as to how.

It might be worthwhile checking out what the Maltese Government actually said:

In a strongly worded statement after a Cabinet meeting, which discussed the most recent case involving the rescue of 66 immigrants off Lampedusa, the government reaffirmed its obligation to help those who found themselves in difficulty.

However, it qualified the meaning of help, insisting this would vary on a case-by-case basis. People who faced danger because their boat was in no shape to travel would have to be taken to the nearest port.

In other cases, immigrants would be granted the necessary assistance “to be able to continue their voyage without danger.

It did not say it would suspend international law as Muscat proposed. By dealing on a “case-by-case” basis when the nearest safe port towards which international law obliges you to sail happens to be Lampedusa and when the Italians blockade the port after claiming that they do not have any vessels to stage the rescue the immigrant boat gets fuel and supplies. Not to worry: the Italian coastline is pretty long and they’ll be spoilt for choice where to land.

That, by the way, is still within international legality. There is the right to transit on high seas and the Maltese Government discontinued the practice in 2003 because it understandably irked the Italians. In 2009 not only we shouldn’t give a damn of irritating our northern neighbours but this should be a source of some schadenfreude we well and truly deserve.

Not that that isn’t the most practical. I’m still trying to understand Muscat’s “quota” system. What happens in the case of immigrants who are not intercepted at sea but actually land? Get someone with a big frame and apply the JPO solution of shoving them back into the water?

Meanwhile Muscat is claiming that the Immigration and Asylum Pact the Government signed at the end of the French Presidency of the EU is not worth the paper is written on. At the same time he brandishes a letter from the President of the European Socialists, the man Muscat calls on when he’s under attack from the “right-wing press“, as assurance that European Socialists will come to his assitance over immigration. Why that should be more fool proof than European Council conclusions, I do not know.

Ban the BA

This post is about one of my pet gripes: the Malta Broadcasting Authority (BA). It follows hot on the heels of a news item that the BA prevented the Greens from airing a paid-for programme on a private TV station unless balance was provided for by inviting MEP candidates from the other parties.

Jacques points out that no such condition is imposed on Labour and the Nationalists and the progammes they air on their respective stations. That is the case generally, but not always. Which is why I’m not in the least sorry for the Greens because in the past they have been willing beneficiaries of the same bungled BA policies and decisions they are the victims of today.

Indeed, it was in another EP election campaign that Harry Vassallo, then Party chair, and Arnold Cassola, the Party’s MEP candidate, paid a visit to a company which produces biofuel and gave a press conference. NET TV were there and filmed. That evening the station’s head of news exercised his editorial prerogative and cut out the parts showing the Green Party’s top honchos.

The Greens complained to the BA and the BA upheld their request. Harry Vassallo, at his drama queen best, wrote a piece at the time, circumspectly describing what happened as “fascism”. No, not the BA’s “nanny-knows-best” attitude which includes knowing what NET TV viewers want to watch on the TV station they – the viewers – finance with their contributions. No, it was the station’s management deciding that on their property Vassallo and Cassola are of no news value.

(I should add here that, if there’s one thing I hate in political talk it’s liberal use of words like “fascism” and “nazism” because it trivialises what those who really suffered under these ideologies went through. If anyone thinks that being excluded from the media is “fascism” he should, at least, try the mildest of punishment fascism meted out: force-feeding of a good amount of castor oil. The consequence of that would be confinement to the bathroom allowing for some quality time to reflect on the difference.)

The problem here is in what we have failed to update in our Constitution. When it was written it was unthinkable (even for technical reasons) that there would be more than one TV and one radio station let alone that they would be outside the hands of the state. No such excuse existed in the early 1990s when the political decision was taken to introduce pluralism on the air waves.

But instead of amending the Constitution to say that the BA is there to ensure impartiality and proportionate allottment on publically-owned stations we amended the Broadcasting Act interpreting the Constitutional provision (something which is supposed to be the prerogative of the Courts) that the political party stations cancel each other out and impartiality is thus restored.

Even then, as the BA’s upholding the Greens complaint in 2004 shows, the key factor is not the “behemoth” nature of the Nationalist and the Labour Parties (voted to that behemoth status by the electorate, those lousy bastards) but the busybody nature of the BA which not only took liberties in interpreting the Constitutional provision but also the provision in the Broadcasting Act.

What the Greens want is not to fix this dysfunctional system. They did not complain when that dysfunctional system paid them dividends and they wouldn’t mind if the outcome were the same now.

Twisted politics (Part 2)

Cassola sees nothing wrong with Muscat’s pronouncements on illegal immigration. How very different when it’s Simon Busuttil who’s doing the talking.

Busuttil was commenting on the “rider” the Greens and Socialists managed to attach to his report on illegal immigration, recommending that member states grant the right to vote in local elections to immigrants. Without employing any of Jacques’ convoluted arguments (“the wife of the leader of one of the major partners of the Nationalist Party …”), Busuttil points out to the more important policy chasm between the national and European party in the case of Labour and the Greens on illegal immigration (not to mention a host of other issues).

Here’s Cassola’s reaction:

The PN is irresponsibly giving the impression that illegal and irregular migrants will be given the right to vote whereas in fact the European Report, which was voted for even by the two PN MEPs themselves, just recommends member that member states consider that legal migrants, with regular residence permits, after living a number of years in the country, are given the right to vote in local council elections. Translated into hard facts, this means that only the Swiss, Norwegians, Canadians, Australians, Americans, South Americans, South Africans, Chinese, Serbs, Croatians and what not living in Malta legally with legal residence would be given the right to vote.

He’s right, of course, when he says that the text “just recommends”. Just as his promise of a divorce resolution in the EP once elected, intended to attract the vote of a part of the electorate, would “just recommend”. His conviction that this is limited only to what he refers to as the “what not” is bollocks. First, even a cursory glance at the text itself should lead to the obvious conclusion. Why would a report refering to, say, Swiss “immigrants” go into such matters as promoting the possibility of legal migration as a way to discourage the illegal variety? When was the last time a Swiss national hopped on a boat in Libya and headed in this direction?

Second, Cassola labours under the impression that the immigrants who enjoy refugee or humanitarian status are not “legal”. He really ought to take a look at our Refugees Act and the Geneva Convention. Someone may have entered Malta illegally but once he’s granted refugee or humanitarian status he has the legal status of the “what nots” Cassola mentions.

But wait, there’s a grand finale:

Arnold Cassola expressed AD’s worry that for the sake of a few hundred votes at the next election the PN has shown no qualms in sowing the seeds of racial hatred in our country and are ready to sacrifice our country’s social stability to the egoistic needs of their political party. ‘This is old style, scaremongering and irresponsible politics.’

Now that’s one thing that definitely illegal in Malta and everywhere in the EU: fomenting racial hatred. Can’t help but draw the comparison. In the last EP election campaign Busuttil referred to another chasm between the Maltese Greens and their European party (on which, at the time, Cassola served as Secretary-General) this time regarding abortion. Harry Vassallo, then Party Chair, immediately gave a press conference in front of the Hamrun Police Station and, with his eyes ready to pop out of their orbits any time, said that he was not instituting civil but criminal libel against Busuttil. It all came to naught after the election when Vassallo did not show up when summonned.

Was it because he had an unwinnable case? Could be. But what is certain that then, as it is now, it was no more than Green electoral theatrics.

Twisted politics (Part 1)

I have already mentioned the pattern one can discern in Arnold Cassola’s statements. Let me be modest in my description of it: the man is trying hard to appear in sync with Joseph Muscat. Nothing is more obvious when it comes to illegal immigration. Here’s an article by Cassola in today’s Times entitled “Action Plan needed” (“action plan”? where did I hear that before?):

Illegal and unregulated immigration is a problem no one wants in Malta. We are currently faced with tough decisions that have to be taken in a manner which befits a modern, democratic country that prides itself on respecting human rights.

The recent debate in Parliament and the general state of play indicate that most parties are willing to work hand in hand and come up with realistic solutions.

Which debate in Parliament was that? The one which indicated that Labour is definitely parting company with the Government not only on respecting international conventions but also on acting sensible on the diplomatic stage? Maybe I should remind Cassola of one of the “realistic solutions” mentioned in that debate: using Malta’s veto, possibly, whenever the opportunity arises. If his predecessor’s relationship with reality was tenuous in a way that he imagined himself and his parties destined to grandiose and messianic things which obviously would never bear out, Cassola’s is equally distorted

Oh, but he can tell his “left” from his “right”. Like the sheep’s “Four legs good. Too legs bad” in Animal Farm
he has a simplistic formula that’s easy to memorise: “Left good. Right bad”. Maroni is right and he’s bad. The Italian left isn’t, no even Cassola’s old buddies at Sinistra-Arcobaleno, even though not one of them stood up to Maroni as 150 sick and injured immigrants and a dead body languished outside Lampedusa for four days. So guess what: it’s only the proposals of the “far right” that go against international law:

Proposals of the far right, such as the refusal of assistance at sea, not only go against international law but also fall flat when we see the humane reality of our Armed Forces personnel willingly risking life and limb to rescue hundreds of people in distress.

Nevertheless, there are constraints that we face as a small island. We must uphold the rule of law and take a humanitarian approach to the problem. But then, immigrants who break the law should face the full brunt of the law like all Maltese citizens living in the country, while those who clearly have no reason to ask for asylum or humanitarian protection, like the recent Tunisian and Egyptian immigrants, should be repatriated immediately.

It might be worthwhile to recall Muscat’s reaction to the way the Maltese Government got into the latest tiff with the northern neighbour. He said the Government “gave in yesterday and fell into Italy’s trap”. There was only one way not to given and fall for Italy’s treachery: call their bluff when they claimed they had no vessels to stage a rescue. Which means refuse assistance at sea.

Some say …

This may be a bit dated (the Times of last Thursday) but it’s too good to let go of. Ranier Fsadni had written an article mildly critical of the Green Deal, Greens’ panacea for all the world’s current maladies in which he quoted Anthony Giddens. Ralph Cassar, the Green Party PRO wrote back:

Dr Fsadni quotes extensively from Anthony Giddens’s last book. I have not read Giddens’s book, so I can only answer the article in The Times. Some say that it was Mr Giddens himself who inspired disastrous “projects” such as the privatisation of postal services in the UK.

Royal Mail became a private monopoly. This led to heavy job losses and the proliferation of short-term unsecure jobs. If Mr Giddens argues for a transformation of the state into the “ensuring state”, a state whose main purpose is to enable action to take place while monitoring to see that stated goals are indeed reached, we should not follow his advice, unless we are in favour of lowering employment and job standards and security. Unfortunately part-time, unsecure jobs are the fastest growing types of jobs in Malta too.

The letter, if you please, is entitled “A fact-based project”. You get the impression Cassar is not one who shops at Lidl but in one of those traditional groceries where customers take their time to hang around and exchange gossip. Unashamedly admitting he was criticising someone over something he didn’t read and tarnishing him by association based on a rumour, he presents the gossip as “fact”.

Wait. There’s more:

The Green New Deal is based on facts. I can quote a host of studies by DG Environment of the European Commission, the report submitted to the G20 governments Towards A Global Green Recovery by Ottmar Edenhofer and Lord Nicholas Stern, the UNEP’s A Global Green Deal, McKinsey consultants and the Wuppertal Institute.

The concept of a Green New Deal is also being promoted by, among others, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the International Labour Organisation, employers and also various workers’ unions.

This may be speculation but, considering what’s written in the letter, not very wild speculation: Cassar did not read the “host of studies” he can quote. What for, when it comes with no less than Ban Ki-Moon’s seal of approval?

Finders keepers

After the Pinar standoff Italian Minister did say that the outcome did not constitute a precedent. In fact, it did happen again and had a different outcome thanks to a new element: Italian treachery. Here’s how it went:

The government said this evening that a patrol boat was bringing 66 migrants to Malta for humanitarian reasons because of the precarious situation they were in.

The statement was issued after the patrol boat rescued the migrants just 24 miles off Lampedusa. Italy refused to let the patrol boat take the migrants to the Italian island, despite it being the nearest harbour.

The Italian authorities had initially appeared to be cooperating with Malta in the rescue operation but when the Maltese boat arrived just off Italian territorial waters, it was intercepted by two Italian launches and told not to proceed further.

At least one of the migrants on board the patrol boat was reported to need urgent hospital treatment.

The migrants were picked up from a dinghy which was drifting after having run out of fuel.

The Italian Minister, who seems to be that kind Italian who contributes considerably to climate change by producing a lot of hot air, has an “explanation”:

Rescued migrants should not be taken to Lampedusa because it has no hospital and is therefore not a safe port, according to Italy’s ambassador to Malta Paolo Trabalza.

[...]Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said the Italians’ argument did not hold water because the island had been considered a safe port for decades.

[...]When asked why Lampedusa had suddenly become unsafe, Dr Trabalza insisted that things do change.

He said that Lampedusa, which is three times smaller than Gozo, did not even have a proper permanent doctor, an issue which the inhabitants had often complained about since they must be transferred to Sicily whenever they require medical attention.

[...]

On Friday, Dr Borg presented an official protest to the ambassador asking Italy to take back the rescued immigrants and dismissed Italy’s claim of not having enough vessels as not credible.

But Dr Trabalza thinks otherwise.

“Of course it could have happened. Why should we always think of the worst?” the ambassador said.

The “worst”? The ambassador had already stretched credulity by claiming the Italians has no ships (they got them later to stage a blockade); if he thinks anyone will believe that Maroni thought of himself in the worst possible predicament, not having ships to stage a rescue just off Lampedusa, it’s a surprise he went into diplomacy and not the snakeoil business.

With a little help from our friends

In the wake of the Electoral Commission’s decision to de-register more than 900 non-Maltese EU citizens Labour is offering help (please keep in mind that in the Electoral Commission Labour has representatives):

In another statement, the Labour Party said it was offering those whose name had been struck off the register its services.

The party would be launching an application in court on their behalf for their name to be reinstated in the register. The party said it was also offering its services to non-Maltese EU residents who had been struck off.

All people who had the right to vote should be given that right, the PL said.

Time do change, don’t they? Five years ago Labour, through the Electoral Commission, attempted to strike off the register the names of Maltese nationals. That the Court decided in favour of the voters should have come as no surprise not only in view of the Cassola decision in the previous year but that this time round, with Malta a member of the EU and this being a European election, Labour’s case was even weaker.

What says it all about the Party’s erratic approach is that non-sensical “all people who had the right to vote should be given the right to vote”. If you have something you do not need to have it given to you and possession of a constitutional right is determined by the Court. Not the PM and not the Labour Party.

How the Greens were “vindicated”

Remember when, following that Parliamentary debate where Joseph Muscat said he’d be ready to suspend Malta’s international obligations and use the veto at the EU level, Arnold Cassola came out saying that the Green Party’s position had been “vindicated”? Somebody asked what:

“We certainly were not referring to these [Muscat's] proposals. We abide by international rule of law. And the reason why we strongly support the Maltese government in its recent standoff with Italy and Maroni’s stupidities is because the Maltese government has the rule of law behind it.”

Even the Green-friendly MaltaToday journalist was perplexed:

So in what way was AD vindicated?

“It was a decent debate because MPs were coming up with proposals in a decent and civilized way and were largely going in the same direction. Certainly however, declaring that one will use the veto as an instrument whenever one does not agree with others does not work in politics. One can play the tough guy once but then the cry wolf syndrome will rebound on us.”

“Proposals” only came from Labour sides and, even then, they were either already being implemented, implied more or extended detention centres, breached international law or involve Malta acting as a jackass on the European stage. No bright ideas from the Government benches because all their speakers did was to defend the status quo.

So what makes Cassola feels vindicated? To him, MPs are acting “in a decent and civilised way” when they respect the convention to talk in turns. Nothing to do with threatening with failing people in danger at sea and acting like the representatives of a pariah state. That, needless to say, is a very low standard. By that token even Norman Lowell’s “Erga’ lura … wiehed. Erga’ lura … tnejn” qualifies as “decent and civilised”.

Get over it

Labour still cannot get over the fact that it lost the 2008 general election fair and square and instead it clings on silly hopes that hoaxes pandered by a man involved in a high profile bribery cars, whose story was believed, no questions asked, by the Deputy Leader of the Party.

The recent debate on the changes to the General Elections Act showed that it still hasn’t got over it. Joseph Muscat’s contribution to the debate dealt only briefly with the mechanism allowing for early voting; it was mostly anger that no moves were made to reassure Labour (no one else) that the names on the electoral register and those of people who have an unequivocal right to vote.

Here’s Maltastar:

Prime Minister Dr Lawerence Gonzi has failed to offer a reassurance that each person who is on the electoral list is eligible to vote.

Prime Minister Lawerence Gonzi was asked by maltastar.com whether he could offer a guarantee that each person who was eligible to vote for a General Election, instead he opted to discuss the proposed amendment on the General Election Act.

Pressed on to provide an answer on whether or not a person who has been living abroad for over two years without paying taxes in Malta was eligible to vote in General Elections, Prime Minister Gonzi said that anyone who had a doubt had to seek the judgment of the Court.

It did not cross the interviwer’s mind that the PM discussed the proposed amendment because that is what is on the table. Incidentally, Labour is not proposing anything of its own except the “no taxation without representation” criterion, one which would disenfranchise many who have always lived in Malta while leaving on the register many who have definitely left but who are still domiciled in Malta for tax purposes.

First things first. Anyone whose name appears in the electoral register has the right to vote. That judgement was handed by the Court in the Licari case. The constitutional qualifications (nationality, age residence, etc.) refer to inclusion in the electoral register not the right to vote. Inclusion in the electoral registered is what can be challenged meaning that, whoever voted in the 2008 election was perfectly entitled to do so.

But what about the electoral register? The PM can reasonably be asked for “guarantees” as much as the greengroced down the road. Elections in Malta are not run by the PM or the Minister of Home Affairs but by the Electoral Commission on which Labour not only has its representatives but, judging from the way electoral districts were last drawn, actually holds sway over proceedings. Instead of the PM Maltastar could have directed the question to the Labour-friendly Chief Electoral Commissioner and seen what reassurances he had to offer.

He’d probably offered none except, like the PM, recourse to the Courts. That’s what’s been happening for ages. Muscat complained that this was not fair: his Party is being told to take the matter to the Courts and when it does it is labelled undemocratic.

If you believe that’s a reasonable excuse think again. In the 2004 EP election Labour took many cases to court … and lost. It had not learnt the lesson, only a year before, that when the Court decided in the Cassola case that “residence” did not mean physical presence but a direct and continuous concern in political developments in the country. If Labour looked “undemocratic” it was not thanks to having brought cases after this judgement as much as having brought cases after this judgement which it was obviously set to lose. That’s actually worse that “undemocratic”, it’s plain nastiness.

Labour is in a quadranty. There will be no revisiting of the constitutional qualification and their clarification with the current attitude it is adopting. Amendments here require a two-thirds majority and they can forget that if they’re more into bridge-burning. On the other hand, they’ve been trying to shove the onus elsewhere. That that’s not getting it anywhere is obvious to everyone. Except Labour.

No EP election without nutters running

Compared to the 2004 EP election the political parties are offering tighter campaigns this time round. Thankfully, there’s still some offers outside the mainstream ranging from the eccentric to the creepy. Here’s Frank Portelli, Nationalist MEP candidate:

Nationalist candidate Frank Portelli said Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had clearly stated that, since European countries had exploited Africa in the past, Africans had a right to invade Europe and take back what was theirs.

Dr Portelli said Col Gaddafi had got it into his head he could turn Europe into a Muslim continent. The number of immigrant arrivals in Malta was higher than the number of births, so the word “invasion” was justified.

He said “it is not true there is poverty in Africa” but many African leaders were spending money on armaments and nuclear weapons rather than education.

Oh yes, that clip. There was a mini-stir in the letters page of the Times recently started off by someone who claimed that while “zapping” on the Internet he came across the video on “U-tube”. Someone writing later did notice that Gaddafi is not exactly the most accurate source of information (the Colonel thinks Albania is in the EU, for example) but we should panic nonetheless. Want to think that Gaddafi is to be taken seriously? Go ahead. Maroni did, despite four decades of hindsight, and now finds he has to pick on Malta to mitigate the damage.

But what is more worrying is the claim that that the number of immigrant arrivals in Malta is higher than the number of births. This urban legend was started off — to their eternal shame — by no less than the Emigrants Commission. Mgr Philip Calleja was reported to have said that he was only trying to “convince” Europe to take some of the burden, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he was adopting the same vocabulary as National Action not to mention wrong figures. That an act of crass carelessness that put at risk the same people he’s trying to protect. That no newspaper was ever arsed to challenge Calleja (or Frank Portelli) and that the claim still gets a hearing goes to show that when people want to panic they’re not bothered with being discerning.

Portelli’s final claim does not merit much comment. Whatever could be said has already been said by James Debono. Just one thing: I’m still trying to think which African leader is spending money on “nuclear weapons” when even Gaddafi has given up on that.

Let’s act even more like headless chickens

The EP election is close so the story that the European Socialists and European Greens successfully pushed through an amendment to Simon Busuttil’s report that proposed granting voting rights to immigrants in local elections just won’t die.

Let’s start with where Simon Busuttil got it wrong:

Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil said today that the issue of voting rights for migrants was crucial for Malta because the country could not afford to give such rights to the 5,200 immigrants currently living here.

“This is one of the red lines that we cannot cross,” Dr Busuttil said at a press conference, pointing out that the last general election was decided by a mere 1,500 votes.

Here’s what’s written in the text adopted (translation mine):

32. [...] invites member states to facilitate the system of support to civil society in the process of integration, permitting the presence of migrants in the political and civil life of the host society, their membership in political parties and union and to give them the right to vote in local elections;

Busuttil’s fears that a general election can be decided by the immigrant vote in Marsa and Hal Far rather than the expat vote in Brussels and Luxembourg are unfounded.

There is, however, something which Busuttil got right. He criticised the European Socialists and the European Greens reminding that the Maltese Labour Parties and Maltese Green Parties are members respectively. Which shows in what esteem the European organisations in question hold their national outfits.

This is incidentally a repeat of what happened in the 2004 EP election. Busuttil said the European Green Party was pro-abortion. He did not say the Maltese Greens were pro-abortion; he was making the perfectly valid point that, even if the post of Secretary-General of the European Greens was Arnold Cassola, the Maltese party had very little power in determining Party policy.

