The "JS List"
An appreciation on the scrutiny of public figures and public parties.
Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, MP Evarist Bartolo had some serious – lets call them allegations – to make about the nationalist party and the considerations that are made for awarding of contracts by governments. You do not need to read between the lines to see the link between party financing and governmental decision making that is being alleged. Here is the news report from the two English dailies:
From The Malta Independent :
Speaking in parliament, Mr Bartolo said he has been receiving a number of letters full of lies. “The only thing that hurt me was a mention of my mother, who passed away seven years ago; but this intimidation will not stop me,” said Mr Bartolo. Referring to the Delimara power station extension, he pointed out that every company engaged in the project has been involved in a bribery/corruption case of some sort. He went on to say that the new plant at Delimara will generate large amounts of both solid and liquid waste.Mr Bartolo said corruption is still rife in Malta, and he mentioned a list, known in the PN as the “JS list”, which includes a list of contractors (including those who win public contracts) that provide financial contributions to the party.”
And from the Times:
He [Evarist Bartolo] said the irregularities that took place in the process increased corruption. All international companies involved in the project were involved in corruption in other countries. These included BWSC, Brazilla and Lahmeyer International, the latter being blacklisted by the World Bank for refusing to cooperate in investigations of corruption cases that it was involved in. He asked whether Lahmeyer had been screened before being selected as Enemalta’s advisor. Mr Bartolo said that the PN had what he called “the JS list”, which included contractors who were given public contracts and then would, in turn, contribute financially to the PN coffers.
Given the current general smutfest that is being engaged in with the excuse of “scrutiny of public individuals” (with a very subjective definition of who – in the public sphere but not on the public payroll – can or cannot be subjected to said scrutiny) it would be a pity were these allegations on the financial conduct of one of the main parties not to be followed up. Charles Cauchi (and his real persona) might once again take umbrage at my verbose exposure of the glaring inconsistencies in the choice of timing of the various scrutinies we have had until now. In most cases, situations that have been persisting for a long time (in criminal terms it would be a continuing offence) suddenly (and with no explanation) are subjected to “scrutiny”. For “scrutiny” read a sudden urge to probe into not just the subject under examination but also to fire ancillary spinoff barrages at persons not in the least involved in the acts and actions of the very public persons who should (rightly) be answerable for any actions that might have consequences on their public acts.
Let’s simplify for the dumb and Charles Cauchi. I have no doubt that judges, magistrates, politicians and public officers should be answerable for their actions in private that might impinge on their public decision making. No doubt at all. That is why J’accuse was among the many who questioned a minister’s use of a private jet to fly to London to see a football match. A report, a carefully drafted article pointing out the inconsistency of the action with his public duties and a red light to the relevant authorities are not only warranted but necessary in such circumstances. Do note that a two week orgy of pandering to the voyeurist needs of today’s population is not an equal and proportionate measure that satisfies the need to ensure that the public officers’ ability to stand up to scrutiny has not been compromised. Smutfests are no solution unless the aim is not really the scrutiny and control of the public persona’s integrity but rather some personal revenge.
What we'd rather not see
J’accuse has absolutely no interest in the personal revenge aspect of the current bonfire of anger that is now being justified with the drawing of the curtains of public scrutiny. It’s a bit late for that. We may be accused by Charles Cauchi and others of still being on the “stool” but in actual fact once the debate has been opened on the necessity or otherwise of the scrutiny of public persons and their actions then we are more than entitled to enter the fray (so long as it is within the accepted parameters of justified scrutiny and how it should be done).
The private behaviour of public persons CAN impinge on their decision making – there is no doubt about that. Bloggers and journalists forming part of the fourth estate will tread very carefully when performing what can be described as their duty to present facts that could have such a consequence. The Berlusconi Incidents are the best example for this. It is one thing presenting the facts to the relevant authorities and querying those directly involved (preferably by a Commission established under the rule of law) and another stretching the story to paparazzi limit while going for the EP version of the events and presenting it to the baying voyeurist rabble. The service performed to the public by requesting the scrutiny within the appropriate fora (or forums if you prefer) can soon go all pete tong when such service is tainted by what can be perceived as personal vendettas, private interests of the journalists themselves and long lasting chips and rivalries. This gets worse when it becomes blatantly evident that such information as has been exposed has long been known but is only now being used because of whatever private reasons the exposer has. The public service element will then slip even further out of sight to most but the most fervent adulators and voyeuristas.
Whether it is allegations of magisterial interests intertwining with political stakes and commercial investments or allegations on party interests (as well as that of individual party candidates) merging indiscriminately with that of commercial operators – all these allegations need to be treated within the limits of the law and under the impartial eye of the law. Either that or we are fanning the flames for the Revolution of the Voyeuristas who will attack the politicians with their smut magazines and silly gossip pages. I for one know which solution I prefer.
There’s something called a “Permanent Commission against Corruption” Chapter 326 of the Laws of Malta. Here’s to hoping it gets busy. Fast.
