Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Dalli vs The Times (and the sidekick)

It’s interesting how on the day I put in context DCG’s mid-week comments on “fish-pondism”, the Times gives us a particular example of their attempts at creating their own fish-pond news. I don’t know why they bothered with an article entitled “Dalli speaks of Brussels term as four year sentence”: I mean the title would have been enough don’t you think? In fact all that we can glean from the rest of the article is that this was no official statement or occasion. For all we know – on the face of the evidence provided by the Times’ man in Brussels – it could have been a familiar chat with some journalists that was off the record. But why the rush from the Times to highlight the “four year sentence statement”? Was Dalli joking or referring to all the ruckus that was raised about his being sidelined in the first place? Will we ever know?

Here’s what the Times had to say:

Former Minister John Dalli has described his current stint at European Commissioner as a ‘four year sentence’ which will soon end.’  He made his comments to a number of Maltese journalists in Brussels.

You’d expect a little bit more information than that no? Context for example? Is the journalist in question reporting a comment made off the record by an EU commissioner to journalists – again if the context is the implication that Dalli was sent off to Brussels to get out of some people’s way you would not blame him for joking nervously about it. The Times report seems to be intent to making it seem a serious enough comment though. It’s inviting the stupid same kind of stupid thinking as hte PQ by the labour backbencher who asked about salaries and the President. The type that considers Dalli an ungrateful sod for having accepted the salary of a Commissioner AND having the gall to come back to Malta for more.

More what exactly? The lucrative business of politics? What’s the big attraction anyway? Lino Spiteri has a point to make on that in today’s Times opinion pages. There’s also an interesting story about Austin’s Sidekick on Maltatoday that provides valuable material in understanding how certain politicians (or in this case wannabe politicians) get their electoral campaigns bankrolled. I’ve had a look at the 2i Ltd website mentioned in the article and … sure enough… they also specialise in Bus Scheduling Software.

Delia the Sidekick engages in a bout of Sumo
Unstomachable

Good old Delia the Sidekick … reliable in his consistency – same old, same old. What were you thinking with that slogan anyway? “We represent a huge experience and outstanding intellectual potential”? The only truth about that is the “huge” part… as for the rest… same old pompous bull. Now the Nationalist Party really has found the cherry on the cake.

As a parting note, a message for John Dalli: “Brussels term” is not a “four year sentence”, if anything it’s a “two word phrase”.

* The Indy too went along with the story (Christopher Sultana). Again I have a problem with the “has learnt” bit of the reporting. If the journalists were in the same office as John Dalli why add the phrase “has learnt” as though it is hearsay or as though the information was obtained from secondary sources?

Here’s the Indy’s take:

European Commissioner John Dalli intends returning to the local political scene after his term in Brussels expires, The Malta Independent on Sunday has learnt. Speaking to a group of Maltese journalists at his office in Brussels earlier this week, Mr Dalli referred to his term as Commissioner responsible for Health and Consumer Policy as a “four-year sentence that will soon be up”.

So now we know Dalli uttered the words in a meeting with journalists in his office.  Still “has learnt”? Was Christopher Sultana in that office? Are the Independent reporting a press release of some kind or a shared source that was originally from another paper?

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Salaries and Salary Caps

In times of recession it is inevitable that the issue of wages and salaries bounce to the forefront of the news. Whether it is the Italian Footballer’s Association and its negotiations for a collective contract (a uniform style contract) or whether it is politicians and their pay-cheques, the levels of happiness/unhappiness are exacerbated via a beggar-thy-neighbour exercise. Malta does not have a culture of meritocracy – worse still, it can barely be said to have a competitive wage/salary market. As any Euro-institution worker can vouch, one of the main attractions of emigrating to Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg is the possibility of multiplying you wage-earning potential.

In normal circumstances you can expect the leftist scythe of equalization to pass comments on such matters as the “gravy train” or some other ignorant remark based on comparative jealousy. The fact is that most euro-workers, like the undersigned, leapt at the opportunity of not having their job openings or promotion possibilities depend on political networking. They moved to an area where more often than not the rules for mobility are based on merit and clear rules. But this post is not about euro-salaries (although they will inevitably be brought into question).