That should have been plain obvious to everyone. Except for a raving mad Harry Vassallo who hastily called a press conference in front of the Hamrun Police Station saying that he was not only instituting libel proceedings against Busuttil, he was instituting criminal libel. That turned out to be little more that pre-electoral drama for when the case was called after the election it fell through … because Vassallo did not bother to turn up. When some years later the subject came up on television Vassallo could be heard to explain from his foaming mouth that he wasn’t there because for the case of the century which could have been the first time when a Maltese politician end behind bars … he was late.

Back to 2009. Cassola accuses the Nationalists for making a “partisan issue” out of immigration. Really? It has been so for a couple of months and it seems only the Greens have failed to notice. But here’s Cassola:

“It is easy but also dishonest to selectively interpret a complex and highly important EP vote. The PN’s unnecessary alarm about voting rights for legal, registered and regular migrants is simply a populist vote-catching attempt which dangerously fans the flames of xenophobia, fear and racism.

“The right to vote, according to this document, is being proposed for regular migrants at local council level only, and not to irregular immigrants.”

Oh, the Nationalists are selectively interpreting “a complex and highly important EP vote”? There were no scruples whenever the Greens quoted the Friends of the Earth scoreboard on how European parties vote in the EP on environmental matters. No questions asked then because the Greens are not only morally superior but also intellectually superior.

Cassola is trying a fine balancing act here, on one hand using the politically correct term “irregular immigrant” and on the other trying to convince himself and others that there’s something illegal about immigrants who have been given refugee or humanitarian status. A Somali who enters Malta on a boat may have entered the country illegally. But once he applies and is granted humanitarian status he legal in terms of the Geneva Convention and the Maltese Refugees Act. He cannot be detained, he cannot be deported and he also has the right to move freely and to work. For the simple reason that his stay in Malta is now legal.

Dream on, Tonio

I honestly tried, on a number of occasions, to put my finger on what’s wrong with Tonio Borg the politician. He seems to live in some sort of bubble which keeps him from seeing the stark obvious making some unbelievable errors of judement. Take this:

The minister said the United Nations High Commission for Refugees was reviewing its list of countries deemed to be dangerous and once Somalia was taken off that list it would be easier for Malta to repatriate Somalis arriving here.

Har, har. What leads the Minister to think that Somalia, deemed the most dangerous place in the world by the UN’s humanitarian supremo, could be removed from the list? And here’s the question Thermidor regularly ask: who’ll fly the plane to Mogadishu? Notice, I’m not asking about the safety of the immigrants, I know that making an appeal to such sentiments does not get you far with the Maltese. I’m well aware of the hypocrisy of many European states who warn their nationals against traveling to the country but deport Somalis to less dangerous but restive parts of Somalia like Somaliland. When it comes to immigrants we have shown ourselves capable of worse.

I only hope that that AirMalta pilot will read this (by Pekka Haavisto, representative of the Finnish government, who recently visited the Somali city):

A plane carrying US Congressman Donald Payne was fired on at Mogadishu Airport by insurgents on the day after my departure. Payne was unhurt, but some Somalis living nearby were killed by stray mortar fire.

At last … a rowdy Parliamentary sitting

There has just been a rowdy session in Parliament while Joseph Muscat was intervening in the debate on the amendments to the General Elections Act which would allow people who’ll be abroad on polling day to vote a week beforehand.

Soon after the start of this legislature a Select Committee was set up. It was grandiosly called the Select Committee on Democratic Change. From the onset I thought one shouldn’t hold much hope. First, because previous committees and commissions with similar but less ambitious briefs failed or succeeded only marginally. Second, with Anglu Farrugia being the most senior nominee for the Opposition on the committee you can’t really expect much, can you?

Muscat is asking why the Government is not running these proposals by this Committee. His Party’s earlier proposal, to fly a ballot box to Cyprus so that athletes participating in the Small Nations Games on polling day, did not come with such a requirement. Not only, the “early vote” proposal would only be considered if it is part of a package of changes. Those who are still star-struck after Muscat raised the expectations so high in the beginning could do well to realise that these are none other than Labour’s usual paranoid gripes about ways and means the Nationalists “steal” elections.

Take this bit of obsessive control freakery:

How was it that people could declare they would be away just 12 hours before early voting? This would not give enough time for verification. Making a sworn declaration was not enough. Voters should be required to produce their air ticket and they should be required to produce evidence, once they were back in Malta, that they had really been abroad.

Furthermore, one could have a situation where a person declared he would be going abroad, but did not go abroad and had a choice of voting either early or on polling day proper. This was not right. Persons who applied for early voting should lose the right to vote on polling day proper.

Can anyone make sense? Muscat is complaining that I can take and oath and within 12 hours I can cast an early vote. Then, within the week until the vote proper I decide not to go abroad (which decision could be for the most justifiable reasons imaginable). What does Muscat find objectionable in such a scenario?

He doesn’t consider that but moves on to list the usual stuff:

In order to clamp down on abuses, particularly the stories he had heard of ‘bullying’ by the government/PN at St Vincent de Paule Home (interruptions), voting should also take place early to ensure there was proper monitoring, not by pro-government workers, but by staff selected by the Electoral Commission.

Got that? “Stories he had heard”. Like Anglu Farrugia’s urban legends told to him by someone who acted as a go-between between a drug trafficker and a bribed judge and which the Deputy Labour Leader felt he could believe. And here’s more “stories”:

Flight arrangements should start being made early for voters who needed to be flown in from abroad, so that one would no longer have situations where some people did not find seats. Flight arrangements should henceforth not be made by Air Malta, but by the Electoral Commission. Would the government take up this challenge? (interruptions). After all Air Malta was headed by a person who formed part of the PN strategy group. There were stories in the past where persons were told there were no places on the planes, only for seats to be found after a phone call from the PN.

And then, not for the first time, it gets totally unfocussed:

Dr Muscat said that while the government was amending the Electoral Law, nothing was being said on how the sixth European Parliament seat would be allocated once it became available to Malta. The opposition would not accept a situation of having the appointment made behind the scenes or by Parliament. What the Opposition wanted and was proposing, was that the sixth candidate who got most votes at the last count and failed to get elected would be allocated the sixth seat once this became available.

That conveniently ignores that, with the same number of valid votes, more seats means a lower quota means a different result. In the last EP election the unsucessful candidate with most votes in the last count was Arnold Cassola. But had the quota been calculated on six MEPs instead of five the sixth MEP would not have been Cassola but Joanna Drake who would have benefitted from larger vote surpluses from Simon Busuttil and David Casa.

The usual tirade against voters abroad had to feature:

Dr Muscat said he was challenging the government to declare that all those who voted at the last general election met the appropriate residency requirements and had not been abroad (interruptions). The fact was that there was no verification method and no guarantee could, therefore, be given. (interruptions, Speaker calls for calm).

As Tonio Borg pointed out, the law offers a remedy. That Labour did not choose to apply it is its problem. First, because unlike the long queue at Mile End to join the suit against the Government on car registration tax it would be bad publicity. Secondly, because after the failure of Labour and its representatives in the Electoral Commission to strike off Cassola’s name from the electoral register in 2003 it is even less likely that the Court would upheld such a plea in 2009.

Muscat has a solution which, as usual, is inane:

With regard to right to vote by people who were abroad, the Opposition based itself on the principle of taxation with representation – the eligible voters should be those who paid tax in Malta, with some exceptions for students and those doing voluntary work abroad.

Oh yes, “taxation with representation”. Does he mean that foreign nationals who pay tax in Malta will get to vote? Does it mean that Maltese nationals who do not pay income tax because their income is within the tax free bracket lose their right?

Now let’s all act like headless chickens

After successfully standing up to Italy over the 150 migrants stranded off Lampedusa it’s now time for all those particular symbolic acts the Maltese are known for to show that we stand our ground now and forevermore.

I’m not referring here to the Times commenter who said that the Maltese should boycott pizzas — like the Capricciosas we eat are flown straight from Rome. No, it’s the Maltese MEPs voting against an amendment supported by the European Socialists and the European Greens to a report authored by Simon Busuttil which recommends giving the vote to all immigrants in local council elections.

In case you didn’t know EU nationals resident in Malta can already exercise this right. But we won’t let the residents in the Marsa Open Centre anywhere close to a polling station. No sir. In case they all decide to vote for the National Action candidate and overturn the Labour majority in the locality. Or worse still they’ll get attached to voting for the local council so much they wouldn’t want to leave not only for greener pastures.

Don’t think that’s too far fetched: Malta’s veto prevented a proposal from becoming European law which would have given immigrants freedom of movement within the entire EU. Reason being that we weren’t ready to give them more rights even if it were one which would have allowed them to leave the country to take up residency legally elsewhere.

They’ll be given the vote in local elections? Why should we care? Judging from the comments in the Times just in case we’re seen as conceding something even if it’s totally worthless.

With friends like these

Yesterday I quoted an Italian Senator for the Northern League who described that what Roberto Maroni had said on international obligations on rescue at sea was “sacrosant”. And to ensure that he’s heading straight in the direction of “santo subito” Maroni has already performed his first miracle that’s in the same league as in the multiplication of loaves: a standoff over 150 immigrants has become a question of long-standing recriminations over no less than 40,000 immigrants which, over the yeas were rescued in Malta’s SAR but proximity meant they were taken to Italy. Here’s San Roberto Maroni:

The Corriere della Sera says that Mr Maroni is also claiming that Malta failed to intervene 600 times in cases involving migrants at sea.

The newspaper says the most serious spat between the two countries took place last month when the frigate Minerva carrying 76 migrants rescued “in Maltese waters” was not allowed to disembark the migrants in Malta and had to take them to Sicily.

It says that Italy had on several occasions accused Malta of having directed migrants’ boats towards Sicily, going back to 2004. It had not intervened 600 times, and as a result, Italy had to receive 40,000 immigrants who should have been taken in by Malta.

One improvement of the Gonzi-II cabinet over its predecessor was that Tonio Borg was taken off Home Affairs and given the Ministry of Foriegn Affairs. A largely ceremonial portfolio these days thanks to EU membership, Borg can be crediting with his predecessor’s “Arabisation” of Maltese foreign affairs. Then again, that’s no big deal and the man should really get ut of his bubble.

“A dispute between friends” he described the latest spat. Had Maroni been a friend he would have discreetly sent a note of protest through the Italian ambassador to Palazzo Parisio and asked the European Commission to help negotiate some clear rules all can agree to so that any disputes between friends would not boil over. He didn’t. Instead he tried to shame us with whatever he could lay his hands on and put it in a dossier. I’m liking Carm Mifsud-Bonnici with every passing day. Here’s him telling Maroni where to shove his wretched dossier … and, indirectly, Tonio Borg his “friendly dispute”:

“Mr Maroni can prepare as many dossiers as he likes. We are small and it’s very easy to perform an audit of what we’ve done in this case. But other larger countries should be subject to the same audits that we are subjected to,” Dr Mifsud Bonnici said.

“If there is anyone who expects Malta to take illegal immigrants that are his responsibility, he can forget it,” the minister said.

The current Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security is a Frenchmen. Yes, he’s from that country Joseph Muscat suggested we snub by vetoing the Immigration and Asylum Pact at the European Council it was presiding. We didn’t follow Muscat’s advice and here’s what Commissioner Jacques Barrot had to say on the standoff:

Barrot was quoted as saying by Agence Europe that he was delighted that the migrants were safe but the problem remained in that, within the European Union, there had to be much more effective solidarity.

[...]

The commissioner said he did not want to blame anybody over the standoff but international maritime law stated that those at risk of shipwreck had to be taken to the nearest port with acceptable conditions for receiving them.

Now doubt in his mind who was right and who was wrong. Now that is what I call a friend.

Coda: Jacques says that I try to “deverdate” the Greens. Nice verb (next time I’ll sign as “Agent Orange”) and it’s a charge to which I gladly plead guilty. Which I why I can’t resist noting Jürgen Balzan, former Deputy Secretary-General of the Green Party, saying that he’s ashamed of Gonzi, Muscat, being Maltese and even being from a country that’s close to Italy. He does not seem to be ashamed of being previously associated with a Party that told the Maltese government to stand firm in the stand-off with Maroni. Of course not: if there is indeed a xirka tal-qaddisin the Greens will be there along with Maroni.

How to make friends and influence people

Between the 27 and 28 of April the General Affairs and External Relations Council, bringing together the EU’s 27 Ministers of Foreign Affairs, will be meeting in Luxembourg. Expect Italian Minister Franco Frattini to raise the matter of the standoff with the Maltese authorities over the MV Pinar.

As always, we start as a disadvantage. No, there is no “international media conspiracy” to single out Malta and giving her more punishment than she deserves. It’s simply that our voice is not so easily heard (unless we’re making complete fools of ourselves and what we say becomes newsworthy all for the wrong reasons).

You only have to check out how a supposedly impartial source like the BBC reported the matter. Comments from the Italian authorities are everywhere and their interpretation of international law is nowhere questions. None from the Maltese authorities are reported except to say that Malta insisted that the immigrants be taken to the nearest safe port “which it says is Lampedusa” like there could be any doubt that 41 nautical miles are less than 114 nautical miles. So Tonio Borg better know how to make friends.

That conclusion would be too obvious to merit a blog post. But that’s not the point. It’s precisely that it’s not obvious to Joseph Muscat and the Labour Party. While the standoff was on he was saying that this indicated that the “action plan” he had put forward was necessary, oblivious to the fact that if Malta had a leg to stand on it was that it was right as per international law.

No, it wasn’t the “we’re full” number which is, by the way, the argument brought up by an Italian Senator from Lampedusa on why the immigrants should have been taken by Malta (after describing what Maroni said as “sacrosanct” — should we expect “Maroni santo subito” next?). Because if Malta can suspend its international obligations there’s no reason why Italy shouldn’t be allowed to join the fun.

But something else will be at stake at the Council of Minister’s meeting next week. If anyone recalls that the end of the French Presidency of the EU Muscat had said that the Government should veto the Immigration and Asylum Pact as it required burden-sharing of immigrant arrivals only on a voluntary basis. Can you imagine the repercussions on the upcoming meeting had we done that?

Think about the French. Sarkozy gives the impression that he’s a man with a long political memory and one who does not forgive easily. Can you imagine if we had vetoed the conclusions of his otherwise very successful Presidency.

Do you think Bernard Kouchner who, incidentally was a co-founder of Médecins Sans Frontières with whom we have just had a not-very-amicable fallout, would have been offering much sympathy next week to our Tonio Borg while Franco Frattini went on demonising the Maltese Government and asking that all Italian Ministers be canonised en masse?

And that’s just the French. The other countries have no reason not to think that we’re acting like spoilt brats who only want to have their way. We have a history of acting like that and the latest would only be a confirmation.

Standoff resolved

The standoff between Malta and Italy over which port the Turkish ship should be allowed to enter has been resolved:

The Turkish-owned boat which has been stranded with a number of illegal immigrants between Malta and Lampedusa since Thursday is being allowed to enter an Italian port.

[...]

The incident has been the cause of a diplomatic battle between Malta and Italy with both countries refusing to allow the boat to enter their country. Italy argued that the immigrants were found in Malta’s search and rescue area and Malta said that the closest safe port was Lampedusa. The immigrants were taken on board the Turkish owned ship 45 miles off Lampedusa and 112 miles off Malta.

International law has been upheld and, as happens when the rule of law is repected, it is not the party with higher firepower (Italy) that got its way but the party that was right (Malta). Having won the battle on the international front the government should move for the proverbial kill on the domestic theatre. It should remind Labour that had international obligations been suspended as per its “action plan” those immigrants would have by now been at Hay Wharf.

And not to forget a good-dressing down of the Greens’ Cassola who saw it fit to remind us that the Italian Minister for Home Affairs is “a member [sic] of the right-wing Lega Nord party, well known for its xenophobic and racist attitudes, and he was taking such a stance because of the upcoming EP elections” while his reaction to the debate in Parliament was that his Party’s position had been “vindicated”. If we’re free to speculate that Maroni’s stance was taken because of the upcoming EP elections can’t we say that Cassola’s is determined by the hope of some koalizzjoni with Labour come next general election?

Standoff at the Freeport

Hats off to di-ve’s Vanessa MacDonald for offering some sober commentary on the standoff between the GWU and the Freeport management. In her latest installment she reminds foreign trade unions on the GWU’s bandwagon that the Malta Dockers’ Union (MDU) is a legitimate trade union too (although, in actual fact, “foreign trade unions” sounds more like this one representative of the Merseyside TUC, someone who ate greasy kirxa with Tony Zarb).

MacDonald also wrote an article on what’s at stake for the GWU at the Freeport. How’s the situation panning our for the Union? In an interview in which he claims that (pace Toni Abela) the Union still cannot forgive President of the Republic George Abela for falling out with the GWU and help create the MDU, Tony Zarb claims that there is a “movement intended to destroy the GWU”. But why would anyone want to do that when the GWU is so able at digging its own grave?

It does so with the way out it has proposed to this impasse: a secret ballot (it now seems that not even the GWU finds its “secret ballot” — which was as “secret” as a show box in a street gets and which is what the GWU is basing its claims on — credible). Now think of it: if union recognition and representation at the place of work were determined by a secret ballot what incentive for workers would there be to become members of a Union? Forcing them to do it through the “closed shop” method?

Can anyone make sense of this?

Here’s Roberto Maroni over the standoff between Italy and Malta. As it starkly shows the man for the bonehead that he is so I’ll also quote the original:

“C’e’ oggi un dispositivo – ha spiegato Maroni – che consente a Malta di scaricare sull’Italia le responsabilita’ che sono sue nel soccorso degli immigrati.

Finora lo abbiamo fatto ma continuo a chiedere a Malta di assumersi le responsabilita’ che ha e che, fino ad oggi, non si sono assunti dopo aver firmato accordi internazionali”.

Translation (mine):

“Today there is a mechanism — Maroni explained — that permits Malta to unload on Italy responsibilities which are hers when it comes to rescuse of immigrants

So far we have done it but I continue to ask to Malta to assume the responsibilities that she has and that, to date, they have not assumed after having signed international accords”.

So there is a “mechanism” — which presumably is part of international law — which allows Malta to shirk from responsibilities which are hers in terms of … er, international law? And, according to Maroni, Malta has “signed international accords” (like the Maltese were that stupid) which gives it responsibility to take in whoever is rescued in its search and rescue zone. And what happened to the “mechanism”? Can’t the man even remember what he said in the previous sentence?

Standoff

As I write some 150 immigrants, rescued at sea, are on a Turkish vessel just outside Italian territorial waters. The immigrants were rescued from two boats in the Maltese search and rescue (SAR) area and the instructions from Maltese rescue coordination was for the ship to proceed to the nearest safe haven as per international law. This was — unequivocally — Lampedusa. But the Italians are refusing the ship to land even though there are injured people and a pregnant women amongst the immigrants.

The man behind all this is Italian Minister of Home Affairs, Roberto Maroni. The man is as stupid as he looks and, as is often the case with people like him, talks more than he should and what listeners can reasonably be expected to suffer. Here’s what he said:

[...] Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni this morning accused Malta of not taking its responsibilities on migration and instead dumping the migrants on Italy.

In tough language, Minister Maroni said that relations between Malta and Italy had taken a bad turn recently over this issue and said that he has asked EU Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot to intervene and convince Malta to assume its responsibilities.

[...]

‘The areas related to the responsibility of search and rescue are well defined but in many cases Malta is not intervening, leaving this responsibility to Italy. Last year we had to do this 80 times. I have now referred the issue to the EU to make sure that who has the responsibility does his duty. If not we should change the rules,” Minister Maroni said.

“Change the rules”? Isn’t that an admission that, under the current regime, he’s wrong? Some months ago I wrote that if international law is suspended the weak suffer. Which means Malta in the case of a standoff between us and one of our neighbours. Some time later there was an incident similar to the one we’re witnessing now involving immigrants rescued in Malta’s (SAR) but with Lampedusa being the closest port. That on that occasion the Maltese Government only had its way because what it insisted on was what was to be done according to international law. All this while facing an Italian warship.

Meanwhile, Labour is telling us that “the standoff between Malta and Italy confirmed the need for the plan of action proposed by the Labour Party”. If I remember correctly that “plan of action” proposed the suspension of international law. Which is what Italy wants to do right now. Incidentally, Maroni is not only stupid and loud-mouthed, he also sports a moustache. Had he been Maltese he’d be a Deputy Leader with the Maltese Labour Party.

Update: James Debono makes the same point on suspension of international law obligations. He drifts off course when he says “the least willing to help us are those governments held at ransom by anti immigrant parties” and that “Ironically [sic] those led by EPP parties are the least sympathetic to our cause”. Left-wing government have not been very helpful either (and, in all fairness, I wouldn’t expect, say, Zapatero’s government, with immigration problems of its our own, to be able to offer much help) and the little relief Malta has received were from countries like France and the Netherlands both governed by the centre-right. The centre-left, as is often the case, can only be counted on for moral posturing.

Meanwhile, the 150 plus immigrants and still stranded somewhere off Lampedusa.

The Reverend is back to his senses

Last week I commented on Rev. Joe Borg’s column on the Times. My theory is that Lenten abstinence clouded his judgment (not only his but of many other co-believers), leading him to think that Lenten sacrifice “flies in the face of the current belief in self and instant gratification”. That’s right folks. All non-believers, gluttons and fornicators to the last man, are all of one mind and one opinion.

There’s one thing I didn’t mention last time. I still appreciate as a child being told not to eat sweets no a Good Friday so as to remember that there were many children my age who did not get enough food to eat let alone any goodies. Borg’s reason for self-mortification are that the person who “live[s] only for himself and exploit[s] all life’s possibilities for personal gain finds that life itself becomes boring and empty because it becomes senseless”. Borg’s critique of all the hedonism he imagines around him turns out to be as self-centred as the caricature he paints of those who do not share his beliefs.

It seems that after Easter Borg, eating as much as he should eat, regained some perspective. He writes about his experience in a home for the elderly and concludes “Some people tend to romanticise old age. I definitively do not!”. Only a week before he was romanticising sacrifice that served no end, instrumental or symbolic, and implied that it was meaningful.

Not that there are no lapses of judgment:

There are more families affected by this [old age] than there are families affected by drug abuse or alcoholism. This notwithstanding, the drug and alcohol problems are present on the national agenda more than issues that have to do with old people. The number of homosexuals is definitively smaller than the number of old men and women. However, homosexuality is present on the media more than old age.

A number of factors explain this. I think that drugs and homosexuality can be dramatised and/or glamorised more than old age, consequently the media projects the former much more than it does the latter. The gay lobby, for example, is quite strong and vociferous. It is not too difficult for it to have its voice heard. On the other hand there is no lobby for and of the Third Agers.