4. The functions of the Commission shall be:
(a) to consider alleged or suspected corrupt practices committed by or with the participation of any person mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) and, where the Commission determines that there are sufficient grounds for holding an investigation, to investigate any such allegation or suspicion and to make a report thereon in accordance with article 11;
(b) to investigate the conduct of any public officer, including any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, which in the opinion of the Commission may be corrupt or may be connected with or may be conducive to corrupt practices and to report thereon in accordance with article 11;
(c) to investigate the conduct of any person who is or has been entrusted with, or has or has had functions relating to the administration of a partnership or other body in which the Government of Malta, or any one or more of any other authority of the Government, a local government authority, a statutory body, or a partnership as aforesaid or any combination thereof,has a controlling interest or over which it has effective control, where such conduct, in the opinion of the Commission may be corrupt or connected with or conducive to corrupt practices, and to report thereon in accordance with article 11;
(d) to examine the practices and procedures of government departments, local government authorities, statutory bodies or other bodies referred to in paragraph (c) in order to facilitate the discovery of any corrupt practices and to recommend the revision of methods of work or procedures which may be conducive to corrupt practices, and to report thereon in accordance with article 11; and
(e) to instruct, advise and assist any person, on his request, on ways in which corrupt practices may be eliminated, provided that such request may only be made by a person who has ministerial responsibility or who is entrusted with, or has functions relating to, the administration of a government department, local government authority, statutory body or other body referred to in paragraph (c).
5. Except where the Commission acts on its own initiative in holding an investigation under this Act, such investigation may be held on the allegation made and subscribed on oath by any person.
As for the Judiciary there is also the Commission for the Administration of Justice (set up under our Constitution article 101A(11)(f)) that has among its duties:
to draw the attention of any judge or magistrate on any matter, in any court in which he sits, which may not be conducive to an efficient and proper functioning of such court, and to draw the attention of any judge or magistrate to any conduct which could affect the trust conferred by their appointment or to any failure on his part to abide by any code or codes of ethics relating to him;
Prosit Jacques. L-iktar analizi tajba tas-sitwazzjoni. Huwa kollu minnu li jrid ikun hemm l-iskrutinju tax-xoghol kif l-ufficjali pubblici jaqdu dmirijiethom. Imma dan ghandu jkun kostanti u mhux skuza ghal funtana ta odju li tintefa biss meta xi opinjonista trid tpattiha lil xi hadd.
Nghid jien – jekk DCG kienet ilha taf bil-hafna hnizrijiet li qed tikteb fuqhom ISSA ghaliex ma fethitx halqa qabel…. u f’certu kazijiet xi 8 snin wara l-fatt? Jekk Musumeci kien jaghtiha daqshekk skandlu ghaliex ma kitbet xejn fuqu meta tqajmet il-bicca tal-Bahrija? Sa fejn naf jien, dak iz-zmien hlief tikteb kontra l-ambjentalisti ma ghamlitx.
DCG has changed her mind about being written about. Today she is saying that people should not write about her because she is not paid from public money…..but in 1998 she wrote “Expecting the press to cover up for me, drawing a veil of secrecy over the matter, would be hypocritical in the extreme, particularly when my stock in trade is criticism of other public figures” AND
: I ensure that my life is routine so that people who write about me are faced with a choice between printing a really boring anecdote and printing a lie. And when something happens to give them a wider choice, I really am not in a position to complain”
So why is DCG complaing now??????????
Interesting reflections. I could add an anecdote of my own where I was told (indirectly) that “if I can dish it out then surely I can take it”.
However let us not forget that the basis of this discussion is the manner in which important information that could uncover the fact that public figures have compromised their public office (and performance therein) should be divulged.
Kerrejja style haranguing vs Professional Reporting… that is the question.
Avoid falling into the same trap of argumentum ad hominem and you will provide much more valuable insight to the discussion.
@ JRZ
Jackpot!
I got three mentions in your latest epistle.
One of them, the juxtaposing of my name with ‘dumb’, I can live with. Dumb is as dumb does.
The other one, juxtaposed with “(and his real persona)”, is rather irritating. Congratulations for managing to extract some sort of emotion from me from your writing.
It should be the easiest thing for you to verify my identity. You have my email address. So why don’t you give it a try? Or would that reduce the time you have left for plying your trade at Luxembourg?
@CC: That you can live with “dumb” is no secret. Neither is the fact that you have often been provoked by my writing (the usual conundrum of the serial critic who always returns for more).
Feel free to continue to criticise my style while following every blog post attentively. Send you an email? I’ve got better, more interesting stuff to do.
Cutting out all the crap for CC’s benefit, there are two issues being discussed here:
1) Should journalists/columnists not disclose information about public figures (which the public has a right to know) until they can utilise that info for their own advantage? Would this not be a disservice to the public? and hypocritical to boot?
2) Should the revelations about public figures also contain as much reference to personal details and sundry unrelated issues to satisy the writer’s need for personal vendettas?
Prosit indeed. it will be a pity if the DGG reference will get the attention because i see it as just a contorn. the beef is in how the commissions are seen to work. and how the current party-funding ‘culture’ is openly and holistically reviewed and how a transparent party-funding legislation is put in place.
