Quaky Oaths & Lazy Journalism
Today’s Times (print edition) will include the figures relating to the declarations made by the EP candidates to the Electoral Commission. The public (or “the people”, if you want to irritate certain other “people”) will finally get to see how many of the candidates are prepared to exploit the “loophole” (J’accuse disagrees with this loophole business but it seems to be the received opinion of many) that considers candidates as candidates only from the day of registration.
Early figures point to Ms Ellul Bonici (PL) and Mr Demicoli (PN) being the only two to admit exceeding the legal limit – and by quite a bit since both hover around the €55,000 figure (€14,000 kev? prosit tas-support :) ). There is no doubt that not having been elected to the Brussels, the two candidates in question might be accused of a “sour grapes” motivation – which is irrelevant really. At least to J’accuse it is. The point is that there are candidates who openly admit to exceeding the legal limit while others who had similar (if not more expensive) campaigns presented incredible expense accounts that fell short of the €18635 limit.
Somebody, somewhere believes we can all be taken for a ride. Which is quite normal in most circumstances because there are people like that all over the place. In the words of the great Dr House: “Everybody Lies”. What worries me is that we have a concentration of these individuals running to represent us on the basis of a list of promises (confusing as that may be) and that some of these actually got elected. True, there is a loophole, but think about it, how many politicians willing to exploit a “loophole in the law” are you willing to have represent you? What does that say about their commitment to you? See? That’s just what I meant.
We had five years of loopholes and merry-go rounds on departure taxes, hunting and more – what guarantee is there now that we will not have five more years of loophole-based representation?
And one final note. How is it that I get to read the figures on the Times (actually I don’t – they are only on the print version) and not on the Electoral Commission’s website? Is there a civil servant somewhere who believes that the not-so independent press is better placed to inform the people than the official organs of government? Or maybe there is some confusion and he or she believes that the Times IS an official organ of government – Pravda anyone?
Hip! Hip! Hurrah! for Cecil-Herbert Jones who, as the Times mockingly pointed out, was “the only candidate to declare hair-dressing expenses”. Of course the window-dressing exercise of the other candidates did not merit such sarcastic comments. So much for investigative journalism… (and thank God Astrid Vella was not one of the candidates for we would be reading miles and miles of text on the expenses saga on other “investigative” blogs).
the saddest bit of all this isn’t so much that all of them are lying (so what’s new?) but – as you point out – that the media aren’t up in arms about it. Ok, so ST started it off, but in most other countries something as ridiculous as this morning’s “expenses claims” would be triggering tsunamis, no?
Man, give civil servants a break. The official organ of government is not the website of the Electoral Commission but the Malta Government Gazette:
http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/gazetteonline/2009/07/gazts/GG%2028.7.pdf
Right.
“The Electoral Commission further notifies that any person wishing to inspect any such return or declaration, or any person wishing to obtain copies of same may do so at the Office of the Electoral Commission, Evans Building, St. Elmo Square, Valletta, from Monday to Friday up to Tuesday,11th August, 2009, from 9.00 a.m. to noon on payment of the prescribed fee.”
So I am assuming that the Times obtained copies and is making them public right? In which cases an apology is due to the Times for this level of “investigative” journalism. On the other hand this does not explain why the reports are not available online – the commission has a website and it might as well use it in the interests of accessibility. Smartmalta le?
Jacques, last April the Electoral Commission almost disenfranchised 900 foreign electors from the EP election just because they did not reply to a Commission advert in the press to be “re-registered”.
That’s enough explanation why to access the candidates’ declarations — a far less important matter — you have to go to Evans rather than Evans comes to you.
As to Maltese “investigative” journalism, yes, walking the length of St Paul Street is about as “investigative” as it gets. Shouldn’t complain though: at the end of July you’d be prespiring rivers at the end of the stroll.