This post is about the latest flurry of activity comparing the salary of specialists and consultants to that of the President of the Republic. The President? Malta’s equivalent of the Queen? Does nobody see the irony in this comparison? Much as you may be a beady eyed republican overflowing with respect towards the institutional representative of our nation, surely you will recognise that the kind of demands on the President of the Republic are not exactly the same as those on a surgeon in an operating theatre.

Why then is it newsworthy to point out that 117 persons in the public sector have a higher salary than the President? Even if they are not all surgeons (and they aren’t) what is the point of this comparison? Here’s the breakdown (and it is a breakdown) on Maltatoday:

17 consultants at Mater Dei Hospital, two consultants at Gozo General Hospital, four consultants at St Vincent de Paule Home, the clinical chairman, St Vincent de Paule and a consultant at the Department for Care of the Elderly;

71 captains at Air Malta, four members of the senior management at Air Malta, the CEO, Lotteries and Gaming Authority, the chairman, MFSA, the director-general, MFSA, the CEO, Malta Tourism Authority, the executive chairman, Malta Communications Authority;

The chairman, Mepa, the Governor of the Central Bank, the CEO Malta Stock Exchange, the projects manager, Enemalta; the CEO, Enemalta;

The CEO, Malta Council for Science and Technology, the executive chairman, Malta Enterprise, the CEO, Malta Information Technology Agency; the head, flight operations directorate and three flight operations inspectors, and the Rector of the University.

Ooooh. Socialists of the world unite.  Chairmen of Authorities are paid more than the president. The Rector of a University is paid more than the president. Hell 71 captain/pilots at Air Malta earn more money than the President. Since when is the President’s salary the new standard? And why are the sums being bandied around independently of context?

Let me tell you why. Malta lacks both a culture of responsibility as well as a culture of merit. People should not be judged simply on the basis of what they earn but rather on whether their output justifies what they earn. In the case of the public sector then we should have an employer who pays well for good employees. Who gives a flying monkeys arse whether that implies a salary better than the Presidents? What they should be evaluating is whether the government is getting just returns for the salary with which it is (probably) underpaying the persons mentioned. Similarly when people underperform (or perform horribly) they should be shown the door on that basis – not because they earn money but because their performance is crap.

The confusing picture painted by an opposition intent on shifting the general look of the country to one of a continued depression fails on this measure. Muscat’s Labour will, like many Labours before it, fuel the fires of jealousy with regards to monetary amounts – implying twistedly that the cleaner, the factory worker and the postman and the baker are being short-changed. Not because they do not get the moneys’ worth but because they pay too  much money – can you see it ? More than the President? How dare they?

It’s the stupid culture of relativism raising its ugly head again. Let us flatten the wage bill therefore. Let us pay peanuts and somehow justice will be done.

Elsewhere the draft bill for regulating party funding is still in the running. Party candidates aspire for an equally low paid job of Member of Parliament. How do they fund their campaigns? Who pays for their parties, their meetings with the candidates, their brochures and their websites? Becoming an MP is not supposed to be the most profitable business on the market. Yet so many people aspire to become servants of the people every five years it’s incredible.

Either there’s a glut of altruistic beings on the island. Or there’s something that they prefer not to tell us. God Help Us (and the President) should we find out.

ADDENDUM:

Here’s an example of the current mentality. Comments taken from an update on the Baldacchino shooting on the Times:

Comments

C Cassar(3 hours, 5 minutes ago)
A good example of money not buying happiness or quality of life.
DBorg(1 hour, 58 minutes ago)
Unemployed huh?
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

There's something about economics

The gaps between macro-economics, micro-economics and home economics are rarely bridged in your average person’s daily thinking. Given the worry about his wages, his electricity bill, his cable football subscription and the extra little entertainment money on the one hand and the Irish Question and EFSF financial bailout disquisitions on the other, your average Joe Borg is more likely to be immersed in the problems former. Like me he would have little or no clue (or only a vague recollection) of the EFSF – European Financial Stability Facility and would have no idea how consequential its future decisions are on the price of bread in his own little world.