Contorn Danny? You feeling hungry? :)
not by this time :) I just had a wonderful soppa and a munchy mozzarella-laden pizza…and you never guess…this particular blog came briefly up for discussion and some light was thrown on why the list may be perhaps known as the JS list…and it is not for the first reason that may come to mind…you have to rewind a bit ;)
What do the letters “JS” stand for?
Oooh Danny. You’ve stirred up an interesting guessing game. Dan Brown would be proud of you.
My guess: “Joseph Saliba” alias Joe Secretary General Saliba. Constructor and mason(free?) with links in the contractors milieu. Quite a potential candidate if you let your mind run.
Am I right? Will I ever know? In any case – it’s just an uneducated guess. Nothing more. Nothing less.
@ Jacques – And absolutely no-one (except you) picked up the reference to the JS list. It should have been front page news and given more prominence than these ” news items” about facebook groups. But then – it’s all Evarist Bartolo’s fault. He didn’t throw in a reference to genitals to attract attention.
@Claire True. But we also have to factor in the “cry wolf” effect that PLPN have gotten us used to in this kind of scenario:
Labour (the oppostion with a grip in this particular narrative) comes up with a conspiracy theory that involves allegations which are bound to definitively taint the panoply of christian democrat saints.
PN ridicule both the message and the messenger (denial in the case of the first and personality bullying in the case of the second).
Even if, in the rare case, there would have been substance to the allegation, the remaining tatters do not even suffice for Labour to achieve its short-sighted aim of replacing PN in the seat of power. The day it suffices to cause a groundbreaking revolution is, alas, still far away.
Think hofor (short-term goal achieved, long term goal scuppered), think hbieb tal-hbieb (idem), think power of incumbency (what?), think buying of votes (Farrugia’s White Elephant), think votes abroad… then picture Varist standing up in parliament and mentioning anything that borders on conspiracy theory: like a JS List.
Do you blame the press for tiptoeing cautiously around the info? Probably yes, but the history of Labour conspiracy theories carries the kind of baggage most people would shy away from.
Unless you are as crazy as J’accuse or you feed on spiked mozzarella like Danny.
@ Jacques – The existence of such a list is not such a whacko conspiracy theory. It’s no big secret that the PN receives funding from contractors (so does the PL I hasten to add). Do you think the media has decided to err on the side of caution and decided not to investigate simply to prevent Varist making a pratfall? Or simply because the media thinks that we care about standards in public life – but only if it concerns where public officers park their genitals? Because if that were so, Varist would be advised to “sex up” his list.
perhaps over a glass in normandy when the July Silent tide is low as the cathedral rises to a silet heaven:) or by the church of Julian, Saint of the poor, on the other bank from Notre Dame on the isle…google earth may take you there, where i, the hunchback, dressed for a ball, will be waiting :)
sorry guys, never stayed up so late
Seems like the running commentary ran away this morning…. ?!?
ok. So Government is all powerful pulling both the legislative and administrative strings.
There is a common perception that ‘business’ donate money to the party in Government (and possibly to a lesser extent to the opposition).
Now business can benefit substantially from Government spending.
Given this perception, the least that one would expect is that we would have, by now, come to a stage when all donations are made public…
so in these circumstances, who needs a JS or whatever list other than for a bit of fun over a cholesterol-filled pizza washed down by a past-10pm capuccino that thinks that the dark outside is what preceeds the breaking of dawn…?.
Everytime it boils down to party financing. Maybe it is the time for private individuals to put pressure on politicans to come clean, no pun intended. How about using social media to put pressure on a law on party financing. Let’s see how many people care about the issue and lets try to force the change ourselves since both parties do not have the balls or the will to change.
Not another ridiculoous “facebook group” Ivan please. They contribute as much to politics as the collective farmville output by Maltese facebook netizens contribute to the GDP.
I’ve still got an eye out on Franco Debono. He promised us some shit-stirring action (my words not his) on this financing business … and I am honestly banking that his boat rocking incursion has not yet subsided.
I was thinking beyond a Facebook group. Even I am waiting to see what Franco Debono comes up with. If its shit-stirring on party-financing, he has all my backing.
now is this a distinct district or what? dalli is off, galea…well he is off too, one of the two next in line finds himself in the arms of a sunami, no option but to ask him to stay put, and hey presto, Saliba may find himself deposited on the back benches where he will possibly join FD in bring about the necessary party-funding reforms…ok so the most unlikely of conspirecy sub-theories possible, but i could not resist the urge of another pre-midnite LP pizza-with-mozzarella-in-lieu-of-a-steak-diane-i-can-no-longer-afford. ;) happy weekend to all.
DCG can certainly dish it, but certainly can’t take it. I recall she had threatened to sue Pamela Hanson for something very trivial
What triggered these personal attacks is the fact that the victim of this bile, in private conversations, made comments about DCG’s own private life.
Now DCG is trying to justifying her lurid personal attacks by saying that the public has a right to know. I think she should qualify that statement ‘The public has a right to know if ever they cross me or criticize the PN or dare say something mildly positive about the PL.’