First, note the subtle association by proximity between drugs, alcohol and homosexuality. Second, no lobby for Third Agers? The Hon. Mario Galea is Parliamentary Secretary for the Elderly and Community Care. He works in close proximity with the Minister of Social Policy and sits on Cabinet holding a brief exclusively for Third Agers.

Now, will the Rev. Joe Borg tell us who’s Parliamentary Secretary for Gay Affaris?

Wake up and smell the (organic) coffee

As usual, James Debono is spot on when it comes to analysing what’s at stake for those who are not his political bedfellows. I had already posted, elsewhere and on another occasion, that in the coming EP election the performance bar will be lowest for the Nationalists and the claims to victory can be justified if they even manage to hold to their abysmal 2004 which, it ought to be remembered, was followed by a general election victory four years later. Debono gives the prequel to that on how it could come around the second time (and the 2004/2008 cycle playing itself out again) thanks to a high abstention rate.

Now, to the other side of the coin. It is with equal certainty that one can say that Debono is wrong when he’s analysing the fortunes of those with whom he shares things political. Ok, he does make the correct observation that playing to Nationalist disenchantment was the Greens’ greatest strategic mistake post-2004. But consider this:

In their obsession to remain politically neutral (which translates in most cases in associating with everyone except with the Green Party), many green NGOs seem to forget that their newly acquired power came from the latent electoral threat posed by Alternattiva Demokratika. Would the PN have re-invented itself as a green blue party before 2008 had AD not existed? The answer is a definite no.

Now the PN has gone one step ahead by proposing Alan Deidun — a foremost critic of MEPA’s follies — as one of its candidates. Despite being a very nice and respectable guy, Deidun has absolutely no chance of being elected. He was only fielded to compete with AD and give his adoptive party a green wash. If AD does badly and Deidun is not elected-the ultimate result will be a weakened environmental lobby.

Let’s start with the “definite no” answer Debono gives to the question whether the Nationalists would have gone greener “before 2008″ had the Greens not been around to skim off some of their votes. The Nationalists were greener for some time before 2008.

My contention is that the most environmentalist government we ever had in Malta was the Nationalist administration of 1992-96. On taking office in 1992 the Nationalists could not have been troubled by any Green Party threat thanks to the fact that they had been voted in office with the greatest margin a government has ever been re-confirmed. And if that same environmentalism was important in its defeat in 1996 it wasn’t because the voters, on that occasion, drifted in the direction of the Green Party.

This is not quibbling about a detail. In 1996 environmentalism proved to be more of a political liability than an asset. Thirteen years later that may no longer be the case but its lobbyists definitely seem to have grown more astute and are associating with those who matter. That that does not include the Green Party may be a gamble but certainly not one taken by political illiterates. The way things might turn out the EP election of 2009 might be remembered as the one in which the Maltese Green Party entered into a terminal decline.

They went through a local council cycle in which they lost three councillors (including the politically important Birkirkara). They got nowhere close in a general election without an overarching theme like EU membership. And if polls are to be believed, they risk making their 2004 “success” look like little more than beginners’ luck.

I started off by saying that in the EP election the bar stands lowest for the Nationalist Party; I can now say that it stands highest for the Greens. How they perform this time (and, may the psephologist add, in the local council elections for Birkirkara and Lija) will determine their future.

Malta’s leftist jamboree

Ever so often the Maltese left (a very nominal left and a flag of convenience, mind you) lies on its back and cries “Somebody come tickle me!” in the form of a seminar organised by the Youth Section of the GWU. “What’s Left“, brings together the Union youths, the Labour and the Green Parties, the people behind the publication of the Communist Party and other organisations.

There’s usually not much to note on the seminar. I suppose participants get a kick in thinking they have more political friends and they get to enjoy the swell feeling of being all smart and radical. Beyond that there’s not much to comment about. Whine about, perhaps. In a country where a main Union owns a mass-circulation daily and whose “ex-spouse” (still on amicable terms) owns a national TV and a radio station plus a weekly and news portal someone at the seminar still felt he had to complain about the media’s failure to cover properly new related to industrial relations.

This year there was a little bit more substance to allow one to get his teeth into. It was the story that the GWU’s industrial action at the Malta Freeport has earnt it a € 1 million garnishee order from the Courts. Now at a GWU seminar that might sound a bit self-serving but, never mind. It might be worth to go over the points of this story. The GWU claimed it had regained the members it had lost at the Port to the Malta Dockers Union (MDU) which would have granted it recognition. The Director of Industrial Relations interviewed the workers in question and determined that the MDU still had a majority.

The GWU then proceeded to organise a “secret ballot” which, as the article and photo in the Indy indicate, was about as “secret” as a shoe box in the street can get. The exercise was so ludicrous the Communist Party paper Zminijietna, a participant at the seminar, came out asking for a “secret ballot”, oblivious to the fact that their hosts had already organised one.

Well, surprise, surprise the GWU caim out claiming victory. No conflict of interest involved, hand on heart and promise to Jesus. So industrial actions were organised at the Freeport which, coming from a Union not having recognition, is considered to be illegal. Hence the garnishee order.

Probably so as not to be considered a waste of time, participants went around looking for “solutions”. The garnishee order must be weighting on the Union’s big chest big time because rather than the gung-ho attitude which got the Union where it is, it was the victim “we do not get enough coverage” mindset which was speaking.

One was that government should cease being a “spectator” and get involved in arbitration. These people don’t seem to get that, as far as industrial relations go, the Director of Industrial Relations is the government. Labour’s Deputy Leader went one further: to get newly appointed President George Abela to arbitrate. Funny, it wasn’t ages ago that Abela, after being sidelined by the GWU, took up the case of the MDU and was its first legal adviser.

That was the first in what turned out to be a massive fall-out between the Qormi lawyer and the Union. Just in case anyone has already forgotten, just before his appointment as President George Abela won a libel case at the GWU’s expense over a press release the Union issued in 2006 on a court case wehre Abela was defending Josephine Attard-Sultana, a former GWU official who, like him, was unceremoniously sidelined.

The proposal surprised me. There’s a plethora of methods to arbitrate on this matter from the industrial tribunal to the arbitration centre. And not to forget the Courts. The proposal to have the President take a personal interest, when the person in question is probably not exactly well-liked in the GWU, boggles the mind. Just dumb or a way of pre-empting a possible unfavourable outcome?

Choices we make

The Governor of the Central Bank of Malta has commented on kick-starting the economy:

An increase in public investment should be preferred to lower taxation or higher benefits, should the government be considering a new economic stimulus, the Governor of the Central Bank has argued.

“An increased stimulus in the form of lower taxation or higher social benefits is not as cost effective as an increase in public investment expenditure. The latter is to be preferred since it tends to generate a smaller demand for imports, while raising the economy’s potential output,” Michael J. Bonello wrote in the Bank’s annual report.

He also insisted that fiscal prudence remains necessary to safeguard both Malta’s credit rating and investor confidence.

That should have been pretty obvious: political choices are always made at the expense of others. It’s only in Labour’s dream world that a government can, for example, increase benefits, slash energy prices, refund VAT on cars even if the courts deem the practice to have been legal and cut taxes while denigrating the Government because its response to the crisis has been proposing more capital projects and fiscal discipline.

Note also the Governor’s point on the fact that directly splashing out cash generates a greater demand for imports. Put crudely that means that the Maltese Government will be subsidising other countries’ economies. And the issue of safeguarding investor confidence. Can anyone put a price tag on that these days?

Fellow blogger Andrew Sciberras notes that tax cuts versus higher spending may very well be what will set apart the European Socialists and the People’s Party at a European level but then hangs on to little more than hope that Joseph Muscat will be able to defy not economics but simple logic and offer both. And considering that bounties will abound, we’ll probabl also get them on a silver platter.

Muscat has not learnt the lesson from 1996 when Labour offered a populist promise of less tax and — here’s the cliché — “putting money in people’s pockets” and then discovering it could not live up to that when faced with the realities of office. That may have given Labour an unexpected electoral victory and two years of government … followed by fifteen years of opposition. You campaign in poetry, Hilary Clinton is once repurted to have said, but you govern in prose.

Religious versus Secular

Ranier Fsadni was commenting on the new President’s decision to include mass in the official programme of his appointment and the subsequent reaction of the media which asked if the President’s decision was wise considering that he’s there to represent all Maltese.

I won’t go into this particular decision. What’s of greater interest to me is the conclusion to Fsadni’s article:

One is a narrowing religious vision to be increasingly found among Maltese Catholics: increasingly sectarian behaviour whose consequence is that, whenever somebody declares his or her Catholicism publicly, others wonder if it is a sectarian gesture rather than the address from which one reaches out to everyone.

The other is a narrow vision of what secularism is. Instead of keeping up with the thinking of leading secular philosophers, like Juergen Habermas, who believe that a 21st-century liberal society should have place for believers who use religious language to engage in the public sphere, regrettably too much of Maltese secular thinking tends to be stuck with nervous complexes like those of unreconstructed 1920s Turkish secularism.

However subtly, Fsadni is placing the blame for the state of affairs on the “secular thinkers”: they’re the ones who think that a public act of attending Mass is “sectarian” and they’re the one whose idea of secularism is some sort of re-hashed Kemalism.

Fsadni’s article come soon after a recent story I commented on about an American priest who, while obviously knowing zilch about Maltese constitutional affairs, was brought over to support the campaign to entrench the right to life from conception.

Let’s go over the facts again because they assume new importance in this context. A pro-life organisation which has regularly claimed that it is not a religious organisation (presumably, to reach out to pro-life non-believers) invites a priest from the developed country that’s been hardest racked by cultural wars to talk in favour of its campaign. Significantly, which metaphor does this priest find handy to describe what he came to speak in favour for? Raising fortifications. Can you imagine anything more sectarian than wall-building?

Or, to keep with the today’s theme, here Rev. Joe Borg in his online column in the Times:

What Christ says flies in the face of the current belief in self and instant gratification. Christ’s message is clearly that the person who wants to live only for himself and exploit all life’s possibilities for personal gain finds that life itself becomes boring and empty because it becomes senseless.

“Self and instant gratification”? I quote Rev. Borg, by the way, not becuase his views are atypical but precisely because he’s the most media-literate and one of the most articulate members of the Maltese clergy.  If I were to look around me I see people reducing whatever they consume be it as a way to cope with the recession, save for their retirement or their children, for the sake of the environment or the Third World … you name it. They might find it gratifying but it’s anything but “self” or “instant”. But caricaturing the “other” is another typical way of creating sectarian divides where none need to be.

We do not need a culture war. But some believers are all out to provoke one. Why they should want to is beyond me because these people always have their way: those who ridicule their faith get arrested, divorce is off the agenda and our law on assisted reproduction will have the Vatican’s nihil obstat written over it. There’s no risk that the prohibition on abortion be repealed? These people still want to provoke and gloat about the fact that they always have it their way so they want the matter entrenched.

Here’s my hunch: some people just love playing persecuted and martyrs, preferably without the blood and the gore. I understand and fully sympathise with people who make sacrifices: whether if it’s for their future, their children, their environment and even if it’s for symbolic and spiritual reasons as many believers will do today. What I don’t understand or find favour with is the people who take pleasure in voluntary self-sacrifice because it sets them apart from others and occasionally meting some of that to unwilling participants. Which, incidentally, has a name: sado-masochism.

The siege mentality

Thanks to Homer, in the West we have two prevailing metaphors for life: one which sees it as a siege, the other as a journey. Needless to say, the former is the prevalent Maltese weltanshauung due, certainly, to the country’s history.

Which, however, also has a seductive power on outsiders. I still remember when in 2000 Scottish Cardinal Thomas Winning spoke in Malta on the invitation of the Cana Movement, saying to his Maltese audience that in Europe pro-gay activists were “pushing for greater power” and “in place of the bombs of 50 years ago you find yourselves bombarded with images and ideas which are utterly alien”. That obviously equated pro-gay activists with Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, obvious to anyone except to Cardinal Winning who protested misrepresentation.

We have had the siege metaphor used again recently:

American anti-abortion priest Denis Wilde believes Malta should protect its pro-life stance by establishing this firmly in the Constitution.

Fr Wilde, from the pro-life organisation Priests For Life that preaches against abortion and euthanasia, was recently in Malta and said the island should introduce safeguards to avoid the legalisation of abortion.

“You should put your fortresses up to avoid the invasion,” he said, drawing parallels between the fortresses that surrounded the island and the Constitutional amendment, which has long been called for by local pro-life group Gift Of Life.

He stopped at the “drawing paralells” between the fortresses (sic, he must have meant fortifications) and what are the “invaders” a similie for? It was left hanging there in mid-air indicating a man who was either looking out for a soundbite or who’s intellectually very lazy.

Reading on, I thought it was the latter:

Referring to the 1973 Supreme Court judgment which legalised abortion in the US, Fr Wilde said this made it even more important for Maltese not to be complacent and introduce safeguards.

“Right now it looks like abortion will never be legalised in Malta. But a court decision could change everything,” he said, adding that, while courts could bring about changes in the law, the Constitution was much harder to change.

I’m not one of the le ghall-indhil barrani types. In fact, I quite enjoy having foreigners who know next to nothing about Malta comment on our affairs because, inevitably, they make jackasses of themselves and they provide much raw material for this blog to mock them for their provincialism.

The Maltese Constitution is nothing like the US Constitution, the role of the Maltese Constitutional Court is nothing like that of the US Supreme Court. I hate pointing out the obvious but this priest deserves to have it rubbed into his face: Malta is not a federation of states. There’re more to be said about the substantive points of the argument. For example, Roe vs Wade (the 1973 Supreme Court judgement) did not make abortion legal but removed the heavy restrictions which, until then existed in many states’ laws. In Malta the prohibtion is categorical.

On the other hand, we have an example of a country which introduced a prohibition on abortion (stated as a committment, on the part of the state, to protect life from conception) into its constitution: Ireland. The result was unexpected legal complications. Reminding us that at times it pay to view life more like the Odyssey rather than the Iliad.

Neutrality and all that

Jum il-Helsien was the end of something but, sadly, it was the beginning of something else. With foreign military out we patted ourselves on the back, decided that we’re everyone’s best friend and proceeded to proclaim it to the entire world that “we’re neutral”. Neutrality has a very specific meaning in international law but, being the kind of people who’d always and in all things want to be more Catholic than the Pope, we additionally proclaimed ourselves to be non-aligned, eternally free of foreign military bases and promoters of peace and social progress amongst all nations.

Thankfully, EU membership assured that that strain in our foreign policy which considered itself God’s gift to humanity is now relegated to a curious sideshow. Sadly, it lives on and the unbidden, self-appointed peacemaker occasionally still struts on stage in its over-sized boots.

It did so when we sent the highest level non-Arab delegation to the funeral of Yasser Arafat. It did so when, in response to the Mohammed cartoons, the Maltese Foreign Minister called all the Arab ambassador and apologised for something that appeared in a Danish newspaper. It did so when it decided to open an office in the Palestinian Territories, where there is only one Maltese resident, at the same time that it was considering closing our only Scandinavian embassy (not to worry, though: Kevin Borg, winner of the winning the Swedish Idol contest, was appointed “tourism ambassador” to the region).

Here’s an example where our own self-image on the international stage leads to conflated and confused ideas. Evarist Bartolo:

Neutrality is good for us. Not serving as a military, naval and air base for other countries and their alliances is good for us.

That’s a non sequitur. Not to serving as a military base for other countries and their alliances does not imply neutrality as can be attested by many NATO members who have consistently declined to host armies of their allies, France between 1966 and 2009 being the case par excellance. NATO, after all, is a mutual defence alliance. Interestingly, the famous “an attack on one is an attach on all” Article 5 of the Treaty does not even specify any military nature to the assistance to be given in the case of an attack which is why Germany, for years constitutionally prohibited from sending its armies abroad, could still be a member.

Here’s perception being so warped, the historical facts get seriously twisted:

As a state on the southern frontiers of the EU it is also good for the EU and enhances its diversity and flexibility if it has a member state that can build on its reputation as an ideal meeting place for states, cultures and religions in conflict. It is such a pity that in the last five years we have been largely absent from being a protagonist of Mediterranean politics within the EU and within our region.

And then, all peace agreements I can think of — Middle East, the Balkans — were all negotiated and signed in NATO countries because all beligerents seemed to care for were some decent conference facilities. Bartolo’s rebuke about our “absence” is really about the inevitable failure of living to our own unrealistic self-image. Cheer up, I say. If anyone would have wanted you to act as arbiter they would have called.

Belated thoughts on il-Helsien

I know that this is a little belated but it’s only now that I got the opportunity to put down the Ikea catalogue. I do this to make a few points.

First, I think “Freedom Day” is an inaccurate translation of “Jum il-Helsien” whatever your opinion is of the historical significance of the day. “Helsien” in Maltese is more of a verb than a noun. That’s not the only case of poor translation. Other cases are even worse. Think of “Malta hielsa“. Over at the Times they translated it as “free Malta”. There is only one instance where I can think of the word “free” being followed by a proper noun (as opposed to historic instances involving a common noun such as the “Irish Free State” and the “Congo Free State” which, incidentally, are both transliterations from an original language that isn’t English). A “free” which precedes a proper noun is a verb in the imperative (think “Free Mumia”).

Second point is about Labour’s claim that the Nationalist government is celebrating Jum il-Helsien as some sort of second-class national day out of the five we already have. Incidentally, only one person decided to look into the evidence, Anna Mallia. Sadly, Mallia is out to prove the point that the government indeed treats national festivities differently and pumps up the evidence in one case and not in the other.

Read it carefully, keep in mind that the description of the 31 March commemoration has been somewhat shorn of detail and you’ll realise that the only real significant difference is that Independence Day gets a solemn pontifical mass and a symphonic concert to Jum il-Helsien’s traditional regatta. Don’t know about you but I’m with the Laburisti on this one: give me a regatta with the brawls and controversies over two events for over-dressed people.

Just in case you didn’t know there is an agreement reached in 1990 on how national festivities should be celebrated. The date is significant: it followed the lavish 25th anniversary celebration of Independence and the fracas at the 31st March commemoration when the Labour mob for no apparent reason assaulted the Brigadier-Commander of the Armed Forces and threw him into the sea. For close to two decades, under both Labour and Nationalist governments, there were no complaints.

Only now. On the 30th anniversary of Jum il-Helsien. Does anyone remember a similar complaint being raised five years ago on the more significant 25th commemoration? I don’t and in all likelihood there wasn’t any. There is no factual grounds for Muscat’s complaints but there is a cause. For close to ten years Alfred Sant played down the importance of Jum il-Helsien, seeing it as a “Mintoffian” feast, compensation by trying to boost the importance, in Labour’s psyche, of Republic Day. That the incumbent leader has gone back to the ludicrous “torch ceremony” (a throwback to and a reminder of the partisan aspect the 1979 Labour government attached to the feast) is significant.

Third point is about the number of national days. This, together with such issues as the choice of choosing the President of the Republic, have loomed large as matters requiring urgent answers to address the country’s political divisions. Such choices — a President with a party political history, five national days to accommodate all — are not the cause of national divisions (if such a division is to be considered problematic at all). At most they are a symptom. And even if the medical metaphor is to be considered as being accurate, they’re symptoms about as serious as a common cold. Five national days is ludicrous; assuming that agreement on, say, 8th September being a national day and everyone feeling great and “national” about the move is just as ludicrous.

Final point is about debunking historical myths. James Debono on his blog engages in the exercise specifically the significance of the “liberation” by Count Roger the Norman in 1099, the nation-building significance of the Great Siege of 1565. Unfortunately, Debono is, as usual, partial and goes on to say that “Freedom Day” was when “when Maltese economy ceased to be dependent on the military expenditure of other powers and closed the military base enabling Malta to develop friendly ties with its southern neighbours”.

Malta had friendly ties with Libya (that’s our only “southern neighbour” — let’s just drop the euphemisms, shall we?) before 1979. Actually, they sharply deteriorated the following year over the Saipem-II incident.

But more importantly, the Maltese economy did not cease to be dependent on foreign military expenditure in 1979. The last time we had a reliable, significant report confirming Malta’s dependence on British military expenditure was the Balogh and Seers report of 1955. Between that report and the closure of the military base there was the Suez fiasco (when Britain realised that its days as a global power were over), two massive run-downs in 1958 and 1967, the departure of NATO and the Americans in 1971 and the reduction in British troops during the tense discussions on re-negotiating the Defence Agreement in 1972.

Don’t get me wrong: I think Jum il-Helsien deserves recognition. It deserves that without recourse to spinning Malta’s dependence on foreign military expenditure in 1979 to historical proportions.

Ikea break

Commitments of the personal kind keep me away from blogging. They will keep on doing so for the next few weeks. My apologies to readers. Now back to the Ikea manual.

Money and elections

Some time back Keith wrote a piece on the cost of campaigning for elections:

Electoral campaigns are costly affairs, and consequently those individual candidates having deep pockets are increasingly able to conduct a slick modern electoral campaign. The problem with this is that it is not always the case that those having deeper pockets are the best choices for the job.

Unfortunately, however, the way the system is today, given that people still are asked to express a direct preference for an individual candidate rather than a political group, valid candidates who do not have deep pockets upon which to rely are turning away from elective politics. In the long run this may have very serious consequences upon the democratic process itself.

The concern is legitimate. It is particularly acute in the case of the EP elections where the entire country forms a single constituency requiring more resources of anyone deciding to stand as candidate.

Many moons ago I defended a common practice in Maltese politics: door-to-door canvassing. It started off with two news items Jacques picked upon. One was the ban on the practice in that most eccentiric of democracies: Japan. The second was the caricatured portrayal of the PM knocking on doors brought to you thanks to Norman Lowell (he who campaigns by organising fenkati at Ta’ Cetta). Jacques called for a similar ban. Thankfully, he changed his mind and move on to other things.

There is much that is to be said in favour of door-to-door campaigning. To return to Keith’s concerns, as long as they have a pair of legs with which to walk, all candidates are on the proverbial level playing field, irrespective of their financial resources to mount a campaign. Ditto for the voters. Let us not forget that not all of them can access the internet and the people that can’t often hail from the most vulnerable categories. What’s more it is a form of campaigning that reminds that candidates are “in obligation” towards the voters who open the doors. Showing up at activities (often with free food and free booze) might give the impression that the obligation flows in the opposite direction.

Such campaigning is restricted in the case of EP elections. The candidates standing in one district for a general election has an electorate of some 20,000 voters; his counterpart standing for the EP election has one more than ten times as large. In such scenario, large-scale activities and media presence, both with consume considerable finances, are the natural way to go.