Which is not to say that we should all enroll in a Masters degree in economics overnight. It would help though if things monetary were put into perspective whenever we discussed politics and policies national. Our governments tend to take notice of international scenarios only when the outlook has something positive about them to say. Behaving like organisational Lou Bondis they will only read the news if it is about them and if it is good. The biggest offender however is the opposition which continues to swagger and promise as though the international financial crisis is a thing past.

It’s funny how the opposition leaders do not notice that by acting with such naivety they confirm that Malta has hitherto been cushioned from the uglier effects from such recessions. The problem is that, as the IMF seemingly pointed out yesterday, we should not be carried away by the idea that it is all over. Malta, like the rest of the countries in the real world, is still out there in the stormy financial and economic storm – and the waters are far from being calm.

On yesterday’s episode of Vieni Via Con Me, world famous architect Renzo Piano was asked the question that most of the expat community often face at one time or another in their life. Stay or Go? Implying – would you encourage people to stay in Italy or leave the country? Piano answered unequivocally – partire (go): not out of desperation (as the emigrants of the harsh times who left for New York etc) but out of curiosity to discover the wider world.

It is sometimes this careless feeling that the outer world does not matter that drives our planning along the usual corrupt and useless ruts. Which is why we too should encourage our young to leave the country and discover the outside world.

Piano added a postilla – partire … per ritornare. Leave to come back. Which I must confess is probably the most difficult part. Someone once old me that the country that you pine for when abroad is never the same one that you left behind. Which makes the coming back part all the more difficult.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

My Cousin Bondi

This is a tale of two cousins. One is a self-professed journalist who has a time slot on national television the other is a thatcherite minister in the Maltese government. J’accuse does not normally take to the “pink” style references of familial links and the like but this time the coincidental operations of two cousins – one of whom we still admire – merited an appreciative pointer from this ever cynical blog.

First was the “journalism above all bloke”. This week there was another self-referential program about… himself. Or rather about the fact that assertions made by him in an earlier program did not sell very well to a large part of the population. Bondi must have been reading the news for a couple of weeks now for he planned a program full of clips and cuts from everything under the sun. Admittedly. and sticking to his philosophy, all references he read or saw or heard were to himself and his program. So he set up a new one in order to disprove his detractors.

He had planned a lovely jubbly program complete with an interview with Finance Minister Tonio Fenech. It would be a program in which he would prove that PL’s campaign depicting him as a statistic fabricating lackey for the nationalist government is completely cuckoo. It would all be as slick as a gelled hairdo. It would be. Until Bondi discovered much to his chagrin “a few minutes before the program began” (as he repeated ad nauseam) that a welcoming delegation from the PL were waiting at the studios complete with special guest Charles Mangion.

Bondi was as surprised as Alfred Sant must have been when he saw JPO sitting in the journalist benches on that fateful afternoon. He could not call for security and have the offending intrusion on his orchestrated program removed. He would have liked to. But he could not. Instead he smiled and gave Kurt Farrugia a “ma gara xejn” nod. And so the program began. It took a bouncy Bondi a full six minutes to settle down and actually start the program – not before flushing the cameras with caveats and mumbling sorry excuses about how a presenter of his international stature had been caught pants down by a rare sly move from the PL marketing team. He would have to go ahead with the program with the “adversary” in the studio watching every step.

Throughout the first part of the program (there’s a limit to how much bull we can stomach for you readers) we could feel Bondi’s discomfort as he squirmed from one figure to the next. He jumped from “zball zghir nibdluh” to “kollha l-istess baqghu il-figuri” with the grace of a clumsy donkey ride on a hot summer beach. Whenever he felt he was losing grasp of the situation (read: the program was not going according to script) he cannonballed onto Mangion with pleas for the labour parliamentarian not to “Set the agenda”. In Bondi’s mind, anything that risks disproving his theories involves setting the agenda.

Pity that Mangion was a feeble lamb and failed to live up to the occasion. He should have damn well insisted that the Beta tape he was carrying be shown. It was after all a table of figures and not – as Bondi seemed to imply – a porn video of god know what libellous nature. That Bondi managed to brush away the presentation with a feeble: “mhux fair ghax gibtha tard” spoke volumes of the worry that had planted itself firmly in the presenter’s mind. Truth is that Bondi cannot and will not take on his critics fair and square at equal arms. He needs to dance around and manage the show with clips that can be shifted and moved around at will. Even if Bondi was right, or half right – the manner in which he chooses to refute criticism makes him stink of wrong. Very wrong.

