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: Alfred Sant. For because of Alfred Sant’s antics Abela gained the status of most favoured Labourite among Nationalists. And Abela’s nomination also serves Muscat well as he tries to detatch [sic] himself from the Sant legacy.

That’s only half the story. What Debono does not mention is that a Louis Galea presidency would have been unpalatable after Fenech-Adami anointed himself Head of State. Add to that the fact that Galea, old political hand that he is, is more useful to the government presiding the House than presiding the Republic and you see — admittedly, with hindsight — why George Abela was a likely choice.

What is truly “aesthetic” in all this is that, in agreeing on Abela, Muscat and Gonzi both spited their predecessors and what they did as leaders of their respective parties. Many have cited the deal as a new start to Maltese politics. That’s not quite accurate. It’s more a coming-of-age event for the two leaders.

A new President

George Abela will be the eighth President of the Republic. A suited appointment since in my view he fulfills are the criteria required to serve as President.

No, it’s not that of his being a “symbol of national unity”. That, incidentally, would be a criterion on which a former Deputy Leader of a political party such as is Abela, is most likely to fail. As I’ve said on other occasions, nowhere does the Constitution impose such a role on the President. If anything can be inferred from that fundamental text it’s that the President is the symbol of the unity of the state in being head of all the branches of government. And “state”, it should be remembered, is not equivocal with “nation”.

My criteria for a good President? First, he has to be capable of signing on the dotted line to make parliamentary acts into laws. That might not be a too high a bar but it’s one of the most important things a President does. More importantly, he might find himself having to sign laws which he may not agree with. In my view, someone who is not ready to sign into law something he disagrees with it or finds objectionable (rather than choosing to resign) should not be considered for the post. Abela, so far, has not made any such claim.

Second, he has to be capable in chairing the Commission of Administration of Justice, one of the few (if not the only) substantial role our President fulfills. There is one minor episode which militates against Abela here. Abela was the lawyer of Mr Justice Depasquale when the latter’s impeachment case was heard by the Commission in 2001.

Mr Justice Depasquale had decided that, as he disagreed with the establishment of the Commission (he said it was prejudial to the independece of the judiciary), he’d absent himself from work indefinitely (which position might have been believed to be principled had the man not decided to fight tooth and nail to retain his salary and all the perks such as his own chauffeur-driven car).

Abela’s defence was not so ludicrous: his argument was, if I remember correctly, that there could be no impeachment because in Malta there is no law, subsidiary to the Constitutional provision, which establishes the mechanism (apologies but it’ll have to be from memory until such time Maltese online media outlets keep proper archives online). One wonders if Abela would take the same line if a similar case was to present itself before him this time as President of the Commission.

Finally, a good President would have to be able to handle a political crisis (a parliamentary political crisis, I hasten to add; which that there is something to be said for the Constitution limiting a President’s election to the members of the House, leaving out of the process people like Cassola). While this might not be stuff of every Presidency we’ve had, the situation does arise once in a while as it did when Agatha Barbara, Pawlu Xuereb and Ugo Mifsud-Bonnici held office.

This is why, I think, a good candidate for President is one with political baggage. Not necessarily a former Minister, not even a former MP, but one who has moved in political circles before, who knows the players and the name of the game well. George Abela definitely fits the bill on this one.

Final verdict: Abela is a good choice for the post.

Our man in Tel Aviv (2)

In case you were considering a holiday in Gaza the Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggests you think again:

Rather belatedly, the Maltese Foreign Affairs Ministry has warned against all travel to Gaza.

A Ministry statement issued on Monday afternoon explained that Malta’s Embassy in Tel Aviv was “monitoring events closely”.

If, notwithstanding, there were still individuals who decided to travel to Gaza, or to remain in Gaza, “they will be doing so on their own responsibility, as the consular assistance that Malta’s Embassy may provide in the circumstances is very limited,” the Foreign Affairs Ministry added.

As I said, the Maltese embassy has its hands full and with all that monitoring that it must be doing to ensure that the one Maltese resident in Bethlehem is not in danger it would have a hard time getting you out.

You cannot please everybody

Joseph Muscat was recently interviewed on national radio. Sadly, his views of parliamentary pairing made it to the headlines (not the right time for it although does the government still care?) when there was more interesting stuff:

Speaking of the rent laws the PL leader said that the government has identified the problem but the solution that it is proposing is wrong. The government is proposing a minimum rent of €185. “For some this could be a small amount but for others it might be the fatal blow. Whatever the amount to be paid there will be people who will be affected badly and the government must assure that this does not occur.” said Dr Muscat.

Dr Muscat said that it is the government’s duty to make sure that those at a disadvantage are protected while assuring that neither the owner nor the tenant suffers. “The government is proposing a generational reform which excludes and does not protect the different family forms. This does not make sense. When we say these things we might not gain popularity but it is our duty to protect the minorities in the country” said the PL leader.

Now we can discuss whether to have the minimum rent set at €185 or €105 or €85. The point is that you cannot do anything which does not make either owner or tenant suffer. I mean, even not doing anything makes someone suffer (in this case, the owner) so how can you expect to do anything that everyone will applaud?