How to get around this? I’ve never had any sympathy for restrictions on the amount of money a candidate may spend on his campaign. After all commercial entities have no such restricting and nobody is call for such a restriction on the money they spend in advertising. My suggestion is to have Malta divided into a number of electoral divisions. Another alternative, the Dutch method of the entire country being a single electoral division, I find unpalatable because it uses closed lists where voters essentially decide how many seats the parties get and who sits in those seats is left to Party bosses.

Small constituencies means that financial resources will make less of a difference, candidates will prefer to spend their time meeting people face-to-face than showing up on national media and they will be more atturned to local problems. It wouldn’t be insensible to cut up Malta into three constituencies: Gozo, Malta Majjistral and Malta Xlokk. There would be nothing new in that as it’s the way the country is already divided when mayors elect the Executive Committee of the Local Council Association is elected.

Keeping in mind the populations of the three districts Gozo could elect one MEP, the other constituencies electing two. If the Lisbon Treaty is approved there are many ways to elect the sixth: a general list (as is the case with the Local Council Association), as the “compensation” making the system a mixed-member proportional representation system or simply assigning it to the larger of the Maltese districts.

The Greens have been vindicated

Here’s the Greens’ reaction to Joseph Muscat’s “action plan” (for which read: suggestion to uphold “legality” by breaking international law):

AD vindicated by Parliament Debate: a rational and firm approach to solving the illegal immigration problem

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party expressed its satisfaction at the level of debate held in Parliament to discuss the illegal immigration problem. The proposals made by members from both sides of the House are congruent with AD’s consistent position on the matter, which always advocated a balance between the need to implement solidarity according to international obligations, and the urgency to protect the national interest.

Vindicated? Really? Now I know that the Greens think of themselves as moral and intellectual superiors and that they had it all figured out before everyone else. Sometime in 1989 when they were founded, not unlike the unnamed Party in 1984 which claimed to have invented the car, the aeroplane and the steam engine.

But if their proposals were indeed vindicated which where they? The debate had, unsurprisingly, two loci: government which insisted on the course of action it has followed for seven years and the Leader of the Opposition and his twenty point action plan. Nobody gave a toss about nineteen of the points. For good reason. First, because some have been implemented for a long time. Others, because they are so obviously a case of doublespeak that they are not worth a second thought.

Think about, for example, Muscat’s suggestion to segregate people for different ethnic origin to avoid conflict. That can only mean one of two things: extending detention centres or building new ones. Nobody cared not even the usual crowd at timesofmalta.com whom you’d expect to react with “not out of taxpayers’ money”. Or rather “NOT OUT OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY!!!!!!!”.

Did anyone take seriously Muscat’s claims about shortcomings at detention centres? In case you have forgotten, Labour’s leader thinks that the most important thing detention centres lack and which renders them an affront to human dignity is … discipline. Or how about his proposals to have them adopt to “Maltese norms” like understanding that women are free to wear what they like, you don’t cut queues and you don’t urinate in public? Knowing what the Maltese norms are in these cases I’d fear it will make immigrants feel even more alienated.

Not, the highlight of that debate was Muscat’s proposal for a quota and his threat to suspend Malta’s obligations towards the rest. That, of course, would have no pluses (who’ll fly the plane repatriating Somali immigrants to Mogadishu?) and many minuses. While there is some credibility that it is well nigh impossible to patrol the entire Libyan coast I’m sure the Italian navy has enough frigates to patrol the entire perimeter of Maltese waters and return any departing immigrants back to the closest port.

Do the Greens feel vindicated by that? All their talk was misplaced references to Dublin-II (which does not add or take away anything from Malta’s situation) and for Commissioner Jacques Barrot to hurry up and do whatever it is needed to appear that something’s happening. In other words, of everything but the elephant in the room. Is Cassola still banking on an electoral koalizzjoni with Labour?

Must have required lots of thinking

The Green Party slogan for the EP election is “Energy, Experience, Europe”. I hope, for their sake, that it’s something thought up in five minutes flat by their PRO rather that something a political consultant created for a fee. The “Europe” bit is particularly redundant. Well, with Cassola alternating between contesting an election in Italy with an election in Malta it’s probably some reminding as to what he’s standing for this time round and which electorate’s turn it is to empathise with.

The deal is done

Jacques says that he’ll let go of the “old record” which sees all the world through MLPN tinted glasses. Right on time, I say. After Joseph Muscat presented his “action plan” on immigration in Parliament we’ll be faced with an old divide in Maltese politics, a divide which may have taken many forms and guises but which was always there, sometimes in the political foreground sometimes fading back.

It was, at one point, European democracy and rule of law versus authoritarian mob rule. At another, it was free markets versus paternalistic socialism. It was a sensible tax all advanced economies adopt versus a confused throwback to customs and excise duties. It was the choice between the political fulfillment of our European vocation versus smug self-fulfillment, thinking that we’ll be fine on our own because we’re special.

To all of us (Jacques, I’m sure, included) who have had to deal with foreign counterparts the Malta Labour Party was, for many years, the embarrassing old relative who smacked his lips, belched and broke wind noisily, lifted young women’s skirts and wolf-whistled. We had to offer profuse excuses ranging from ma tantx ghamilha ma’ nies to being someone minn ta’ wara l-muntanji. That these Maltese expressions would lose so much in English translation indicates not only how a unique Maltese phenomenon (a mainstream political party being highly eccentric) this was but how equally unique was the suffering of those of us who only hoped that Malta would be … well, normal.

We’re back to that old divide again. Not that Muscat’s plan is without merits. Keeping people of different ethnicities separate is laudable but it means more detention centres which is a matter the Labour leader conveniently doesn’t go into. It’s the possibility of reneging on international obligations.

Today, by the way, an Italian warship picked sixty-five immigrants off a sinking boat. Despite being in Malta’s search and rescue zone the nearest safe port was Lampedusa which, according to international law, is where the ship with its immigrants was supposed to head to. The Maltese Government had its way only because it was in the right according to international law. I have written, on another occasion, that observance of international law ultimately always benefits the smaller, weaker players like Malta. If that Italian warship decided to ignore international law and forged ahead with disembarking its passengers at Hay Wharf what would we have done? Sent in the MV Rozi?

Not that reneging on international obligations would lead to much. We will not let them drown, Muscat says. We’ll just stop fingerprinting them so that if — hopefully — they turn up elsewhere they won’t know where to send them back. The “repatriate them” crowd surely applauded that, irony being too sophisticated not to be lost on them. We care for international law only when they are to our advantage. In return, expect it not to be so easy disembarking from an AirMalta flight once you reach a European airport. International law is very much a gentlemanly agreement and once it’s gone expect some tit-for-tat action.

Muscat is, of course, at his most ridiculous when he climbs on the moral pulpit and preaches. Just like that police superintendent berated Somalis saying that if they have no laws there here we do … and then only a few days later a (Maltese) man opened fire on the Nationalist Mqabba club with a massacre only being averted miraculously. Muscat says that immigrants will be made “to understand that women had a right to wear what they wished, that people queued for what they needed, and they did not relieve themselves in public”. Oh, really, a right to wear what you wish? Like wrap yourself in a sheet and don a halo and fake beard? Last time someone did that it got him a month’s worth of prison.

But Muscat shouldn’t worry too much. Tonight he might have won his Party the next general election. Just like his predecessor when he took a position against VAT, Muscat has opportunistically chosen to ride the popular wave. It will get him results. Just only in the short-term.

Does God exist? Following what happened in 1998 I think he does. I don’t know if he has a sense of humour to laugh at our mediocre imitations of him but I do think — again from what happened in 1998 — that he’s understanding, forgiving and always ready to give the Maltese a second chance. Let’s hope he still will.

I just can’t wait for tomorrow

Thought it was only the fringe left that talked from both sides of the mouth? Think again:

Labour environment spokesman Leo Brincat said censorship policies needed to be revamped to allow Malta to become “a truly liberal and secular state”. He said religion needed to be respected but there should be a more liberal approach to such laws.

Anyone knows what Brincat means? A “truly liberal and secular state” would hold respect for religious beliefs as much as it would have for the belief that the world is flat. But then there must have been something about the “liberal approach” to “such laws” which I don’t get. Meanwhile, at the Catholic Institute they’re staging “Spiru Cefai u r-ruh tal-Baruni” featuring many actors acting a military role. Anyone checking if they’ll be wearing uniforms and dragging people to court?

But I digress. Tomorrow, social democrat Joseph Muscat will be announcing his big idea about illegal immigration:

Joseph Muscat has denied that his Labour Party is capitalising on people’s immigration fears as he prepares to put forward a series of proposals to Parliament tomorrow in a bid to tackle the problem.

The PL’s proposals will not be extreme like Azzjoni Nazzjonali’s, but will push the boundaries of diplomacy, according to Dr Muscat.

“Our job is to be tough on politicians, not immigrants – but we can’t turn a blind eye to the problem,” he told The Sunday Times.

I wonder how the politicians at the Party of European Socialists will take that … Poul Nyrup Rasmussen would have to step in for Muscat with something more credible that his standard excuse of standing up against the imagined “right-wing press”. Sadly we’ll have to wait another day because Muscat was not answering questions except not even to answer whether the right to request asylum will constinue to exist. He did say: “we don’t have a magic wand but we have an innovative package”. A package so innovative, it seems, that “should attract the attention of the international community”. I just can’t wait.

On a slightly different note, hats off to Muscat for having pulled off so successfully the excellent photo op of a huge line of subscribers to the Party’s class action suit against the government on the tax for the registration of vehicles. If government loses that suit it could mean it’ll have to disburse the €50 million it collected. Now that’s what I call sustainable.

The strange ways of the Maltese left

A busy week kept me away from blogging. Not that I missed much: most of the stuff filling the papers was the usual regarding immigration. What was surprising (sort of) was the quarters it was coming from.

It first started with the Campaign for National Independence captained by the less than the former Labour leader Karmenu Mifsud-Bonnici who, immediately before that, was in the news decrying his present-day successor’s attempt to replace “democratic socialism” with “social democracy” as the guiding principle of the Labour Party.

Then we had this with a suggestion on what our candidates should be doing come the EP election next June:

Candidates and the electorate are to take part in the electoral process while protesting the situation. The candidates would dedicate their campaign to this issue while making sure that their name is not on the ballot, thus ensuring that no candidate is elected to the EU Parliament and the seats allotted to Malta are not taken up immediately. The electorate is to be encouraged to join in the protest by either abstaining from voting or by invalidating their vote, by writing a message of protest on the ballot.

Come next June the European public would come to know about the Maltese protest and would surely manifest its solidarity, so much so that this problem which is so huge for us to shoulder on our own would be resolved within the European context.

Of course once the problem has been resolved, the candidates would not only be acknowledged as the country’s heroes but be given the chance to contest the election so that those elected could take up their seats.

That’s the advice of Mario Mifsud, editor of the periodical Zminijietna which tags itself as “voice of the left”. Zminijietna was also the official organ of the Maltese Communist Party and if the latter still exists, the magazine is the only thing of the Party that’s still functioning properly.

Note, there is nothing in the case about rights and about sharing wealth, usually the hallmark of the writings of Mifsud and writers like him. It’s just a question of “rid us of this burden”. Some day these people might wake up to the fact that the fascists were hot too about “workers’ rights” and that Hitler’s Party was called “national socialist” for a reason. So, in that sense, there’s nothing in the Maltese left that distinguishes from the Maltese extreme right.

It’s also amusing the note the course of action. It’s probably what the Maltese left calls “radical democracy” in a way of patting itself on the back; had anything similar to this come from the right they’d call it “populism” as a derogatory way of describing something as cheap. What’s the difference? You tell me.

And another piece of related news regarding illegal immigration elsewhere: the UK has the same problem with France that Malta has vis-a-vis Libya. The only difference is that France is an EU country and signatory to the Geneva Convention and Dublin II and, unlike the Libyan coast, has only one point of “terrestial” departure to the UK. Poor Brits, unlike us, they don’t know how to make a fuss.

And today’s Richard is …

First, Richard Cachia-Caruana was Malta’s éminence rouge and grise (the MaltaToday editor seems to think they are one and the same person). Then the budding Plutarch had to find something for Edgar Galea-Curmi but couldn’t come up with anything better than … “éminence grise“.

The new desgination for the PM’s PA called for some new deep and insightful historical parallel for Cachia-Caruana. Before you could say “d’Artagnan” Harry Vassallo, the latest addition to the paper’s staff with a history in the Green Party, comes to the rescue:

The rest of the time he [Cachia-Caruana] is the J. Edgar Hoover of Maltese politics, setting the unattainable benchmark for unelected power founded on the cast iron promise of a crippling payback if and when he is thwarted. It doesn’t even inspire a smirk.

That was written in reaction to the fact that Cachia-Caruana is supposed not to have reacted nicely to be depicted in a cartoon published by the paper as … John the Baptist being beheaded.

Ah, so that was it

There have been developments:

A Bill on assisted procreation is being drafted by the Bioethics Consultative Committee and should be ready by summer, The Times has learnt.

The Bill is based on recommendations made by Parliament’s Social Affairs Committee in July 2005, Bioethics Consultative Committee chairman Michael Asciak said.

“We are using the parliamentary committee’s report as our standard, although the draft law might vary slightly,” he said.

The news comes after Rev. Prof. Emmanuel Agius on Monday urged the government to stop dragging its feet on the issue as it had been doing for too long. He was speaking during a meeting of the House Social Affairs Committee.

And Edwin Vassallo admitted to his intellectual sloth:

Rev. Prof. Agius was asked by committee chairman Edwin Vassallo to analyse the previous committee’s recommendations in view of Dignitatis Personae [Church document issued in December 2008] and point out any contradictions.

Questioned about this decision, Mr Vassallo ruled out changing Mr Puli’s report, adding that he had asked for an explanation of the teachings of the Church and whether there were any parts of the report that diverged from these teachings.

I get the feeling Agius was called for no other reason than a last-ditched attempt to make sure the eventual bill would be wholesome, offering nothing constructive, just a blanket ban. Misrepresenting proponents with “man’s primary intention in IVF was to kill the embryos that remained unutilised” and throwing in some urban legends (“it is said that in the US there’s more frozen embryos than people”) truly shows the way forward.

Mutaween in action

Tipped by the ecclesiastical authorities the mutaween have rounded up the Maltese (“foreigners who do not respect our culture”) who caused a stir at the Nadur carnival:

Nine Maltese are to be taken to court for allegedly breaking the law because of the costumes they wore during the Nadur Carnival, the police said this evening.

Reacting to a statement issued earlier today by Archbishop Paul Cremona and Bishop Mario Grech, the police said the nine, aged between 20 and 35, will be accused of having: “without permission, or against the prohibition of the respective authorities, worn any civil, naval, military or air force uniform, or any ecclesiastical habit or vestment.”

This is strange. It would seem that the people in question dressed up as the risen Christ and as Christ and the appostles. And the police come up with a law that clearly prohibits someone trying to pass off as a priest? The law in question may be dated (anyone knows what a Maltese naval or air force uniform looks like?) but you can see the reasoning behind it: in a country where priests are held in high regard, the law is trying to avert any risk that anyone abuses of people’s trust. It does not have to do anything with taking the mickey out of anyone or anything.

Divorce follows “koalizzjoni”

In case you’re one of those who’s in favour of the introduction of divorce, who feels offered a take-it-or-leave-it choice at every general election and ends up voting Nationalists here’s something that guarantees you will not feel that bad: Arnold Cassola telling you to vote Green in the next European Parliament election for the sake of civil unions and divorce.

Not that that would get the matter any further. Helpfully, Cassola hints at why: inheritance and social security, two national matters the EP has, so far, not got its hands on. It’s the national Parliament which can legislate divorce and the last time we voted for that the Greens decided that divorce should not feature prominently but instead stick to their pie-in-the-sky campaiging and focus on “koalizzjoni” instead.

Incidentally, there’ll be at least one other candidate who’ll be standing for election on a platform calling for divorce when in the EP he can never do anything about it. It’s John Zammit. But, at least, he can be excused for reasons that Cassola can’t.

Let’s defer to the reverend

A legislature ago, when backbenchers worked harder and sought the limelight less, the House Social Affairs Committee produced a document with recommendations on policies and legislation Malta could introduce in the field of assisted reproduction. The situation is terra incognita as far as legislation goes: the sector is totally unregulated in Malta. Meaning that the situation is not kosher as far as the Catholic Church goes, which adds some more credibility to the theory that the strongest force in the universe is inertia.

The report was a great piece of work from a political standpoint. After having listened to just about everyone with an informed opinion on the subject, the Committee produced something which, if anything, drew everyone’s agreement on it being reasonable. Not everyone of course was happy. Not even some Committee members were but then they hardly ever showed up to Committee meetings. The next step would have been for the Minister responsible for health to get his staff prepare a White Paper and, eventually, a Bill and while the road might have been rocky at least it would have been clear.

That was not to be. In the meantime the members of the Committee changed, now headed by Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo. Three years after the report was published Vassallo decided to re-open the debate. “Re-open” is a bit of a misnomer because opinions, it seems, will only be received from Reverend Emanuel Agius, dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta:

Rev. Prof. Agius was making the presentation to update the House Social Affairs Committee on the Church’s document on human dignity last December to follow up on the instruction Donum Vitae of 1987, with special regard to new threats to human life.

Before the meeting adjourned, committee chairman Edwin Vassallo asked him to eventually revert to the committee with a comparison between the recommendations made by the previous committee, chaired by Clyde Puli, and the Church’s latest pronunciation.

[...]

After almost three years, the House still had only a set of recommendations, not enough to go on. He suggested that Rev. Prof. Agius should be allowed to go back over the previous committee’s recommendations and revert thereon. The committee should then have time to discuss the situation internally and make its updated recommendations. If Rev. Prof. Agius found he could agree with the previous committee’s recommendations, or part of them, that could be considered as real progress.

First of all, why the Committee decided to re-open the debate is a mystery. Dignitatis Personae, the Church document on the subject published since the Committee’s report came out, can hardly be said to have taken anyone by surprise and that this “update” was not something the Committee did not anticipate. If it’s a question of orthodoxy Vassallo should have presented to the committee the Church documents setting out its position and that would have been it. It would have spared us the charade of having a “discussion” when it’s a case of Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

And if not, Agius was the wrong man to convene. Not because he’s a theologian and priest. But because he is the kind of person who can only misrepresent what he doesn’t agree with. It is one thing to say, for whatever reason, that certain forms of assisted reproduction are immoral; it is another to claim something like “man’s primary intention in IVF was to kill the embryos that remained unutilised”.

Looney left meet looney right

Looking for some context to the news item on the petition on illegal immigration by the Campaign for National Indepdence (CNI) I came across their website. Here’s some stuff on their campaign (translation mine):

At a public conference CNI held in a hotel in Sliema on Friday, 5 December, it was decided that the members of the Maltese Parliament should take concrete action against illegal immigration to Malta.

And then these people complain that with Malta in the EU our Parliament is no longer sovereign. More:

Dr Karmenu Mifsud-Bonnici insisted that if we want to solve this very serious problem, the country should declare to all that it will not accept illegal immigrants, wherever they’re coming from, whatever the reason and that every immigrant coming to Malta will be sent back to his country.

I wonder if Mifsud-Bonnici will be flying the chartered plane carring Somalis to Mogadishu. Probably not: he’s not a pilot. A pity.

It should be known to everyone that illegal immigrants who don’t give information from which country they’re from, will be held in prison until they give the required information.

How about involving Lawrence Pullicino in this whole enterprise?

Getting themselves a loose canon

The same cannot be said of the Nationalist Party presenting Vince Farrugia on its candidate list at the EP election in June. He was a major contribution to the Nationalist defeat in 1996, caring little for EU membership which, at the time, looked lost in eternity.

He did come around to the idea in 1998 when Malta’s application was re-activated. But one should be forgiven for suspecting that this change of heart only came about with the realisation, some way into the Sant administration, that no Government of a modern economy will let go of a general system of indirect taxation and the fiscal control that comes with it.

For Farrugia is not an “unknown quantity”. His first interview betrayed his opportunism. And, on top of, it’s no secret to anyone who follows him in the media that he’s a loose cannon. That’s different from the claim that the Nationalist Party is too broad a church and its candidates a very mixed bag, the environmentally-minded of whom should be worshipping at the little chapel called the Green Party. Not even Labour’s Edward Scicluna, whose opinions against the raised tariffs and, at the same time, welfare overgenerosity, have been the subject of posts in this blog … he is capable of circumspection.

Not Vince Farrugia. Unless they have an interpretation of what they got themselves into that is not obvious, the Nationalist leadership is most likely to regret the decision.

Bunnies out of a hat

Jacques writes about others’ ability for prestidigitation but shows that he (and his cartoonist) is not incapable of some tricks of his own:

The martyrdom of JPO had its desired effect and before you know it JPO got into parliament and the PN got a contribution of 5,000 first count votes that contributed to no end to the relative majority that allowed it to govern.

Now, Jacques has placed Pullicino-Orlando above any form of responsibility. Who cares for Pullicino-Orlando when you can play indignant and place blame at somebody else’s doorstep? But that involves not only ignoring important facts that stare you in the face but taking much liberty with others. Which is no big deal considering that at J’Accuse facts are subservient to the theory.

Let’s first bring shine some light on the stuff Jacques conveniently ignores. In March 2008 he was not interested in what Pullicino-Orlando had to say. Was planning law upheld in the Mistra application? Was it broken? Bent? Did the Zebbug MP tell the truth to his Party Leader? Was he economical with it? Did he lie outright? Jacques doesn’t care because this would involve Pullicino-Orlando not Joe Saliba.

So instead he dwells on the BA press conference. And dwells. And dwells. Like if Medialink were invited to a press conference and they want to send the Stamperija janitor as the journalist to cover the event anyone would bat an eyelid. What is truly odd is that Jacques then got worked up about Pullicino-Orlando and not, say, John Spiteri-Gingell also present at that press conference and whose journalistic credentials were about as strong as the dentist’s. If anything Pullicino-Orlando was representing a media company; Spiteri-Gingell was representing a website.

And let’s remember that the episode could have taken a different turn hadn’t Alfred Sant been the control freak that he is. Any party leader’s reaction to being told that the journalist asking the “unfriendly” questions would be the target of his latest accusation would have been “Tomato, tomatoe, potato, potatoe, Orlando, Orlandoe. Bring it on”.  He might even started his answer with “Jeffrey, last time I saw you you were filling molars, now you’re filling in for Amanda Ciappara”. But, needless to say, Alfred Sant was incapable of that. And if it a question of Sant’s incapabilities Joe Saliba can hardly be blamed for that.