Which brings me to the much admired (in these circles) Austin. Among the sanscouillistes even the man with half a ball is king. Gatt seems to be loaded with such attributes (we are always speaking on a metaphorical level of course – I have no idea (or interest) what Gatt carries in his pants) and as such has often borne the brunt of audacious measures. Which makes his pussyfooting and excuse mongering in the BWSC affair all the more suspicious. Unlike Cousin Bondi, Gatt has never feared opposition and a good battle and prefers to take it head on.

Reading the script of the parliamentary accounts committee interview of the Auditor General was a bit of a throwback to kafquesue big brother readings. The quizzing of the AG by Austin Gatt had a bit of a stalinist feel about them that made more noise for what was not being said than what was being said. The “smoke without fire” metaphor had been stretched beyond limits. The AG had said ab initio that while all the investigations left a stinky smell of something fishy he had not managed to put his finger on the pile of stinking fish. Why then would we need the charade of Austin Gatt asking question after question about every stage to point out that no evidence was found? Had the AG not already said that?

It sounded like Pope Urban VIII vs Galileo:

He listed almost ten stages of the entire process and the persons involved during the decision process, and after each case, he asked the Auditor if there was any evidence that these people had been corrupted.

The Auditor General replied: “there was no evidence.”

Neat isn’t it? Almost ten stages. Almost like a rosary. A litany. Stage I. No Evidence. Stage II. No Evidence. Stage III. No Evidence. Stage IV. No evidence. etc etc. Ora Pro Nobis. Turris Eburniae and all.

In view of the information available to the Audit office. No corruption was found Mifsud (the AG) said, however he did add that “there had been lack of cooperation from some people who the NAO had questioned.”

Eppur si muove right? Not really. The nationalist inquisition is probably routing for an open and shut case. Austin Gatt had skillfully (not without causing a ruckus at the PMs office) set the agenda for the PAC in much the same manner as a Bondiplus programme. The obstinacy with which he opposes the calling of forgetful witnesses (a parallel with calciopoli perhaps) is baffling. Again. Whether he is right or wrong Austin Gatt’s methodology in this business has fouled the whole reasoning. The press that Bondi scours so assiduously for references to himself have been unanimous in criticising Gatt’s modus operandi this time round. He was painfully aware of this during his interview with Herman Grech.

So there you have it. Cousins Gatt and Bondi display similar traits when it comes to attempting to control a PR exercise gone wrong. These damn Gozitans… what is it they say about burning good ones?

Quotes from MaltaToday report.

Categories
Politics

Xellug/Lemin (Sinistra/Destra)

The values of the left and the right highlighted by Bersani and Fini at Fabio Fazio’s programme “Vieni Via Con Me”. Priceless. Io voterei Fini. E tu?

Reazione Di Pietro (porta a porta):

Categories
Politics

(Austin's) Time to Say Goodbye

Austin is preparing his swan song. He told Herman Grech of the Times that he has been doing so since the results of the last election were announced at the counting hall. It may be so but the fact that Austin feels that it is time to say goodbye and “enjoy his wife” does not suddenly give this Minister the license to take us all for a ride – whether or not he is the transport minister. J’accuse has often had words of praise for the Thatcherite resilience of Minister Gatt who seemed to get things done in areas were even devils feared to thread but as readers well now our criticism is equanimously balanced.

The two-part interview available on the Times contains a couple of “whoa” moments that might be an indication that notwithstanding ministerial claims otherwise, the Time to Say Goodbye might also be linked to the danger of Gatt’s decreasing capability of squirming out of hot issues.