How to elect a President

Arnold Cassola, the Greens’ chair opines about the election of the President scheduled for April:

What is even worse is that a good number of our elected Presidents had then to face the boycott of the opposition MPs following their election. I cannot imagine a single country of the 27 in the EU treating its Presidents in this way. It is unfortunate that partisanship and divisiveness have held sway for so long in a country where compromise and cooperation are so sorely needed.

Cassola is wrong in the first sentence, right on the second, irrelevant on the third. There was only one President who faced a “social boycott” by the Opposition following his election. That was Censu Tabone in 1989. Cassola is then right in saying that no other EU country would have treated its President that way but then it’s Labour under Mifsud-Bonnici’s leadership we’re talking of here, a period which everyone, whether a supporter of the Party or not, would rather forget.

On the last point the choice of President is hardly the most important decision where compromise and cooperation are needed. What is certainly not needed is transforming the choice into just anyone seeking the limelight. Cassola shouldn’t complain that the PM “clearly sent out a message that the choice of President remains a closed shop reserved to the 69 MPs” when he refused to meet the Greens and listen to their opinion on who should be the next Head of State for constitutional reasons. If the PM gave that message he gave the correct message of what’s in the Constitution, both in its letter and in its spirit.

Our man in Tel Aviv

I have posted previously on the Maltese government’s excessive interest in things Middle Eastern, an interest inordinate for a country that geopolitically shares little with the area.

In reply an interlocutor asked “So what? Hush and act like a war is not going on?”. Of course not. All I care is that the Maltese government stop acting like it should (or even could) act like an arbitrator or peace maker in the region any more than its European counterparts.

Pace Michael Frendo, the Maltese do not “understand” the Palestinian plight any more or any better than other European citizens and it would be appropriate if the Government took note and acted accordingly. What we get instead are representations we don’t need in Tel Aviv and Ramallah:

Contacted yesterday afternoon for confirmation, the foreign affairs ministry dispelled the story [that there are Maltese passport-holders in Gaza seeking to get out], confirming there were no Gazan Maltese passport holders and that no such arrangements had been made through the Malta’s embassy in Israel, as reports had purported.

In fact, the ministry clarified, the only Maltese in Palestine was a nun, who had been in the region for many years and who had no intention of leaving, at least for the time being, as she wanted to continue with her work. Malta’s ambassador to Israel, Abraham Borg, has been in contact with the individual and has offered any assistance necessary should she choose to leave the region.

There’s one little detail that’s missing from that story. The nun in question may reside in the Palestinian territories but she’s nowhere close to Gaza; she’s in Betlehem in the West Bank. Our diplomats in the area truly have their hands full.

And so it goes

The Times reports:

Parliament will next Thursday be discussing a Private Member’s Bill by Labour MP Leo Brincat calling for the enactment of a climate change law.

The Labour Party augured the proposal would be supported by both sides of the House. This would allow the political forces in Parliament together with non-governmental organisations, environmental organisations and leading stakeholders to nominate experts as soon as possible in order to start working on the drafting of the law.

I have already commented on this Bill: it is little more than pandering to the gallery and a disgraceful waste of paper. But the Times article mentions another feature of the bill which I had missed in my earlier posting. The bill obliges government to present a bill on climate change.

Why Leo Brincat, who presented this bill, did not go straight to the point and present what will now be the second bill is beyond me. Could it be that, like the rest of us, he hasn’t the vaguest idea of what it could include that is not already provided for in other laws?

Sant speaks

First political bombshell of the year: Alfred Sant speaks out and if anything is obvious is that the man is incapable of insight. Would you believe it? He complains that AirMalta brought in people from abroad and leaked personal data to activists. That’s the same person who publicised that same data in Parliament together with claims that “only 23%” were Labour Party voters as “proof” that the reservation system was manipulated.

He’s still in denial after the defeat. Power of incumbency? Like this country has never had a change in government including one in which he led Labour from a considerable defeat to a considerable victory.

Joseph Muscat has politely brushed aside his predecessor’s comments: “The country is facing new challenges and the answers to these challenges cannot be the failed solutions of the past”. Bravo!

Happy birthday and a happy new year

Hope all of you had a great start to the new year. Just like the euro which turned 10 on the first day of the year.

In its first year the euro fell and fell. Derek Bennett of the UK Independence Party would write letters regularly to the Times (of Malta) claiming that whatever was wrong with the UK was because it is a member of the EU, whatever was right with the UK was because it is not a member of the eurozone.

That seems so long ago. Only a few days ago the pound sterling fell to the point that it was only one cent away from parity with the euro; it was only saved from the ultimate humiliation thanks to expectations on the currency markets of a further cut in the ECB’s interest rate.

Meanwhile, Malta is safely within the eurozone. The size of its economy would have, like Iceland, rendered it even more vulnerable to the turbulence. It was a long way. Ten years ago Malta was not even an EU member state. We had just applied to re-activate our application for EU membership, hoping that we’d be still taken seriously in European capitals.

Thankfully, we were.