Fast forward to March 2009. Pullicino-Orlando receives flak for his comments on illegal immigration (not least because they are diametrically opposed to what he had been saying less than two years ago). As was the case with Mistra in 2008 the blogger who gave you the “Le ghar-Razzizmu” and the “Lampost” campaigns is equally unconcerned about the substantive issue around Pullicino-Orlando in March 2009. Having a dig at Joe Saliba and Daphne is so much more fun: “Nobody was stopping JPO from going off on a self-destruct path twelve months ago”. Because, it seems, Jacques saw it coming.

Which brings me to another bunny Jacques pulls out of the hat. His hypothesis is that “before you know it” Pullicino-Orlando found himself in Parliament and the Nationalists with 5,000 votes they couldn’t count on before. That’s “before you know” that in 2008 Pullicino-Orlando’s performance at the polls was not outstanding compared to his previous electoral performances. Oh yes, in case you think Pullicino-Orlando appeared from nowhere in March, he had been an MP for twelve years before that.

Did Pullicino-Orlando regale the Nationalists with any votes they could not count on previously? Thanks to his martydom? Jacques is sure he did. Well, that “before you know” that:

Although the Mistra case dominated the last week of the campaign, 73% claim that it had no bearing at all on their vote on March 8.

Among Nationalist voters only 9% claimed that the case had a strong bearing on the way they voted. On the other hand, among Labour voters 34% claimed that the case had a strong bearing on their vote..

At most, that would mean that the case had no bearing on the way the electorate voted. A more reasonable serving of benefit of the doubt it would mean that Pullicino-Orlando lost the Nationalists votes and, with the margin being what it was, could have cost them the election. Sometimes, the Nationalists — like Jacques — also run out of bunnies.

Ara x’qala l-bahar!

There do not seem to be that many takers for the Campaign for National Independence (CNI) drive to get Malta out of the EU. So, after telling us for years that with Malta in the EU the country would lose its privileged position between Christian Europe and Muslim North Africa [yawn] and many immigrant making full use of the metaphor in real life, the organisation has moved to everyone’s favourite topic:

The Campaign for National Independence (CNI) is to launch a nation-wide campaign to collect signatures for a petition against illegal immigration.

The petition will urge the Maltese government to take urgent action to stop migration, which CNI described as a threat to the country.

Members of CNI headed by former Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici will be going around all localities collecting the signatures starting on Monday afternoon in front of Marsa parish church.

If you recall, Mifsud-Bonnici was last seen collecting the, umm, “Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights” on Mintoff’s behalf:

It [the prize] also acknowledged Mr Mintoff’s endeavors to rid the Mediterranean of war fleets and nuclear weapons to make way for security, peace and prosperity.

And when you’ve “cleared” the Med of war fleets and nukes clearing it of illegal immigrants should be child’s play, no?

A textbook case

Someday courses in marketing will include this case as an example of worst possible PR:

Charity event turns city square into a ’slum’

Great Siege Square, Valletta, becomes a “slum” this weekend as eight members of the voluntary Marana Thà Catholic Charismatic Community simulate urban poverty.

Slum Survivor, Street Children kicked off last night and ends at noon tomorrow. Participants are living off a limited diet of bread and rice and enduring challenges reminiscent of children’s everyday life in the slums, including a scavenger hunt for biscuits.

The money raised will be donated to St Joseph’s Home in Sta Venera to provide the boys at the institute with a once-in-a-lifetime holiday to Germany.

And can anyone understand the connection between slums and St Joseph’s Home in Santa Venera?

In case you didn’t know

In case you didn’t know (and I count myself with you lot) in Malta it’s illegal to beg:

A Romanian was yesterday jailed for a week after being found guilty of begging outside churches in Valletta.

Alexandru Luca, 31, would wait in Republic Street for people leaving church after Mass and beg for money, annoying people so much that they filed a report with the police, Police Sergeant Raymond Vella testified yesterday.

The man had “even begged from a priest”, he added.

After a week of receiving reports about the Romanian, PS Vella asked him to stop begging as the practice was illegal. Mr Luca disregarded several police orders and carried on asking for alms. He was arraigned looking somewhat the worse for wear and admitted to disobeying police orders and begging.

Oh my God, he even begged from a priest. What’s this country coming to? It unclear how far Luca managed to annoy churchgoers but note please that all begging, whether of the annoying or non-annoying variety is illegal. Or probably begging while being Romanian considering the number of times you get accosted walking down Republic Street by people asking you to contribute for whatever cause.

Lessons badly drawn

Keith Grech on the lessons he drew recently (warning: lawyer’s tortured English in the second paragraph):

I have always been pro-European Union membership, a position which understandably at times created difficulties in my relationship with the Labour Party.

This notwithstanding, however, on reading the Draft Election Document of the European People’s Party being proposed as the basis for their electoral manifesto in view of next June’s European Parliamentary Elections, I couldn’t but reflect on the irony of the fact that now it is the European People’s Party, to which the Nationalist Party is affiliated, itself that is ridiculing those who in the years leading up to the Referendum on European Union Membership in Malta pooh-poohed the Labour Party’s idea of a ‘Partnership’ with the European Union.

In fact, the EPP categorically states that “European countries which cannot or do not want to become members of the European Union, should be offered a close partnership with the EU.” [my emphasis]

That might have been the right lesson to draw, had Keith got all the details right. First, the partnership Labour was proposing in 2003 was an industrial free trade area, a pick-and-mix in which picking and mixing were decided by Labour with the EU meekly nodding. That such an agreement was unprecedented was bad enough; heads of government meekly nodding and allowing the Maltese government to call the shots and set the conditions was what was truly ridiculous which, six years on, Keith is still unable to see.

Not that partnership — different and more punitive from what Labour said it would get — was not available. “We signed one with Syria”, commissioner Verheugen said on a Maltese TV programme some time ahead of the referendum. The point was that after you agree to what the heads of government decide you should have to Europe to them you’re just any other non-European country. A ridiculously obvious choice.

This makes them two

Not to be outdone, the Pullicino sitting on the other side of the House joins the fray:

Human trafficking is rife in all its forms. It is so rife that illegal immigrants from Africa are arriving in their hundreds, supposedly crossing turbulent seas in uncovered boats even during these gusty winter months! This is not to mention the hundreds of other immigrants who become illegal once they outstay their visas. These unfortunate brethren of ours are then either scuttled to one of the cage camps in my district, or if they manage to escape, live the undignified life of modern slavery.

Love that “in my district”. Maybe it’s a hint for some of that burden shoving of “unfortunate brethren” we call “burden sharing”. I’m pretty sure Marlene Pullicino’s would especially not mind having the detention centres moved out of her little fief to her ex-husband’s districts.

Meanwhile the other Pullicino also wrote in today explaining further his theory of how we should emulate the US:

The US sends these immigrants back to their country of origin. We would be directing them towards a country in which many have been living as immigrants for a number of years, working to earn enough money for the shuttle service that is being organised from Libya into Europe practically unchecked by the Libyan authorities. Few of the illegal immigrants are Libyans.

Er, and what if, short of the immigrants “re-directing” towards Malta, the Libyans don’t want to play ball? Don’t discount a repeat of the 1980 Saipem-II incident and in the absence of rule of law (the burden of which we had thought we had conveniently brushed away) expect the party with the superior firepower (i.e Libya) to have its way.

We expect the European community and, yes, the United Nations to tackle this problem seriously and not to base itself on conventions that are outdated and which were drawn up when the phenomenon of irregular migration was totally different to what it is today, conventions that were drawn up to handle the situation bona fide refugees find themselves in.

[...]

I will not deign to answer those who brought up matters that are completely unrelated to the issue in their efforts to shut me up. Even the most naïve of observers must realise what their motives are.

Pullicino-Orlando had expressed himself differently on “outdated” conventions. But that was 2007 which does feel long ago, when the MP was on his way to a cabinet post and looking good with future counterparts mattered as much as looking good with constituents. As to the efforts to shut him up — call me naive — but who could it be? Tony Abela looking to get back his old seat?

How burden sharing works

Here’s Muscat’s yardstick for judging the effectiveness of burden sharing (translation mine):

I remind the Government that it did not take Labour’s advice to hold fast with regards to the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum. Now we’ll see how many immigrants from Malta will be sent thanks to this pact. If every European country takes 300 immigrants then the Pact would have given results. If not, Government would have to answer for it.

By “holding fast”, by the way, Muscat meant vetoing the pact. Which would also have meant a veto for the creation of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) which Muscat some days ago claimed to have been a bright idea Louis Grech had before everyone else.

Credit to Jacques for having come up with “Maltese relativism” (although the mentality has an older name with a wider currency: egocentricity). Very often the claim is that Malta is carrying a heavier burden than other EU states when it comes to immigration based on its size or its population (the mathematics is not necessarily correct and then there are other criteria based on which one can legitimately conclude that Malta is not carrying the heaviest load). And that other EU states, which presumably as not as burdened, are obliged to help out.

All Muscat cares for is that some sort of mathematics and or criteria get the immigrants out of Malta. Once that’s done he’s not concerned if the burden then gets shared unequally: tiny Luxembourg gets 300 as spacious Sweden, crowded Netherlands as much as sparsely populated Finland.

Now that might sell with the patriots with a caps lock problem commenting at the Times. But there are 26 countries in the EU who can play at the same game. What if it is found that, say, Italy received more immigrants than it should and that these should be distributed amongst all the other 26 equally? That, it seems, did not cross Muscat’s mind.

As if combining work and family were easy

Anyone remembers Mgr Joseph Mercieca? Just about perhaps. Which is telling considering that the man led the Maltese Church for close to three decades.

One of Mgr Mercieca’s pet topics was working mothers. Now, he never really complained about the tendency but even he knew a thing or two about incentives. One way of penalising this category of woman who pays tax, national insurance and probably still has as much housework as her stay-at-home counterpart was to suggest paying an allowance to the mother who chose to stay at home. Not that the latter do not provide a service but paying for that should be the direct beneficiary who has an income: the husband. Not society at large.

Much of the same was on offer on a recent seminar, the only difference that the previous propositions are now couched as questions (translation mine):

[Archbishop Paul Cremona] queried how free is the choice of a woman to work and if, perhaps, it is not time that housewives are compensated by the Government for the work they do. He explained that it should be stated that housework gives its own contribution.

“It was said that the number of Maltese women who work is 37%. This means that 63% decided to stay at home and we cannot, if we’re talking about family and work and the relationship between them, not to remember these 63% like they never existed. We have to say: the choice that’s being made — which is free and I will not interfere. Is it free when no one is probably thinking of the person who, initially had a career, work which with great sacrifice she gave up because that’s what she decided? But then shouldn’t we also recognise that that’s a contribution that woman is giving? Meaning that if you stay at home to take care of your family, you will have no remuneration, if you go to work you’ll have this money. We pose it as a question”.

Check out the views of Maria Camilleri, headmistress and Labour MEP candidate, on longer school hours. She seems to have been the only one who had anything sensible to say (certainly not Anton Gouder and whatever he meant to say about school tuck shops).

More on “towing them out”

Ranier Fsadni has written on Pullicino-Orlando’s “We’re full” article. Fsadni mentions the Pullicino-Orlando of 2007 who criticised politicians who hinted at suspending Malta’s international obligations and lamented the creation of a far right Party. All the while expressing “respect for the immigrants who come to our country”. Here’s how Fsadni describes it:

In short, his attempt to save us from rising xenophobia sounds rather like the attempt by US generals to save Vietnamese villages from communism: to save the village, it was once notoriously declared, it was necessary to destroy it.

There are other points of interest in the article. One is about other countries which practice what Pullicino-Orlando suggested:

Call it the pariah strategy: That is how the international community will treat us. It is how it is treating Thailand, the only state that tows immigrants back into international waters.

Not even Australia’s right-wing populist, John Howard, attempted it. The closest he got was refusing to accept a ship into Australia’s harbours. But what a difference: He was not towing people out and it was a ship not a fragile boat.

And something about the numbers (which I promised to write about):

Indeed, one of the most puzzling aspects of his [Pullicino-Orlando's] article is its estrangement from many facts. Dr Pullicino Orlando wagers that the UK, France and Germany would each declare a state of emergency (and presumably suspend their international obligations) if faced with a proportionate number of immigrants.

There is no need to speculate. Germany has been there already. In 1992, it had 440,000 requests for asylum (way above Malta’s proportionate number) and no help from its European partners. No state of emergency was declared.

And for someone keen to face the facts, Dr Pullicino Orlando does a strange thing: He inflates the figures.

He blows up the numbers France and the UK would proportionately get, by some 30 per cent and, in counting the immigrants to Malta over a five-year period, he counts the arrivals and not the net number that is still here.

There were very little said from the usual crowd that hangs around the Times‘ comments sections. Tellingly, I’d say.

Kunserva tat-three hills

Jacques’s blog is back: new feel, new look … and the same old formula. Guess what, the rumblings on the backbench can be summarised into four letters. And Pullicino-Orlando is not to blame, Jacques tells us: the MP is some sort of MLPN construct, who came from nowhere to clinch his seat and is now fighting for his political survival, in a manner he is not morally responsible for. All this thanks to Joe Saliba who, presumably, left Nationalist voters with no choice other than to vote for id-dentist.

That is Jacques’ reaction to a parliamentarian who suggests breaking international law, a matter that’s made more outrageous by positions he took less than two years ago. That’s not unusual on Jacques’ part. As anyone who has been following his blog for some time knows the man has only very few opinions about anything. One looms large, the one he applies as a former colleague of mine would say, like a man with a hammer to whom every problem is a nail.

He gives the impression his meme explains what happened. Not that he foresaw Pullicino-Orlando’s latest foray into National Action territory but then it could have been that his cartoonist ran out of dwarfs when he we was to draw in the characters for member of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly and the “We’re full” character who took the stage recently. Rather than the seven dwarfs Bertu! should have worked on the nine muses.

One, of course, can’t blame Jacques for not being able to foresee the future a year ago. Happens to the best of us. But he did manage to come up with a prediction last month that turned out to be true. Here’s him writing on how the immigration issue could feature in the EP election:

Maltese candidates tend to tow the party line on this matter. So far neither of the two behemoths that squat the limelight of Maltese politics have produced satisfactory conclusions – whether you see this from the perspective of humanitarian NGOs or of far right loonies proposing to shoot immigrants on sight and turn them back to their shores

On the one hand the topic of illegal immigration might not be that much of a priority when it comes to choosing Malta’ next MEPs (5 in all). On the other hand it does serve to illustrate how unrepresentative the candidates can really be when they are stuck to an incompetent, opportunistic party line that does not seem to go much farther than blaming the elements.

When I read it for the first time I though: and how would someone who does not tow the “incompetent” and “opportunistic” party line on this matter be truly representative by not blaming the elements? Well, I got the answer and finally I can see what Jacques had in mind: Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando this week.

Out of wedlock

Whoever runs the Times webpage is a smart guy. The news story was headlined “30% of births in 2006 were outside wedlock” and he put a picture of a dictionary page opened on the page for “divorce” with a wedding ring about it. The report was about a presentation made by Dr Angela Abela to Parliament’s Committee on Social Affairs and nobody on that committee asked the billion dollar question: “how many of those births were to couples who would have wanted to be married but are not allowed to because they’re previously married to other people?”.

Instead we got more of the same:

The members of the committee agreed with Dr Abela on the need for education aimed at healthy relationships. Dr Abela said such education should start in schools. Indeed, she said, research indicated that young people wanted to learn more on how to start, maintain, or end a relationship. Many young people, she said, drank heavily to overcome their fear of starting a relationship.

The committee members need some education to get over stating the obvious. Here’s more:

Dr Abela expressed concern over a growing number of reports of casual sex which stemmed from excessive drinking.

And it had also been found that 21% of young people made dates with persons then came across on the Internet.

While failing to see what’s the big deal about people making dates with persons they meet online here’s another question the committee could have asked: is “casual sex” synonymous with “unprotected sex”?

Thankfully, sometimes sensible things are said:

Dr Abela underlined the need for a proper work-family balance. Mothers needed to be given enough time to raise their children, with their fathers. This showed the need for more family-friendly measures, not least in the private sector, which was lagging the public sector in this area.

She noted that while the European average of maternity leave is 23 weeks, in Malta it was 13 weeks.

The statistics is not entirely spotless. The report earlier says that 54% of Maltese mothers go back to work within six months (circa 23 weeks) of giving birth. Which makes it something of a mystery how the Maltese average eventually works out to 13 weeks.

Update: Abela clarifies:

I had pointed out to the Social Affairs Committee that the statistics regarding births outside marriage were inaccurate. In fact, births outside marriage in 2006 were 22.3 per cent and not 30 per cent. In 2007, the rate of births outside marriage went up to 24.9 per cent. I would also like to clarify that during my presentation to the committee, I referred to a study carried out by the NSO in 2005 regarding students between 13 and 16 years of age when I mentioned that 21 per cent of these youngsters fixed meetings with persons they came to know by chatting on the internet.

Arrigo and his “gazz”

Robert Arrigo has no reason to feel disappointed. First, as Daphne points out, ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. Secondly, Gonzi wanted a smaller cabinet and, consequently, “left out” a few people. That included not only Arrigo but politicians with long cabinet experience — something which Arrigo does not have.

He should just hold there patiently and not fall for the temptation of making a “brazen attempt at gaining cheap political points by riding on the wave of popular concern”. Arrigo is not fighting for dear political life; he’s not in the situation as the would-have-been-never-will-be Pullicino-Orlando.

And Arrigo is popular without trying too hard: he does not need to write letters like the one he wrote in today’s Times. After all, if the man has ministerial ambitions he’ll have to deal with foreign counterparts who might not look too favourably on his “one nation” proposals. Pullicino-Orlando, whose international hobnobbing career is definitely behind him, can afford to throw caution and his expressed opinions honed to suit the Council of Europe to the wind. Arrigo can’t.

One other point Arrigo makes which only Fausto Majistral would bother to answer:

Arrigo, for a long time President of Sliema Wanderers, enjoys the trust even of people known to support Labour. How does he view this?

“Where my votes come from vary. The information given to me by the Party is that I had hundreds of voters who gave me their first preference and stopped there. And there were a considerable number who gave me their first preference and the second preference to the Labour Party.”

The way elections went in Arrigo’s districts do not shed much light. Arrigo was elected in the last count without a quota on the Ninth (definitely not a case of “elett sparat” as Julia Farrugia decribes it) and when his surplus came to be distributed at the 20th count of the Tenth District none of it could be “inherited” by the Labour candidates because by that count they had either been elected or eliminated. But none of the surplus was “non-transferable”; it all went to the Nationalist candidates who were still in the race.

Now that is not foolproof but a strong indication. The amount of votes that moves as surplus is, in actual fact, a mathematical construct arrived at by examining all the ballots in the candidate’s pigeon hole at that time. Meaning that that one would be fairly accurate in saying that if, indeed, in the Tenth voters gave their first preference to Arrigo and stopped there becuase they liked him more than they like his Party there were very few of them

I’ll reiterate: he’s a popular politician. But his political value is probably less than he’d like to think it is.

Horror Vacui

It’s a weekly but it seems they still have a problem filling up inch space. Here are some choice stories carried in the latest edition of Illum:

• A traditional “king” in Ghana who will be made Knight with St John of Jerusalem Hospitallers Ecumenical Order coming Saturday at Castello dei Baroni in Wardija
• No condom dispensing machine at the University
• The Malta Government Gazzette will keep on selling at the same price despite being printed on recycled paper
• No less than 866 Maltese car number plates sport the “007″ digits

Truly cutting edge stuff.

Pullicino-Orlando consults an atlas

Watch this interview of Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando by Times journalist Kurt Sansone. An excerpt (translation mine):

When one says that these people are coming to Malta because they’re escaping from persecution and terror one wouldn’t right. If one were to take a look at the nationalities of the people coming here many of them — it appears to me — are from Somalia. Now the last time I checked, Kurt, between Somalia and Malta there were three countries: Libya, Ethiopia and Sudan. One cannot say that these people escaped in despair, they had nowhere to go and so they came to our country, in a desperate act in reaction to terror or persecution they were subject to.

Three countries stood between Somalia and Malta last time Pullicino-Orlando checked, I wonder if it was the same number the first time he checked. That was probably a long before he was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe when he’d call “talk of suspending human rights considerations to tackle the issue” as a “brazen attempt at gaining cheap political points by riding on the wave of popular concern”.

If you’re looking out for something brazen here’s how the MP describes the reasons why the solution is to put landed immigrants on a boat and tow them into international waters: “we cannot take them care of them as we should, we cannot accommodate them as we should, even out of respect for the immigrants coming to our country”.

When he “chose to publicly condemn those politicians who try to gain a few cheap points by making racist remarks” in far off 2007 Pullicino-Orlando said he received “an insulting and anonymous e-mail”. He’ll have to fear no unfair affront now because his newly-found views are, as he tells us, “reflecting the thoughts and concerns of the Maltese”. Must be reassuring to someone who, until very recently, was fighting for his political life.

Closure? Hardly

Looks after having been on the offensive for a long time the FAA is now having to fight a rearguard battle:

“It is surprising that certain people can’t come to terms with the fact that this case is now closed and prefer to indulge in disparaging remarks and nit-picking. FAA calls for an end to this assault on the public’s democratic and EU rights to participate in the decision-making process of our land and calls for the focus to be directed toward more positive initiatives,” the FAA said.

Case closed? The FAA wasn’t giving that impression and I’m not referring to the details of what FAA members are up to particularly when they’re tending to their business interests rather than campaigning. When the PM announced that the project would be withdrawn FAA was not satisfied:

In a statement, the FAA called for the resignation of the members of St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation.

It said the project had been ‘concealed’ from the public for two years in what could be considered a serious breach of ethics in a project concerning a scheduled public monument.

Furthermore the foundation allowed this application to be processed and it obtained EU funding for the project in full knowledge that the government was carrying out re-paving of Merchants’ Street , costing hundreds of thousands of euro of public funds, which works would have been destroyed by the St John’s project.

The NGO also hit out at the foundation members for pressing on with the project in spite of being aware of many expert reports highlighting the grave risks of the project, including the MEPA Directorate declaration that “The project is a non-starter due to the fact that no mitigation measures can guarantee that the Cathedral’s foundations will not be affected”.