First there are the questions on the parliamentary cock-up by the PN regarding the possibility of listening to witnesses on the BWSC question. Gatt is adamant that parliamentary procedure does not offer sufficient protection to witnesses who might incriminate themselves. Weird. Weird because, as Herman points out, Gatt had no such qualms for the Voice of the Med investigation. Weird because different political weight of the two issues is absolutely no excuse for not proceeding in the same manner for the second. Weirder still because Gatt is a member of the House of Representatives – a house that would be performing its duty if it were to investigate whether or not public monies have been subject of corrupt activities. Gatt is not the advocate for any of the witnesses and is in no way duty bound to protect them. Is Gatt aware that he actually stated that the witnesses are not protected from self-incrimination when bearing witness before the parliament? One should hope that if there is something incriminating about their behaviour then it would be in everybody’s interest that that behaviour were to be discovered (and not sheltered).

Then there’s the point of parliamentary procedure. Gatt has been serving his country since 1976 and feels it is time to retire and enjoy more worldly matters than the business of parliament. Is it possible that in all that time he did not notice this lacuna and move for a law that remedies the situation. Parliamentary democracies in the UK, US, Italy, France etc are used to examining witnesses within their legislative assemblies. It is rather sorry of a member of government to practically compare the safety of our parliament to some interrogation in Basra that could result in self-incrimination.

As for comparative studies, when Gatt is asked about the discriminatory fees in the transport system he rolls off the names of a number of city transport systems that – according to him – discriminate between residents and non-residents. He asks us to do the homework. So we do.

London:
Oyster Card: You go to the visitorshop (click here)and you can order an Oystercard delivered to your home in Malta prior to your visit to the UK. Once in London you can top up the card and use it just like any other London resident and at the same rates.

Stockholm:

Notwithstanding the fact that “By one measure—single ticket price for a 10-km (6.2 mi) journey—Stockholm has the most expensive-to-use public transport in the world, as of March 2009” – there is no discrimination between residents and non-residents on Stockholm public transport. A quick tour of the Wikipedia site for Ticket Prices in Stockholm would have given Dr Gatt that answer.

Helsinki :

Same as Stockholm. The advantages you can get in Helsinki are obtained by buying Travel Cards instead of single-fare tickets. It’s an obvious mode of discrimination that J’accuse has already pointed out but it is a discriminatory choice for the consumer and not based on the nature of the consumer. Read about it here (God bless Wikipedia).

Talinn :

Talinn is the only one of the cities mentioned by Dr Gatt that does discriminate between residents and non-residents. With all due respect to Talinn it was rather, how shall I say, unusual for that city to be thrown in within the list. You’d expect a cocksure Minister to say “Hey, London, Paris, Barcelona, Rome, Brussels and Amsterdam” discriminate against non-residents. I guess Talinn has been bandied around as an example by Austin’s advisors. So I did not just look at Wikipedia (article here
– the article does include the following unequivocal statement: Ticket prices for non-resedentials of Tallinn are more expensive than stated above!) this time – I asked an Estonian blogger- Andrei Tuch –  about this scheme. Here’s the reply:

J’accuse: Would you know if city transport systems in Talinn (buses/rail/etc) actually discriminate between residents and non-residents when charging fares?

Andrei (antyx): Yes, they do. Tallinn has a populist mayor who wanted to isolate his supporter base, bribe them with benefits. At one point the scheme was blocked because it was judged to be unconstitutional (nobody must be discriminated based on residence), but right now the scheme does operate. You can see the prices here.

There you have it Dr Gatt. Three out of four of the cities you quoted actually do not discriminate between residents and non-residents. It turns out that Talinn’s scheme was judged unconstitutional (not even at EU stage but national stage) and is only the result of “a populist minister isolating his supporter base”.

Time to say goodbye? Maybe. Just maybe.

UPDATE:

In case we get accused of biased reporting. J’accuse sent a query to the Talinn City Government with regards to the question of different fares. Here is their prompt reply:

Dear mr Zammit,

There is a slight difference between the prices for  electronical periodic cards for the city of Tallinn residents and non residents.

Prices for  non residents are approximately 15-18% higher than prices for residents.

There are no price differences among the single tickets and hourly tickets (paper tickets).

Different prices for the city residents and non residents have been in force from the 1st of February 2010.

Please find all the ticket prices from the pricelist which you can find at:

http://www.tallinn.ee/Tallinn-ticket-fare-from-01.02.2010

In case you require some additional or more detailed information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Eva Kärblane

Tallinn City Government

Transport Department

Chief Economist


Enhanced by Zemanta