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.