FAA said it expected the government to request the resignation of its representatives on the foundation as this was a matter of mismanagement of Malta’s prime heritage asset and also of public funds.

There are quite a few weasel words in there like “could” and “would” and claims of “mismanagement” over a project that never was. But those were sturdy foundation on which to place a demand that the foundation members resign. As far as I know they are still there — quite rightly — and the FAA is saying that case is closed?

Not to worry. The FAA may be an avowed “non-political” organisation but Labour is already claiming not only the pound of flesh it is owed but also the pint of blood. Credit rates may be low but there’s interest to be paid. Joseph Muscat has threatened to out two Ministers who disagreed with the project:

Two ministers had made serious accusations regarding the manner of how funds were going to be granted for the St John’s Co-Cathedral project during a high Nationalist Party meeting, Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat said.

Dr Muscat had previously referred to these persons as “holding a high institutional position” who had indicated that EU funds were allocated following “undue pressure and because some people knew the rules of the game well”.

Dr Muscat was speaking at a Labour Party activity at Villa Bighi, Kalkara yesterday.

While encouraging the two ministers to speak up, he said that the PN had already attempted to find out how such sensitive information made it to PL. Dr Muscat said he was ready to name these persons if they did not do so.

Which is, of course, hardly what the FAA would want government insiders not wanting to take a stand against government proposals even at meetings they think are confidential. No, closure it isn’t. It’s more like he who sows the wind reaps the storm.

A weekend of bright ideas (Part 4)

It’s already Tuesday but still they come. There’s Gavin Gulia, presently Labour spokesman on the self-employed, who reminded us that — hey! he was there too! — and that he convered the “interior” for many years (before he lost it to someone who flounted his knowledge of another interior: Alfred Sant’s guts).

More interestingly there’s Leo Brincat who, like his leader, has “discovered” the word “omertà“. Brincat tells us that it would “gratuitous and irresponsible stand to try and conclude that Joseph [Muscat] is merely riding the wave and trying to resort to cheap populism on this issue”. And silly me thought that the Labour had chosen to refer to the situation with a Sicilian word instead of “silence” because of its mafia associations and criminal collusion.

Then there’s the list of “harsh truths” from which we are supposedly “shutting ourselves” from. One of these, the claim that “the annual influx is well exceeding our official national annual birth rate” has been shown to be wrong. Another:

The apparent lack of political goodwill of other EU states who have responded tepidly to our request for the introduction of burden sharing which has now been watered down to our government’s acceptance of a merely voluntary scheme

The “watered down” request made it to the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum which Muscat had said the government should veto. Not only it wouldn’t have won us much “political goodwill”, we would have lost the opportunity offered with the creation of the European Asylum Support Office which now Muscat is claiming to have been a bright idea of Louis Grech all along.

And someday I should really find the time to write about this “burden sharing” thing and the assumption that it would be to Malta’s advantage. Just think about this: if “burden” is considered as the number of immigrant job seekers a national job market has to take who should take the “burden” of a new arrival if it is to be shared around: Germany (unemployment 7.2%) or Malta (unemployment 5.7%)? Just because we think that the highest population density makes us the most burdened, if the mechanism were mandatory it’s far from being a foregone conclusion.

Another “harsh truth” is that under Dublin II immigrants can only apply for asylum in the first country they enter. I’m mystified at those who claim that Dublin II is the source of Malta’s woes. What would happen if this convention was not in place? Would we ask immigrants which country they would like to head to, send them there and expect that country not to say or do anything? What if the immigrants, like the most recent arrivals, want to stay in Malta? My impression is that, in effect, Dublin II did little more than codify the situation on the ground.

There are other “harsh truths”, one deals with the over-expectation of what Frontex would do and could do, another with claims from the army (“often gone on record”) that the camps are at breaking point. There is also a reference to a recent case of an immigrant who was given humanitarian protection who was charged with cocaine trafficking which case “not only straining our social fabric but also our internal security and public order”. Now that’s remarkable that it attracts more attention from a senior Labour MP than Bastjan Dalli’s indictment over a similar charge, albeit more serious.

But the “harsh truth” that I found most amusing was that “ironically the country which has supported us most is a major non-EU country – the United States of America”. Not that it is not true but the “harshness” is truly lost on me. Maybe we should quit the EU and apply to become the US’ 51st state?

A weekend of bright ideas (Part 3)

And if you thought that a weekend of considerable brain activity was limited to National Action and Labour and tripping over previous actions, think again. Here’s Nationalist MP  Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando in today’s Times:

I feel it’s about time we took a stand. It’s about time we acknowledged the fact that the problem is getting out of hand. None of the illegal immigrants who end up on our island come here directly from their country.

They usually come to Malta via a transit country, which is usually Libya. Thus, the argument that these migrants are coming here to escape persecution or terror in their own countries does not hold water. There is an obviously organised effort to shuttle these people into Europe.

I suggest that they should be treated in the same way as we would treat any other visitor who does not have the proper documentation and is trying to gain entry into our islands illegally. Send them back.

If they are in distress at sea we should help them out. Any arrivals on our island should be treated with the utmost courtesy. But, when the weather is fair and at the earliest opportunity, they should be towed back into international waters in the direction they came from. Every consideration must be taken to ensure their safety but we cannot be expected to shoulder a responsibility that is physically impossible for us to bear.

I must say I was suprised. Pullicino-Orlando was not only a member of the Maltese delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for some ten years, he was not only the head of that delegation, he was also the Assembly’s Vice-President. In those days (circa 2007) he’d write things like this:

The human factor of this phenomenon should never be ignored. A number of these migrants are genuinely escaping war and persecution in their country. Talk of suspending human rights considerations to tackle the issue should be dismissed as a brazen attempt at gaining cheap political points by riding on the wave of popular concern.

The Council of Europe is the depository and custodian institution of many conventions and treaties which Pullicino-Orlando once lauded and is now proposing to rip up. Had he made his views known earlier he wouldn’t have been elected to the post of the Assembly’s bell boy let alone its Vice-President.

A weekend of bright ideas (Part 2)

Meanwhile, Labour’s not being outdone by political rivals:

With reference to the present illegal migration situation Dr [Joseph] Muscat referred to last week’s European Commission reconsideration of an idea that was proposed to the budget committee by MEP Louis Grech two years ago. Back then, Dr Grech had proposed the idea of introducing an asylum agency in Malta that screens illegal migrants while fast tracking their repatriation process. The idea was not applied, as it did not have the necessary backing of PN MEPs.

Dr Muscat called for nationalist MEPs to support the idea for the agency to open office.

Where to start from? First, pace Jacques, according to Muscat two Nationalist MEPs hold the balance of the EP’s decision-making. Wow. Second, unless Louis Grech was appointed European Commissioner without my noticing, I don’t know what say he has in the matter because it is the European Commission that has the right of initiative in this case. And, by the way, the decision on a Common European Asylum System was taken in 2004 when Grech was still a freshman MEP.

But there’s more. Here’s an extract from the Commission’s press release:

The Commission today adopted a proposal for a Regulation to establish a European Asylum Support Office. This proposal is presented under the Pact on Immigration and Asylum in response to a request by the European Council.

Isn’t that the same Pact on Immigration and Asylum Muscat had asked the PM to veto? More:

If the proposal is adopted quickly, the Office could be up and running by 2010. Its headquarters will be established in an EU Member State by decision of the Heads of State and Government.

Er, not Louis Grech with the “necessary backing of the PN MEPs”?

A weekend of bright ideas (Part 1)

So many people seem to have put on De Bono’s six thinking hats that it’s hard to think there was enough headware to go around. First, we had the proposals from National Action (rounded off to a neat ten). Here’s the highlight:

Immigrants being kept in detention centres should be forced to work for their food and lodging, Azzjoni Nazzjonali suggested in a set of proposals on illegal immigration.

“Nobody eats and drinks without working except the sick and the elderly,” party leader Josie Muscat said.

… and prison inmates. Muscat seems to have forgotten about that other important exception. The people who eat and drink at the expense of their freedom. Just like detainees in our detention camps.

There are other proposals, listed on the National Action website (you can’t say I didn’t warn you) one of which is to have the crime of human trafficking carry a life sentence and another which demands that the Maltese government commit such a crime by supplying and escorting such trips to the limit of the territorial waters of the passengers’ country of choice.

Just imagine if the Libyan navy were to do just that at the edge of Maltese territorial waters.

The force of inertia

In my last post I said that the opponents of the project to extend St John’s were greatly helped by the fact that they had the force of inertia on their side; in Malta the adherents of any “do nothing” side in whatever cause start with a significant advantage.

Think about this scenario: an NGO which is well-funded and has quite some media savvy, riding on a wave of public support, backed with a petition “signed by thousands” and has some friends (and, possibly, a majority) in the House of Representatives. This time it’s not FAA but Gift of Life (GoL) and their campaign to have the right of life from conception entrenched in the Constitution that I have in mind.

There are, admittedly, reversals which GoL’s campaign suffered that FAA’s did not. First, it was the respective organisation’s sense of timing. GoL foolishly decided to suspend their campaign first for the general election then for the summer; FAA knew that they had to throw all their weight behind their campaign sooner rather then later or they would have had to face the situation of confronting an extensive study with little more than scattered opinions, whether expert or lay.

But in everything else GoL’s campaign was not very different from FAA’s. Yet, this is where their campaign is at:

The Prime Minister remained non-committal on Gift of Life’s proposal to amend the Constitution to protect the right to life from the moment of conception, during a meeting with the organisation yesterday.

Lawrence Gonzi summarised the different arguments being made the organisation’s proposal at a meeting in Castille, where techno music from carnival celebrations below blared in the background.

He stopped short of saying whether he agreed with the constitutional amendment, insisting he did not know what the position of the MPs was. The amendment proposed by Gift of Life would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Dr Gonzi said the criminal code was clear enough in making abortion illegal and that the Constitution already protected the right to life.

He added that there was a debate in the country on the proposal and the path on the subject was still open.

However, the Prime Minister said the issue of when life started had to be addressed during the debate on legislation to regulate in vitro fertilisation, which will be presented during this legislature.

The press was invited for the initial part of the meeting, which continued behind closed doors.

I have no doubt that, if GoL’s proposed amendment to the Constitution were to be presented in the House, it would garner the two-thirds majority it needs easily. But it will not even get to that stage because there is no enthusiasm to get things that far. Intertia wins again. And this time I’m unequivocally happy it did.

Why not a headcount?

I had intended to publish this post some days ago but it turned out to be one of those that cannot be finalised in a single sitting. It was about the political consequences of the St John’s extension project.

I’m in no way qualified to comment on the technicalities of the project except to note that excavations under buildings of importance is not something unheard of elsewhere. Today in the Times it was a letter from architect Alex Torpiano to remind us of one such example (of what other would call a “quarry” or a “bunker”) under the Louvre.

Torpiano also makes some important remarks about the planning process, about the experts whom the FAA is so happy to quote but whose opinions were either conditional or preliminary (and, as Torpiano reminds us, their opinion, is legally, not final). I have one thing to add on the planning aspect of this story. If, as the FAA is telling us, EIAs are “flawed” by their very nature why should these in-depth studies (as opposed to opinions which arer still opinions however expert) be kept part of the planning process?

From the cultural aspect there’s the loss that these tapestries will either not be exhibited properly or in a place so far away from St John’s that their value is completely decontextualised. There are no “neighbouring palazzos” waiting for restoration (or expropriation as Wenzu Mintoff, true socialist that he is, suggested). And Kenneth Zammit-Tabona can put on all of De Bono’s six thinking hats — he might as well put on six pairs of the lateral thinker’s socks — because he will not get very far.

There are the by far more interesting (admittedly to me) political implications of this. The PM is supposed to have withdrawn the project because of the public controversy. That’s not implausible. The opposition to the project was strong for the “do nothing” scenario is always backed by inertia, the strongest force in the universe. But the PM came out of this looking like he feared that the Opposition’s motion would be carried.

I had already posted reasons why this might not happen. The Times reported three MPs who expressed reservations: Jesmond Mugliett, Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando and Ninu Zammit. In the case of Zammit the information was second hand and referred largely disruptions excavation might cause to the surroundings. In the case of Mugliett it was because he failed “to understand how it (the project) managed to get so much funding when other projects could have been more deserving” — a case of dog-in-the-manger from someone who stills has to get round the idea that you serve in cabinet at the pleasure of the PM. The only one to have substantial objections was Pullicino-Orlando and, then again, he might not have voted in favour of the motion.

The way things turned out the PM has given in to undue influence from Parliament. Alfred Mifsud — not the most politically literate commenter around — claimed that this was a case of a “desirable but rare separation between the roles of the legislative and the executive”. Rather it was the case where the legislative intruded into the workings of the executive, a matter which in the constitutional arrangement exists largely on money matters (and then, on the efficient raising and spending of that money not on what it is spent).

The legislative’s major role is making laws not deliberating on particular instances where the laws it enacts are being applied as they should. And it should be kept in mind that anarchy is not the only state of affairs that’s contrary to the rule of law; so is arbitrariness.

Talk is cheap

The House of Representatives is to hold an urgent debate on illegal immigration after a boatload of more than 200 Somalis entered Malta yesterday:

At the opening of the sitting this evening, Opposition leader Joseph Muscat called for a suspension of the agenda of the House for an urgent debate on illegal immigration.

[...]Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi disagreed with the request to hold an immediate debate. He however acknowledged that the situation was worrying.

He said the repatriation of the recent arrivals had started and the number of repatriations was higher than a neighbouring country had done.

Dr Gonzi denied that there was any institutional silence over the subject (which Dr Muscat had called omerta‘) and said this was an international humanitarian tragedy which needed to be tackled in a way which respected human dignity. The migrants were innocent victims of circumstances which the Maltese had to acknowledge. It was Parliament’s duty to make everyone understand that Malta, being a small country, expected solidarity in practice through assistance given as a human right.

Dr Gonzi disclosed that a few weeks ago, Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici had invited Dr Muscat to a meeting and had given a full explanation of the extent of the problem, in the presence of army and police officers. The meeting was cordial and positive and he could not therefore understand how the Opposition had reached its conclusions. The real challenge was the challenge to the values of the Maltese.

How very Maltese. There’s “institutional silence” on the subject and if we talked we’d be seen to be doing something about the matter. Any discussion of which will be little more than, like Canute, order the tide to stop from coming in. And rest assured it will be a very circumspect discussion: can you imagine anyone, especially Labour MPs, saying anything critical of Libya?

So let’s talk like all those commenters to the online edition of the Times have been doing. Because talk is cheap. A twinge of sympathy for Martin Degiorgio, formerly of the now-defunct Republican National Alliance (ANR), who bemoans the moaning instead of demonstrating (equally useless but requiring some more effort and commitment):

It is nice to see that there is so much concern expressed by so-called “keyboard warriors”. Pity that when I together with another group of people organised a very civilised and peaceful anti-illegal immigration protest in Valletta in October 2005 we got 2500 participants and when we did one in June 2007 we got just 250!

Unfortunately even if in this country 97.3% (according to a Sunday Times survey of August 2005) are against illegal immigration, you find thousands of people that are ready to waste their time by posting here but hardly anyone who has the spine to take part in some anti-immigration demonstration or (if he does not like what’s “on offer”) organise one himself!

No wonder I stopped bothering to organise such events and wasting my time. What for?! Such events should instead draw 20,000 people and that would put real pressure on the government, the opposition and the EU. Instead we are doing the only thing we (or I should say most of you) do – i.e. just grumble. Enjoy!

And let’s not forget that that talk offers no insight into what’s going on in the countries these people are coming from or passing through or the reason why they take the risk and leave. No, it’s just a way of venting frustrations.

Playing Plutarch

Remember Saviour Balzan’s comparison of Richard Cachia-Caruana to Cardinal Richelieu? It did not require much insight to come up with something so hackneyed but just to make sure there was not much that was original the MaltaToday editor went on to explain who the historical éminence rouge was (whom he obviously can’t tell from the éminence grise) by plagiarising from the Wikipedia article on Cardinal Richelieu.

Recently, Balzan’s paper made the truly astounding “revelation” that Cachia-Caruana will be Malta’s nominee for the next European Commissioner. To which the PM is supposed to have reacted by saying “I’m the government; I make the decisions around here” when the more appropriate reaction would have been “Playing safe this time, aren’t we?”.

The PM’s reaction drew Balzan, once more, to making historical comparisons:

Louis XIV, baptised as Louis-Dieudonné – ‘Louis God-given’ – ruled as King of France. Louis XIV is popularly known as the Sun King (French: le Roi Soleil) because he was the source of light for his people and for Europe’s nobles and rulers. As a result, he was commonly associated with Apollo, the Greco-Roman god of the Sun. Louis believed in the Divine Right of Kings.

Which, unsurprisingly enough, was lifted from the Wikipedia article on Louis XIV:

Louis XIV is popularly known as the Sun King (French: le Roi Soleil) because he was the source of light for his people and for Europe’s nobles and rulers. As a result, he was commonly associated with Apollo Helios, the Greco-Roman god of the Sun. Louis believed in the Divine Right of Kings, a theory which received one of its most classic expressions in “On the Duties of Kings”, a sermon preached by Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet in Louis’ presence in 1662. (Louis was so impressed with Bossuet that in 1670, he appointed Bossuet as tutor to Louis’ son and heir.)

And while this time Balzan wisely leaves out details which would have given the game away, it was not to be the case with Leo Brincat:

The moment his [the PM's] statement hit the air waves I was inundated by text messages from friends who told me that in acting this way it seemed that our Prime Minister was trying to emulate Louis XIV of France, who is popularly known as the Sun King – Le Roi Soleil, because he was the source of ‘light’ for his people and for Europe’s nobles and rulers. As a result he was also commonly associated with Apollo Helios, the Greco-Roman god of the Sun.

The Sun King who will be remembered throughout the years for his famous quote: L’etat c’est moi – meaning that he and the state were the one and only thing, literally believed in the Divine Right of Kings, a theory which received one of its most classic expressions in ‘On the Duties of Kings’ a sermon preached by Jacques-Benigne Bosssuet in Louis’ presence in 1662.

Folks, plagiarism is bad enough. Do not make other out to be so dumb as not to know of Wikipedia. And give your clichéd historical comparisons a break: you’re no Plutarch.

Malta’s way to recovery

“Where’s Gonzi’s recovery plan?” James Debono asks. By which he means a plan to splash around some government cash so that the industry which moans loudest gets some dosh. After all, min ma jibkix, ma jerdax.

I hope Gonzi has no such plan and for a very simple reason. Malta’s economic problems are nothing like those of most industrialised nations. Maltese banks may be going through a sluggish phase, representative of the international climate in general. But they certainly have none of the liquidity problems faced by other banks in other countries. The recent decision brokered by the government setting up a moratorium on capital repayments on loans taken out by hotels shows that our banks can shoulder even that cost.

Debono’s suggestions could very well turn out to be at best useless, at worst suicidal. Under “useless” I would include his proposal to “invest” in primary health and child care and in upgrading the road network — not that these are not laudable initiatives to spend money on but they are hardly the kind of “investment” that leads to recovery. Under “suicidal” I’d include the proposal for a windfall tax on banks precisely at a time when the banks’ liquidity has to be safeguarded.

Which is not to say that the government should not be doing anything. At the moment, the greatest economic risk Malta faces could very well be the fall in international demand. Like illegal immigration that’s a cause that’s beyond Malta’s borders but on this one the Maltese government does have some leverage.

What I mean is that now’s the time for the government to come out unequivocally on the side of free trade internationally, the rule of competition in the internal market and fiscal discipline within the eurozone. It is time to stand up to measures attached to “recovery plans”  launched by the larger economies attempting to draw jobs and liquidity to the country of origin.

For protectionism is back from the dead and that’s bad news from a small, export-oriented country like Malta. If we try to play at the same game we’d lose: just remember who came out looking worse for wear when the Labour government in the 1980s tried to “retaliate” against Japanese protectionist policies by some similar policies of its own.

Getting your history right

You now that when the people at MaltaToday venture into history they get things wrong:

The foundation managing the Co-Cathedral is itself an outdated creature born out of a funny compromise between the government and the Church over the unsolved dispute of who owns this majestic building. In our eyes, there is no question about it: the Knights were the effective government of the country when they built it, hence it is the government which should manage it, primarily as a museum of global heritage importance more than anything else.

Isn’t James Debono an historian? He should tell his colleagues that, during his brief stay in Malta, Napoleon, as the head of the effective government of the country, transferred the ownership of St John’s to the Maltese Church. If there is indeed “no question” it’s because the Maltese Church is the undisputed owner of the Co-Cathedral.

I smell egg

There are more details in today’s Times report on the vote-buying case:

The employees, Kristylee Bezzina and Anthony Zammit, a man with a colourful criminal record who also goes by the nickname Is-Sej, said that Pierre Bartolo, 44, had told them that they would lose their jobs if they voted for the Labour Party (PL).

Mr Zammit took his allegations to PL deputy leader Anġlu Farrugia who included them in a report he compiled, listing between 100 and 200 people that said they were paid to vote for the PN. The report was presented to the Commissioner of Police but only Mr Bartolo has been charged so far.

[...]

Dr Giglio [the defence lawyer] also queried Mr Zammit’s credibility, pointing out that he had been fired shortly after the election when about €12,000 went missing from the canteen. The lawyer asked the officer whether the police had looked into this, raising the possibility that Mr Zammit could be cooking up a story because he was fired for legitimate reasons.

Of course, this will take time. It will be wasted time and wasted time is wasted taxpayers’ money. But if the end result will be egg all over Anglu Farrugia’s face it would have been worth every cent. I mean, imagine the yolk in that moustache.

Another one bites the dust

Anyone remember Rene Rossignaud the politician? He was Green Party councillor in Swieqi. During the campaign in the last election he resigned, saying that he couldn’t stand it seeing his Party seeking only to siphon off votes from the Nationalists. He described the Green Party as an “instrument which which to whip Lawrence Gonzi”. Ho, hum, the Green replied: the Nationalists piled pressure on Rossignaud and he caved in. “Intimidazzjoni skifuza” the Green PRO described it.

There was another Green councillor who was subjected Nationalist “intimidation” … the PM invited him for lunch. Here’s Harry Vassallo, the former Green Party Chair, ranting about the “regime”:

“Alternattiva Demokratika elected officials working in the private sector are not immune from pressure either” Dr Vassallo said. “It is a measure of the minute detail in which the regime operates that soon after election to the Sannat Local Council, AD Councillor John Mizzi, was invited to dine with the Prime Minister who did not bother to arrange such a meeting through proper channels. John Mizzi correctly advised me of the invitation and I encouraged him to attend in order to make a firsthand experience of the quality of politics as practiced by the regime. He was not impressed.

[...]

“When the Prime Minister attempts to make furtive meetings with our local councilors, we take it as a measure of the panic and desperation which has gripped the Nationalist government, its detachment from its principles and from political reality. We take such actions to be a measure of the need for a new, clean way of doing politics which can only be achieved by the election of Alternattiva Demokratika deputies to parliament and their participation in government,” Dr Vassallo said.

Vassallo later went on to compare the government to the Burmese miliary dictatorship (that’s right, for inviting someone to lunch) and his Party to the Burmese democratic opposition.

Well, John Mizzi has broken ranks. But he’s not headed towards the Nationalists:

The first and only local councillor elected on Alternattiva Demokratika’s ticket in Gozo has defected to the Labour Party.

John Mizzi, who has represented AD on the Sannat council for the past three years, will be contesting June’s local elections with Labour instead.

Mr Mizzi said the move was motivated by what he described as Labour’s newfound environmental conscience under Joseph Muscat.

Having been vociferous against the proposed development at Ta’ Ċenċ, which included a golf course, Mr Mizzi is not deterred by Labour’s previous stand in favour of a stand-alone golf course.

Local councillors elected in the name of the Green Party have now dwindled to two: Ralph Cassar in Attard and Mike Briguglio in Sliema. John Mizzi’s defection is significant. Three years ago when he was elected the Green Party made much fuss. He was, after all, their first councillor in Gozo. Little did they notice that they had lost their council seats in Birkirkara and Lija, urban centres which are far more significant politically than Sannat. Instead, they chose to be in denial, buying into their Chair’s tall tales about regimes and military dictatorships.

Buying votes

The case against the Swieqi entrepreneur Pierre Bartolo, who allegedly threatened two employees last general election if they didn’t vote Nationalist, started being heard today.

Here are the juicy highlights. First to testify was Labour Deputy Leader Anglu Farrugia who said, Anthony Zammit, one of the employees told him of the threats, told him that he was offered €200 (which is illegal), told him was taken to the polling station, told him that he had to take a photo of the ballot with his mobile phone (which is also illegal) and that he was still fired. Farrugia’s is therefore all second hand information — hearsay — and should be dismissed as little more than turning the witness stand into a political podium.

The second employee, Kristylee Bezzina, also testified. She said that she had been an employee of Bartolo’s he told her to vote Nationalist (which is not illegal). While being cross-examined Bezzina told the court that she voted Nationalist but that’s what she intended to do all along.

So this case stands on the evidence of a man who was was fired for … well, what for? Didn’t he say he voted Nationalist, if under duress? Didn’t the Nationalists win the election? In lieu of other evidence, a different theory is more plausible: this is an instance where an employee is regularly and legally fired and, post-hoc, he comes with dubious reasons why his employer did that.

WWMD?

What would Marx do?

I don’t know much about Karm Farrugia except that, along with Edward Scicluna, he’s often the second leg MaltaToday stands on when it decides to talk about economics. Recently, he was involved in an exchange of letters in the Times. It all started off with this letter of his:

Prophetic economists and world leaders

Karm Farrugia, Madliena

Exactly 175 years ago, Thomas Malthus (England) prophesied that since population tended to increase faster than the means of subsistence, its increase should be checked, mainly by moral means. Science and technology proved Malthus wrong, at least in advanced economies.

Nearly 150 years ago, in 1867, Karl Marx (Germany) had this to say: “Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the state will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.” Even Nostradamus couldn’t have said it better!

Thank heavens the world is led by the likes of Obama and Brown.

How Malthus and Marx could have led Farrugia to thank heavens for Obama and Brown is beyond me but it was easy to see that this was just name-dropping. Until someone asked Farrugia to source the Marx quote. “It featured in one of Marx’ editorials in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” the economist replied. In which case it wouldn’t have been 1867, as Farrugia claimed earlier, because that paper was published between 1848 and 1849.

If only that were the only shortcoming. A commenter on the online version version of the Times claims that the quote was fake, a hoax created during the present hunch which is doing the rounds on the internet. Which shouldn’t surprise us: Marx is not exactly well known for making correct predictions.

But Farrugia’s final reaction was hilarious:

Marx or not, bankers should be warned

Karm Farrugia, Madliena

Maybe Joseph A. Debono (February 6) is right in suspecting the Marx quotation to be fake. I did that, too, but decided to consult my student notes on economic theory: the spirit of the quote is indeed there, even if the translation into English is too liberal or even bad.

The lecturer intend to warn capitalists not to exaggerate their economic muscle. This was the 1950s, when the fear of communism was very real, especially in a global scenario exhibiting the “ugly face of capitalism”, an expression then commonly used by writers and politicians. My notes even make reference to a song called Sixteen Tons which ended with

“I owe my soul to the company’s store”.

Rather than wasting time on whether Karl Marx did or did not write in this vein (he inspired it, though), it is much better to employ it as a warning to the so-called “bankers” who have managed to give the profession such a bad name, and invite the genuine ones (the majority) to regulate themselves seriously before harsher impositions from national and/or international authorities become imperative.

There goes all the name-dropping. Marx may not have been big on predictions but a round of applause to Farrugia’s economic theory lecturer who, in the 1950s, predicted an internet hoaxes including its precise wording.

Muscat or Hubner?

It looks like it’s evolving into a meme for Labour’s EP election campaign. It goes something like this: the Nationalists got you into Europe but we know how it works and we’ll make it work better for Malta.

Here’s it being restated by Muscat:

Malta was ending up being a net contributor to the EU giving more than it was receiving in the past two years, Labour leader Joseph Muscat said this morning.

Speaking during a meeting for Labour Party supporters, Dr Muscat said that according to financial estimates, Malta only managed to get €47 million from the €163 million it had been entitled to in 2007. On the other hand, it contributed €53 million.

And although figures for last year had not yet been concluded, the government had said it would get €114 million and until November it had only managed to get €25 million.

It comes hot on the heels of another piece of news some days ago:

Malta has emerged as one of the best performers in the management of EU funds, absorbing 91 per cent of its budget for 2000-2006, which totalled €88.7 million.

The island outperformed all the other member states that joined the EU in 2004 and managed to do better than some of the older member states such as Spain, Greece, France and Italy, which have decades of experience in managing EU-funded projects.

The details emerged in Brussels yesterday as Regional Policy Commissioner Danuta Hubner gave figures on how the 27 member states are managing their funding allocations.

You’d think that this is a case of someone being right and someone being wrong. Muscat or Hubner. Actually, it looks more like a case of someone being informed and someone being misinformed:

According to EU rules, member states have until mid-2009 to receive payments related to the structural fund budget of 2000-2006, covering four separate financial programmes, and until the end of next year to get cohesion fund payments, normally related to highly intensive infrastructural projects.

Last year, Malta received about €50 million from EU coffers for various ongoing projects covering budgetary periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013.

Or another possibility: someone’s taking liberty with the facts for political ends. Considering that Danuta Hubner does not stand to gain (or lose) from the outcome of any election held in Malta — whether local, general or European — that does not leave much doubt on who is more credible of the two.

The real question

Looks like Labour has discovered not only the terms “progressive”, “moderate” and “liberal” which it uses to describe itself (while “democratic socialist”, the only such description of the party in its statute, is nowhere to be seen) but also “conservative” and “rightist”. It is still to discover the meanings of those terms but they come handy as political shorthand of the “four legs good, two legs bad” type.

Take the Party’s recent description of the Nationalist Party as having a “conservative and rightist identity”. The whole thing started with the EP vote on a motion welcoming the new US Administration’s decision to close Guantánamo. So far, so good. One particular paragraph of that motion “call[s] on the Member States to be prepared to accept Guantánamo inmates in the EU in case the US asks so” which inmates would almost certainly face persecution in the home countries if they were returned there once released.

The three Labour MEPs voted in favour of the motion in its entirety; the Nationalists voted in favour of the motion but against this particular paragraph because, they said, these decisions should be left to individual countries. That, presumably makes them, “conservative and rightist”.

James Debono, whose political vocabulary is richer than whoever’s pens the press releases at Mile End, notes that a good chunk of the European People’s Party voted for the entire motion and only goes as far as describing the Nationalist MEPs as “insular”. That good very well be but James, whose judgment tends to get clouded when evaluating players with political baggage similar to his, should note that same monicker can be said of the Labour MEPs. And more, for that matter, much more can be said.

Labour’s reaction was that of someone who feels cornered. They could have answered the obvious question to the call made in their motion, which is “including Malta?”. Had it been “yes” imagine the furore it would have caused, coming from the Party that last year would have been ready to sabotage the Council Presidency’s conclusions just because the burden-sharing mechanism it referred to was voluntary not mandatory.

But, more probably, it would have been a “no”. So effectively, Messers Attard-Montalto, Grech and Bedingfield called on the governments of twenty-six member states to be ready to take Guantánamo inmates but probably not their own.

Calling that “insular” would be correct but not do full justice to that attitude. Think of it: asking for others to adhere to high moral standards which you don’t live up to yourself … there’s a name for that. It’s not “conservative”, nor “liberal”, neither “right-wing” nor “left-wing”. It’s called “hypocrisy”.

090509

In case you were wondering what’s 090509 it’s the date of the next Europe Day and a UHM website whose intention is to:

bring together nine persons representing civil society, who will present their views on nine issues of local and European interest. 090509.org will become a forum for these issues, and will invite reactions from the general public. The issues chosen are likely to be important for the way people will vote in the European Parliament Elections.

The site was launched more than a week and a half ago and so far there’s only one news item and four posts on the forum and none on the blogs. You might think that a week and a half dormancy in the blog world is not much but the launch of this site was so important to warrant a press release given by the UHM chief and the Permanent Rep of the European Commission to Malta. As it should be, after all: the project will cost a whooping €65,000 and will be co-funded by the EU.

Yes, €65,000. And what to show for it? Folks, if you had nothing to say in February about an election taking place in June you should have just delayed the launch. Not that there should have been a risk.

Jacques’ blog is undergoing a facelift, by the way. It cost the owner money but I’m sure he’ll be doing it with a smaller sum.

A shoulder to cry on

If I were to sum up the point of an earlier post about the Green Party’s reaction to Demicoli’s views on spring hunting it’s that at times the Party has to choose between being the third party or a green Party. Here’s Jacques expressing preference for the first choice and a commenter opting for the latter.

The Party has usually opted for the first choice. The latest instance is that they’re now offering sympathetic ears to the hunters. The claim they hold against Demicoli is not only that he’s a johnny-come-lately that but that the 2003 “promise” made to hunters by the MIC (where Demicoli was number two) amounts to “deceit” of the hunting community.

Now Demicoli was interviewed by MaltaToday. Here’s what he had to say on the matter:

On Spring hunting we were simply there to tell the people what was negotiated. That is exactly what was negotiated. We could not foretell that three years later there would be a reinterpretation because of the Finnish court case in 2005.

That must be a good defence he made because, as far as I know, none of his detractors ever refers to it. Meanwhile, while Demicoli is attracting hunters’ ire the Greens’ Yvonne Ebejer-Arqueros paid a visit to the hunting and trapping community while on the campaign trail:

We can never agree with certain ideas of theirs, but we can surely understand their frustration at being duped by many unsustainable promises prior to the EU referendum. They in fact remarked that they are bombared by visits from PN and PL exponents promising that they will ‘remedy’ their situation. We however stand by what we have always believed: we are firmly against spring hunting in accordance to EU directives, and we are appalled by the government sitting on the fence with regards to this matter.

Note: the Greens were always against spring hunting in accordance with EU directives and in the EU referendum (held in 2003) hunters were “duped” with “unsustainable promises”. These Greens must be smart people, you start to think. In 2003 they could not only read interpretations of the Birds Directive nobody could but could actually forsee a court ruling three yeas down the road.

Until you come across what Cassola had to say in 2005:

Arnold Cassola, secretary general of the European Greens, said that unfortunately the derogation given is being used as an excuse by hunters to shoot at anything, not only at quails and turtle-doves as stipulated by the Commission. He said that now that evidence shows that the law is being flagrantly broken, the EU should take immediate action to stop spring hunting.

Which means only one thing: in 2005 the Green Party chair, just like Demicoli, was under the impression that there was a derogation that allowed spring hunting on quails and turtledoves and that spring hunting should be stopped only because the hunting community were too trigger happy to limit themselves to these two species of bird.

And, come think of it, if the Greens knew all along that the membership package would not allow the Maltese government to retain spring hunting for anything why didn’t they say so in 2003? Considering that they’re now spinning the story that in that year they instructed their voters to give their first preference to the Nationalists in order to increase the chances of membership when they did not do such thing don’t be surprised if now they’ll be saying to hunters “we told you all long while the Nationalists conned you”.

Remember that as a green party they may not see eye to eye with hunters and trappers but as a third party seeking to attract votes it’s the Nationalists they’re in competition with.

Nationalists are green goblins

Thanks to Mark I discovered a point made by engineer Marco Cremona that driving an electric car does not make much of an environmental difference because whatever gains are made driving said vehicle are lost in inefficiencies in electricity generation at our power station.

Cremona’s was a reply to the news item that Nationalist MEP candidate Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas’ campaign would be a “green campaign”, where commuting is done in an electric car. Cremona said that the Nationalist candidate has “a poor grasp of green issues” because, as we all know, whenever the Nationalists decide to do something for the environment they’re either (a) naive, (b) have sinister, ulterior motives or (c) are just plagiarising ideas from the Green Party. A Nationalist car may run on biofuel but you can bet your last carbon credit it’s been made from boiled babies.

In any case, Nationalist candidates have to be talked out of green thoughts in case the electorate strays from the righteous path and turns its back on true prophets even though it might have turned away with the right message.

For obvious reasons, when I think electric car I do not think Tedesco-Triccas but Edward Mallia; the bearded professor was probably driving one while Roberta was still pedalling at her tricycle. Notwithstanding that, I do not recall Cremona or anyone telling Prof Mallia his grasp of “green issues” is poor.

The party of progressives and moderates and liberals

I hope I’m forgiven if I come back with some delay to the checklist that was Muscat’s speech. Thinking about issues requires more time than shooting them from the him.

I was thinking of Muscat’s comment on the banning of Unifaun’s play Stitching. In the judicial protest the theatre company has presented in Court it claims that there’s nothing in the play which goes things the Maltese Criminal Code does not allow from incitement to hatred, to libel, to sedition, to religious offence or blasphemy. They’re right but then Maltese law also allows quite a lot of discretion to the Board of classification and censorship. Which might mean that the Board’s decision simply to ban the play in question because it’s “shocking” might have grounds in Maltese law as it currently stands.

Muscat has not not said anything about changing the law establishing the Board, busy as he was trashing Tonio Borg. Funny because that’s one policy committement that would be easy to make. So let’s imagine, in the absence of contrary evidence, that the current legal regime will continue to apply with Labour in government.

The appointment of the Board, it should be noted, is not the responsibility of the Minister responsible for culture but the Minister responsible for the police. Who’s most likely to fill that post with a Labour government? It would be the progressive, moderate, liberal Anglu Farrugia who was Labour’s face to Gift of Life’s campaign to entrench the prohibition of abortion in the Constitution.

Cheer up. It could be worse with Adrian Vassallo.

Muscat at the General Conference

“Forget pairing,” Muscat told the government to a round of applause from the Labour delegates, supposedly in reaction to government’s procedural motion limiting votes in the House to one day of the week.

Umm, why the imperative? Who remembers pairing? It was on offer close to a year ago along with the other offer for the post of Speaker. Labour was not interested, Government moved on and Louis Galea will, in all likelihood, be presiding the House until the end of the current legislature. Only two weeks ago, Muscat was saying that there was “no chance of pairing for the time being”. “Forget pairing”? Thanks for reminding us.

That, it seems, was the highlight of Muscat’s speech to the Labour Conference. Or not. The highlight was the electricity tariffs. Well, no: the proposed St John’s museum. Or the road in Ghadira. Or maybe it was the call for Tonio Fenech to resign for having said that the government was not aware of any plans for redundancies at ST.

Maybe it was the banned play Stitching, the reminder that the Nationalist Party is not a liberal party. You’d be forgiven if you thought that, for that matter, neither the Labour Party is a liberal party. After all, during the debate leading to the “seismic changes” to the Party statute the debate was whether it’s a “democratic socialist” or a “social democratic” party. Potato, potatoe, tomato, tomatoe. Anyone spotted the “l” word there?

The transformation might well have taken place yesterday. Muscat said Labour “is the natural choice for progressive and liberals“. Er, whatever happened to the “moderates”? And if you want to hold Tonio Borg as a shining example of what a liberal isn’t it’s helpful to remind that the Foreign Minister’s understanding of “not liberal” is “not governed through a laissez-faire attitude but one where state regulation ensures the protection of those citizens in most need of protection and assistance”. Democratic socialist or social democrat, that would make Muscat even less of a liberal than Borg.

Muscat’s speech then turns to the goodies. There were promises to invest in just about anything that can soak up public money: families, children, women, the self-employed, research, alternative energy. And just in case you were wondering where the money will come from … keep wondering. Because taxes — on labour, on families, on investors — will also go down.

This country is still to learn the difference between policy and a policy objective but this time round Muscat does offer a policy which allows one to dig his teeth in: a mandatory system where those who lose their job benefit from a moratorium on payment lasting a year or two until he finds a new job. Banks often re-negotiate the terms of a loan in the case of people in that situation, after all they’re more interested in collecting their money rather than re-possessing homes. But making it mandatory is sure to raise the risk for a bank lending money to someone from the private sector. And as we know bank will always transfer the risk to the consumer.

Phew. A lengthy post and I’m not sure I’ve covered everything of the “historic” speech. Indeed, in a months time it would be truly historic if anyone managed to rattle off from memory all the points in covered.

Two weeks is a long time in politics

Two weeks ago Watersbroken’s editor Mario Vella wrote in the Times:

To start with, once it becomes obvious that the PN cannot win another election with Dr Gonzi at the helm, there will be attempts to replace him with a younger person. Indeed, such attempts are already underway.

He promised more in a fortnight and here’s what he had to say today:

Finally, I said I would be back here to argue that “it can – and must – be done”. And here I am. Let’s take this step by step. Let’s begin by taking a step backwards. To start with, it cannot be sufficiently stressed that history is on nobody’s side. There is no guarantee that the Partit Nazzjonalista, with or without Dr Gonzi at its head at the next general elections, will lose.

If one week is a long time in politics, just imagine two. What could have happened in the meantime that transformed Gonzi in Mario Vella’s eyes? If you were to ask me, these last two weeks must have been the two toughest Gonzi has had to face ever since he moved into Castille, thanks to his poor handling of the backbench.

Vella’s prediction of the Nationalist Party not making it with Gonzi at the helm in four years’ time is somewhere up there with Jason Micallef claiming in 2006, two years before the polling stations opened, that there was an irreversible trend in favour of Labour which was on its way to certain victory.

But this is probably less a case of preposterous punditry than that Labour habit of speculating about anticipated elections and imminent bloodbaths within the Nationalist Party. I guess you need something to entertain yourself with while you wait for more than two decades in opposition.

Rumblings from the backbench

We already new that JPO was not in agreement with the proposed project in St John’s; the Times had reported doubts expressed by former Ministers Jesmond Mugliette and Ninu Zammit (although in the case of the latter, it was through third parties). Now, looks the malaise is growing in the Nationalist backbench:

A meeting of the Nationalist Party’s parliamentary group held yesterday morning turned out to be a full-scale confrontation with the Prime Minister over the plans for the extension of St John’s Museum.

Although all the participants at yesterday’s meeting took an oath of media silence, this paper can reveal that no less than a third of the MPs who spoke showed they were against the project. Others, who in private are against it, did not speak.

Others argued that such a proposal, which can be considered as a private proposal seeing it came from the St John’s Foundation, should not endanger the government’s plans for Valletta and indeed for the country.

Drawing parallels with 1998 are inevitable; the Indy also notices that, this time, government has forgotten to introduce a procedural motion as it had in that fateful summer ten years ago, a shortcoming which allowed Mintoff the opportunity of what is our equivalent of a filibuster.

But, I’d say, the comparisons end there. There are two fundamental differences. First, Sant’s downfall in 1998 was not thanks to that defeated motion but the fact that he painted himself into an ever-tightening corner. After the defeat it was obvious that Mintoff was ready to filibuster and hector on anything else that came up for debate. Gonzi still has much room for maneuver.

More importantly, the vote is about an Opposition motion which, in my view, has two very important shortcomings. First, it claims that there has been no prioritising of where EU funds will go. This not the case. It also asks that Parliament does the prioritising. That’s not allowed under EU funding rules. Given its previous euroscepticism one might excuse the Opposition’s illiteracy on matters European but any government member voting in favour of this deserves the dunce’s cap.

The motion also claims a conflict of interest in Richard Cachia-Caruana being a member of St John’s Foundation and Permanent Representative of Malta to the EU. This is a specious argument. Apart from the fact that it’s based on the wrong assumption about lack of prioritisation, that would mean that every Minister, in virtue of the fact of being responsible for government entities and a member of cabinet, is in a situation of of conflict of interest anytime a public entity submits a proposal for EU funding.

Imagine anyone voting in favour of that.

Il-bocca mal-likk

Does anyone ever keep tabs on the number of predictions the Media Today papers get wrong? I mean whenever they publish articles which read like they know who’s being considered appointment to what.

Now, I’m not saying that you don’t make predictions in punditry or that you get them all right but MaltaToday and Illum tend to give as a “bonus” the supposed dilemmas people like Gonzi and Muscat experience in their heads and the line of reasoning they would be following in making their choices. As a way of showing that their predictions are not random.

They could very well be. Take the choice of President which was supposed to be a three-way race between Louis Galea, Joe Borg and Lino Spiteri. Having set the stage, this was followed by analysis of the pro and contra and the who and whom of each appointment. Galea was supposed to be Fenech-Adami’s favourite candidate, Borg was supposed to be Gonzi’s and Cachia-Caruana’s while Spiteri was Muscat’s.

Nobody’s fav candidate made it. Or, rather, MaltaToday’s speculations were totally off the mark. The Maltese idiom in its full cruelty: ‘qas xammewha. And if you though that when George Abela’s name came out the reaction would have been some show of humility, it wasn’t. It was more like “we broke the story” even though all papers (except for Medialink’s) carried the story on the same day.

This week it was Illum on Labour’s appointment of its rep to the Malta-EU Steering and Action Committee (MEUSAC) to replace Abela (translation mine):

While earlier this week George Abela resigned from his post as representative of the Labour Party on MEUSAC, only twenty four hours later potential names are already being mentioned as to who could fill his seat.

In different Labour circles Wenzu Mintoff is being regularly named as one who could be nominated by Labour leader Joseph Muscat for this post. Mintoff already has experience in this field when in the past he occupied this post on behalf of the Green Party.

At the same time mention is also being made of Anthony Licari, with a doctorate from the Sorbonne and a Nationalist background but a convert to the Labour faith. An academic who writes in national papers, Licari is considered by many as a moderate.

However, one who stands a good chance of being Muscat’s ultimate choice is Joe Mifsud. An ex-colleague of Muscat in the Labour Youth Forum and, later, in Labour’s newsroom Mifsud enjoys the Muscat’s respect and trust.

Mifsud has the contacts and the experience in the international field and until the summer of last year was Labour’s International Secretary. He was voted out of this post as the Labour delegates elected Alex Sceberras-Trigona instead.

If Muscat’s ultimate choice is Mifsud this could be considered as a strategic move to compensate for Mifsud’s exclusion from the Party’s highest structures. Automatically, this would also put a lid on these last week’s heated exchanges between Muscat and Sceberras-Trigona.

Well, Muscat certainly did not share the paper’s considerations about Mintoff’s experience, Licari’s moderation or Muscat’s contacts. Nor does there seem any “strategic” concerns involved. Muscat’s choice was Dr Luciano Busuttil, a Labour backbencher and previously Abela’s substitute on MEUSAC.

Update: A humble “we woz wrong” was called for. Instead, the MediaToday papers spin their wrong predictions as “we told you so”:

Busuttil and Mifsud PL representatives in MEUSAC

Julia Farrugia

The Labour Party has appointed MP Luciano Busuttil as its main representative on MEUSAC, the Malta-EU Steering and Action Committee, to take up the vacant post after George Abela resigned upon being nominated for the office of President.

The PL also said that Joe Mifsud, who had already served in MEUSAC, has been appointed substitute member.

Sister newspaper Illum revealed on Sunday that Mifsud was one of the main possible people to be chosen by leader Joseph Muscat for the MEUSAC job.

First, Busuttil is Labour’s sole representative on MEUSAC. He’s not Labour’s “main representative”; Mifsud isn’t Labour’s “representative”. As to Illum’s “relevation” it was about as enlightening as saying that Joseph Muscat is one of the main contenders in the coming general election.

Liquorice just doesn’t begin to describe it

A letter in today’s Times:

The line-up of candidates for the MEPs election as presented by the Malta Labour Party (PL) is a compelling one. All the 12 candidates, having a wide ranging and diverse background, accord with the policies set by the party they represent. It is this diverse experience blended into a coherent voice which shows the strength that lies within a newly invigorated PL.

I can’t say I know the candidates well or what most of their opinions are. But from what I’ve read they’re hardly coherent with themselves over time. I’m not only referring here to those who, until a few years ago, were dead set against the EU and now sing its praises. I’m referring to Edward Scicluna, one of Labour’s star candidates. Here’s what he had to say to MaltaToday just before announcing his interest in standing as a European Parliament candidate with Labour:

“You have a clearly unproductive shipyard. What do you do? You borrow heavily to subsidise their wages and low productivity for two decades. You provide expensive university education for free with a small salary to the student to boot. You provide the most generous pension scheme in Europe, free health for all, keep over-staffed ministries and government departments, and so on. And how do you do it? Tax and spend. And when you cannot tax, just borrow and borrow.”

What about “You provide some of the most heavily subsidised fuel in Europe” in that list for coherence’s sake? Nowhere in sight. This was after the Government announced the new electricity rates at the end of last year so Scicluna could have removed electricity from one column and put it under “Governmental knee-jerk reactions” while complaining of a ballooning public deficit.

He doesn’t have the comfort of hindsight with another issue which Labour now seems bent to base its EP campaign on: hospital waiting lists. Labour’s proposal goes something like this: if you’re waiting for treatment in hospital there will be a deadline and if you don’t get it by that time you’re sent to a private hospital and the State foots the bill. Labour said its MEPs would raise the matter in Strasbourg. One of those could be Scicluna who had included “free health for all” under one of those things government does which only lead to “tax and spend” and, eventually, “borrow and borrow”. So what’s the other method to have the extra private medical care paid for? Scratch and win?

Get Arnold to run campaigns

Recently the PM announced that, once Enemalta starts buying cheaper crude on the international market, electricity rates would go down. And Cassola smells a rat:

Dear Dr Gonzi, please pull the other one. The price of water and electricity rates should have been reduced at least 2-3 months ago to reflect the slump in international prices.

Now here is the time frame of the benefits that government will be dishing out in the coming weeks: between February and March the govenment will distribute the 5 energy saving bulbs to our households and then this will be followed by a reduction in water and electricity rates between March and April.

By the way, if you have not noticed it: European Parliament elections are to be held on 6 June!

Really, why don’t the Nationalists call the man to run their electoral campaign? Five months from the EP election is sure to leave an imprint in voters’ minds.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to read the minds of whoever will be masterminding the Nationalist Party’s campaign (which, I should remind, is still to be launched), Cassola should try to read or leaf through the energy acquis. There he’ll find a Directive obliging member states to stock 90 days’ consumption worth of oil products. That means, amongst other things, that Enemalta has oil stock from three months ago which it bought at the higher prices prevalent at that time. The intention of the Directive is energy security … and that, like all other forms of insurance, comes at a price.

So, rates “reduced at least 2-3 months ago to reflect the slump in international prices”? They were probably reduced not a moment too soon, not a moment too late.

Caught in the crossfire

Like a hunters’ boycott for his comments on spring hunting were not bad enough, Nationalist EP candidate Edward Demicoli finds himself in the sights of the Party which has environmentalism as its creed:

Arnold Cassola, Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party Chairperson, stated: “This is not  an issue any longer.  Over the past twenty years we have insisted and worked together with the European Greens to ensure that hunting in spring is abolished.  For doing this, I was personally singled out by the Maltese government as an enemy of the Maltese people and arguments in favour of the abolition of spring hunting were then considered by the PN led government as politically extreme views. “

[...]

Yvonne Ebejer Arqueros, AD candidate for MEP elections added: “It is absurd that some PN candidates are posing as champions against hunting in spring today, when hunting in spring has already been abolished. This is even more preposterous when one considers that these candidates are the same persons that, as top-MIC employees, spent five years of their life negotiating a derogation on Spring hunting with the EU authorities”.

Carmel Cacopardo, Alternattiva Demokratika spokesperson on Sustainable Development and Local Government, concluded: “Alternattiva Demokratika is a party that has worked consistently over the past twenty years in favour of our environment.  The Maltese and Gozitan people are intelligent enough to distinguish between AD and its candidates and other parties and their candidates. AD has worked consistently on this issue; others are just presenting themselves now as “last minute” environmentalists in order to gain some votes”.

That DoI press release quoted, by the way, did not call Cassola “enemy of the Maltese people” but refers to his being present to a meeting which included members of the environmentalist lunatic fringe one of whom (the Director of the Belgian society for protecting birds) claimed that “Maltese hunters are not only shooting birds but even tourists”. So if anyone is trying to make a Will Smith out of Cassola, he’s the one who’s trying.

Now, let’s say that you think that there’s no way that spring hunting in Malta can be limited to a few species and be sustainable. How would Demicoli’s claim effect your vote? Jacques has commented on the Nationalists being an excessively broad church. Well, here’s a way to do something, lighting a candle rather than just curse the darkness. When voting, give a high preference, not necessarily the first, to Demicoli. If he makes a good showing even if not elected it would tell the hunters what to do with their boycotts.

Anyone who feels so strongly against spring hunting (and the case is still pending in the ECJ) would have applauded Demicoli’s move. That’s what four major environmental NGOs did. Why not the Green Party? Carmel Cacopardo, who spent nineteen of the twenty year Green Party lifespan he refers to in the Nationalist Party and in some of its top posts, would have patted Demicoli on the back, congratulating him for having seen the light so early in his political life. Cassola might even have told supports to vote for him and Ebejer-Arqueros and give their third preference to Demicoli.

Pigs will fly in open season and hunters will not shoot them down before that happens. Because, from the way they behaved in the 2003 election, the Greens are not the kind of people to see Demicoli as someone with whom they share an opinion. They can only see him as competition.

How to read and add comments

In case you were wondering, just click on button “Comment” at the end of the column and add whatever you wish to say. Alternatively click on the heading of the post and click on the “View X comments” button.

Comments on Thermidor are moderated. I edit out all stuff which could be illegal (read: libel, inciting to hatred, etc.), spam, advertising, bad taste and whatever does not have to do with the post in question. If you disagree with the last point and really feel like you need to speak your mind on anything that just comes to it I suggest you get yourself your own blog.

Doing it differently

Discussion on the reform of the electoral system have been ongoing for a number of decades with the only outcome being tinkering with that system. Fortunately, the discussion did not derail proper discussion and welcome progress in the way we vote with some radical changes taking place in 1987 and 1990.

Here’s some more being proposed by Joseph Muscat in the wake of the Nationalists’ suggestion that people who will not be around on polling day for the EP election be allowed to vote earlier:

The Labour Party (PL) yesterday proposed that, as from next year, Maltese living abroad should be allowed to vote at their respective embassy on the day before the election.

It also suggested that identification cards should replace the voting document, following their renewal under the scrutiny of the Electoral Commission. The party said voting with ID cards would reduce the chance of abuse and cut costs.

For the European Parliament elections in June, overseas voters wishing to fly to Malta should make their request to the Electoral Commission, which should then make the necessary verifications and pass on the request to the national airline. This would make the process subject to democratic scrutiny, said the party.

Unfortunately, the Times missed out another reform Muscat suggested: “updating” of voting qualifications keeping in mind domicile for fiscal purposed and sectors such as students and people working with international institutions.

Apart from the identity cards issue which is a real shame (identity cards were introduced in the mid-1970s as a safeguard against electoral fraud and these days they are used for everything but) there is one thing in common with all the other proposals: Maltese living abroad.

That is one front on which little progress was made apart from cheap AirMalta flights to vote. Not that attempts were not made to change things but with the paranoia that hung around the Labour Party while it was led by Alfred Sant certainly did not help.

Muscat must have realised that Labour is not exactly popular with expats. Nothing felt so convincing that the people who were flown in to vote last March were statistically representative of this category of voter than Alfred Sant’s (unproven) complaint that only 23% of them were Laburisti. With a Party that promoted insularity and national chauvinism for decades what else can you expect?

Secondly, he must also have realised that Labour already had little room for maneuver following the Cassola case and the Court’s interpretation of the residence requirement, let alone now that Malta is a member of the EU. The amendment Muscat is proposing is an honourable way out: it probably changes nothing of the Court’s interpretation, is something the Nationalists might agree to and to his Party’s supporters something looks like it’s being changed.

Defenestration

Two draft posts were awaiting publication one concerning Jacques’ article in last Sunday’s Indy, the other about Mario Vella’s article in the Times (Vella, we learnt in this article, is Watersbroken’s editor). But the days went by and those two posts which now seem less important.

The articles (and my posts) in question were not related. Jacques’ article was about the appointment of George Abela as Head of State and how Gonzi and Muscat might have arrived at an agreement because it was in their common interest (Muscat might have got a competitor to the Party Leadership out of the way; Gonzi, a competitor for the premiership). Vella’s was that the Nationalists cannot win another election with Gonzi at the helm (don’t ask me why) and that plans were afoot (don’t ask me how) to have him removed.

With the benefit of some distance and some hindsight those two articles are related. They both fail to see that political sunsets in Malta take a long time. Not a country given to political defenstrations the exits of politicians give lie to the otherwise iron rule of a week being a long time in politics. Examples range from Borg-Olivier to Alfred Sant.

Now, a reminder of who Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat are to their respective Parties. The first has one election behind him (less than a year ago) which he won. The second has his first election ahead of him. He might lose it but can anyone remember a leader of a Maltese political party who quit after losing his first election?

Like Jacques I can’t say I know George Abela. I can infer a few things from his decision to step down as Deputy Party Leader when the Party’s General Conference decided to follow Sant towards a general election, his decision not to contest Sant after the 1998 and 2003 defeats and his strong showing in the 2008 Leadership contest without having an actual foothold in the Party’s General Conference. Abela is obviously someone who doesn’t descend for a fight unless he knows he stands a chance of winning.

So what would bring about Jacques’ hypothetical scenario? Muscat is not risking much until his first general election test. Even if he loses he’s likely to stay on. Two defeats might take him down. And that’s when Abela might decide to give it a try and step in. In 2019 when he’s 69. Ready to take on the leadership of the country in 2024 when he’d be 74. Gonzi, of course, would have aged by as much. And a septuagenerian he’s definitely at risk after having held office uninterruptedly for twenty years.

Same goes, much more forcefully, to Vella’s fantastications. He mocks “GonziPN” while being oblivious to the fact that he’s more than acknowledging the Nationalists’ winning formula last March (and if you don’t believe me think how far a “SantMLP” slogan would have gotten Labour). The Nationalists cannot win another one with Gonzi at the helm? Come on. I would understand the thinking that having won seven out of the last eight elections might make it difficult for the Nationalists to bag the next one but hard to imagine that the man who stood for his first election and saved his party from a defeat which was not unlikely.

The Leyenda Blanca of Maltese politics

Victor Galea, the Greens’ Secretary-General, replies in today’s Times to a letter that had appeared in the same paper. In order to show what an “open-minded party” the Greens are Galea re-iterated the white legend:

Mr Calì [the original letter writer] should maybe remember what happened during the 2003 election: AD then asked its supporters to vote for PN on first count, and give only subsequent preferences to AD, in order to ensure that the Maltese and Gozitans got into Europe.

Galea starts his letter by asking the previous correspondent to “refrain from spreading blatant untruths”. I invite him to do the same. I do remember the 2003 election very clearly. And to back me up here’s the Green Party’s press release from the Party’s archives, no less:

Alternattiva Demokratika is asking its members and supporters to Vote 1 AD so as to help bring about a breath of fresh air based on sustainable development, social justice, civil rights and a better quality of life for all Maltese and Gozitans.

We are also inviting pro-EU Labourites to give us their first preference. Such Labourites form an important part of Malta’s pro-EU majority as expressed in the March 8 referendum and are welcome in AD’s family. AD is the natural home for all those who believe in progressive politics.

However, given the particular characteristics of this General Election, AD is not only appealing for number 1 votes from Green voters and pro-EU Labourites. We are also making a strong emphasis for number 2 votes from non-AD voters so as to ensure a pro-EU parliamentary majority and a breath of fresh air.

No 2 votes are very important, as they will help ensure AD’s election in parliament, while retaining the full validity of a voters No 1 vote. Therefore, those who give AD No 2 votes in no way would be wasting their first preference, as this would still be counted as a vote for their preferred party to win the election.

In his letter Galea said that his is a political organisation that put the interests of the country before those of the party. The Greens’ position in 2003 risked splitting the pro-EU vote and subsequent membership and for no other reason than their sense of political grandeur that can hardly said to be the case.

Obama inaugurated

Too busy to blog about anything but a black man in the White House is a historic moment without precedent.

The empty dwellings cornucopia

Very early in the life of this blog (circa 2004 — sorry, I still have to upload the archives) I had critically examined the claim often made by the Greens and other assorted environmentalists that 23% of Maltese dwellings deemed “vacant” in the 1995 census were proof of a building spree we do not need, intended to profit only speculators and which should be addressed through fiscal measures.

A closer look at those numbers would have revealed that about a third are summer residences, another third are uninhabitable and only the final third are empty and ready to be rented or sold. That would amount to some 8% of the total Maltese housing stock which can hardly be described as being excessive.

In the 2005 census the number of dwellings considered as vacant rose to 27%. The proportion of habitable dwellings which are not summer houses has also increased (also thanks to a growth of housing stock in the meantime). But that’s still far less than the 55,000 figure that regularly gets touted. That has important policy implications. One of them is that there is a good chunk of “vacant” housing which Government can do very little about (short of, that is, of re-introducing requisition orders).

The other is that the rent reform, which is presently making its tortured way in Parliament will have no effect on these numbers. Minister George Pullicino during the debate on the rent reform bill:

Mr Pullicino quoted census figures showing 53,000 vacant dwellings, but this did not mean, he said, that these were up for sale or lease. It meant that these were simply uninhabitable. Vacant dwellings in 1995 had been 23 per cent, rising to 27.6 per cent in 2005 – an increase of more than four percentage points in 10 years.

Of the vacant dwellings, 20 per cent were summer residences, and 25 per cent were dilapidated and must be redeveloped. In reality, therefore, only half of the 27 per cent vacant dwellings were available on the market.

Vacant properties which were not on the market had been already addressed by the 1995 reform, and the present reform was intended to regularise rents of dwellings which were already leased.

Which, of course, is not to say that this reform is not required and not timely. It will make up — partially — for what owners have suffered over the decades. It will not, however, have any effect on the current housing situation regarding its availability, accessibility and affordability.

The end of rent reform?

I have often said that it is unlikely that electoral considerations which prevented much getting done on the situation of old rents but more likely the dilemma of doing something which either benefits owners or tenants. When it published the white paper and then the bill the Government chose to come on one side of that dilemma. And Labour? The initial reaction was “Hey, let’s do more!”. The request to include social clubs in the reform, a matter on which Labour had been the exclusive beneficiary, was almost of sign of magnamity.

I had already noted that Labour was getting cold feet. Now it’s altogether against:

Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat yesterday called on the government to withdraw the Rent Reform Bill because it caused confusion and offered the wrong solution to the problem. But, he told Parliament, the opposition would not be voting against the Bill in second reading but would move extensive amendments in the committee stage, which would take place in plenary session.

While the Bill aimed to eliminate a number of injustices, it created new ones with a total absence of the role of the state. It was right to relieve owners of their unjust burdens, but this should not be shifted to the tenants.

[...]

International events had shown that full liberalisation could lead to a disaster with the government, through taxpayers’ money, having to rectify the situation. The opposition agreed with liberalisation, but this had to be responsible because it carried a price tag which should be shouldered neither by the financially weak nor by the owners.

[...]

Turning to requisitioned property occupied by political parties, Dr Muscat said these should be treated as other clubs. It was high time for the government to legislate on political party financing. Requisition orders were a thing of the past, he said.

… which backs the legitimate question: and by whom should the price tag be shouldered then? I would have thought that, if not owners or tenants, it would be the taxpayer but, it seems, that’s not wholesome to the Opposition which seems to think taxpayer money is only something the government digs into to offset the “evils” of “full liberalisation”.

Government’s reply was rightly to describe this as an attempt to please everyone.

Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg denied yesterday in Parliament that the Rent Reform Bill would lead to an element of neo-liberalism in new lease agreements. He said that although the government appreciated the opposition’s overall approach to the Bill, it was running with the hares and hunting with the hounds, going against its own past pronunciations on principles and seeking to please everyone.

The reaction also points out that Muscat is wrong on requisition orders, discontinued since 1995 and not falling within the scope of this bill. And if it’s requisition we’re talking about that’s a matter Labour can do something about while it is still in opposition by, for example, returning the keys to its club in St Venera, a requisition building, to the Director of Social Housing.

Finally, where are the Greens in all this? True, Cassola’s predecessor and the previous spokesman on economic affairs Edward Fenech has stronger opinions on the subject than the incumbents. But something that’s been high on the party’s agenda for so long (and I’m sure in the coming years we’ll be hearing from the Greens that rent reform came about thanks to them) cannot just be pushed in a memory hole. Could it be that Cassola’s newly found friendship with Muscat is keeping him from saying anything?

The prestige of an empty space

John Schranz thinks that Astrid Vella’s proposal to relocate Parliament to the Mediterranean Conference Centre (MCC) is “perfect”. He also considers, fleetingly, the possibility of the institution relocating outside the city (and then considers Valletta a “rare thing” because it has no higher education institutions and the theatres are located in the fringes — like a Parliament in the suburbs would not even make it rarer).

When Austin Gatt said that one of the advantages of moving Parliament from the Palace to the site of the Old Opera House would be the possibility of transforming the Palace into a museum the art world was thrilled. “Yes, a museum at the Palace,” they said “but still no Parliament at the Old Opera site”. Really, hobbla u tredda’.

Which is why Astrid Vella is now tripping over herself to come with alternatives. Parliament in the MCC. Or Fort St Elmo. Or the Auberge de Baviere. Er, if these sites are so great why not locate there “cultural space”? Vella has an answer why Parliament should be out of sight:

The project is thought to be completed around 2017 when Malta will take over the European Presidency. The security measures that will have to be taken due to ceremonies related to this event are mind-boggling, similarly in the case of any security threat to Parliament which is not a far-fetched scenario in the present international political climate. If Parliament were at the Opera House, these security measures would partially close off the upper entrances to Valletta, crippling activity in the commercial centre.

Let’s put aside the strong possibility that by 2017 the institution of the EU Presidency would be drastically changed thanks to the Lisbon Treaty. What are the “ceremonies” Vella is referring to? For quite a few years now European summits are no longer held in a city of the country holding the presidency but in Brussels where all the other formal meetings are held. At most you get an “informal” meeting of Ministers, the kind of meeting the Maltese government would hold at Girgenti rather than Valletta.

This whole debate is no longer about what are the benefits of whether to have this or that institution facing freedom square. It is a question of who’ll occupy Valletta’s most presigious spot. Which is why the Librarian’s Association thinks there should be a library there. Which is why John Schranz seems to think that the best part in Vella’s letter is not in the letter but in a comment she left to it in the online version of the Times where she clarifies she’s not saying that the Old Opera House should exclusively be the “New Opera House” … Schranz’s art is drama.

A significant event

The proposal to appoint George Abela as President of the Republic has been accepted by the Labour Parliamentary Group … with two dissensions:

Two Labour MPs voted against and 26 in favour as party leader Joseph Muscat won near unanimity within his parliamentary group yesterday over the nomination of George Abela as the next President of the Republic.

The vote was a secret one, held at the end of a heated discussion during which former leader Alfred Sant and former deputy leader George Vella were heard voicing disagreement, sources said.

An MP abstained and five were not present for the debate, being caught up with other commitments.

James Debono is right when he says that George Abela’s elevation only became possible thanks to Alfred Sant. Here’s Debono’s succint analysis:

For the first time since Anthony Mamo Malta will have a President who enjoys the support of the opposition parties. And all this thanks to one man: Alfre