Category: Rubriques

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – Back at You

[DEUTSCHE COLI] German authorities are smarting from the latest discovery in the e. coli saga. Far from having been hatched in a Spanish farm during some lazy siesta, it turns out that the bacteria were unknowingly cultivated in a farm in Uelzen (south of Hamburg), Germany. The North-South cultural divide that tends to crop up in EU debates from immigration to work to money had shifted for the worse when the Spaniards had many fingers pointed in their general direction at the end of last week. Ay Caramba! There are many red faces in the German house now as the EU health ministers convene in Luxembourg today to decide how to solve this latest crisis.

[HANDOVER] In Portugal the centre-right Social Democrats delivered a sound beating to the outgoing socialists and took over the government of the Iberian state. They will not be able to do much with government other than attempt to steer Portugal to safer economic waters as their government is tied down by economic constraints of the last EU bailout.

[YEMEN & LIBYA] The Yemeni pro-democracy protesters celebrated a mini-victory when President Saleh was forced to leave the country after being wounded following an attack on his compound. Also in the Jasmine Revolution, there are no signs of change from the Libyan front. As the interpretation of the UN resolution is stretched to its legal limits little ground has been gained in the fight to remove Ghaddafi from power. Last week Malta joined the growing list of countries that recognise the Benghazi based anti-Ghaddafi government. Babysteps.

[CONSCIENCE] The unofficial ballots have it in favour of the AYES in case of a vote in the Maltese parliament on divorce legislation. The discussion has not abated though as some representatives insist on putting conscience before representative duties. The other (hidden) crisis is that of civic awareness on the part of the voters. Will the two main parties manage to realign their supporters along traditional fault lines? Will the PLPN get awat with the Great Deception that they are fulfilling their representative roles in a liberal democracy? Meanwhile former PM and President Eddie Fenech Adami has a peculiar solution for representation in the 21st century … does redefining issues as “moral” really help the functioning of representative democracies?

[HUNDREDS] turned up for an animal cruelty protest in Sliema in an encouraging popular move that could only be a good advert for Malta following the negative press in the Star saga. The Maltese people do have a heart that beats independently after all. The real question is do they have a free-thinking brain to go with it? Tomorrow morning at 9.30am will there be “hundreds” of people convening on Hastings with AD – putting that extra bit of pressure on our parliamentarians to respect the will of the people? One can only hope so.

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Rubriques

Sciophha ta' Lochi

Tislimiet mid-dinia phein id donna bendata ghadha timrah b’goduria sadomasochistica u phein ma inbidel scein mir regola stacanovista illi tinnarra “hadd ma ierdghu ichtar minn dach li ierdghu l’ichtar u dach li ierdghu l’ichtar hua deiiem ien (subjective).”

Iddecideit minn ieddi u di mia sola sponta li napprofitta mid-disattentioni ta’ sid is sit u infaccharchom illi iena Gachbu Sfi*o ghadni hai u naghti bis-siech (chiph ighidu seuua geuua l’albioni). Bhalissa ghaddeiin minn periodu ta’ trasloch illi iophri bosta spunti ta’ episodi sfi*ati u maniphestattioniiet ta’ dagha fahsci iccausati mill-hidma ghalenia tas-servi ta’ dich ilcahba bendata.

B’mod specificu u dettaliat chiedin naghmlu l’ghalmu taghna li t-traslocar u demanaggar isir minghair ebda dannu isda chif taphu an hua diphicli iecch mhux posittivament impossibli. Esempiu lampanti hua dach illi ched iiseiiah “Il Cas tal-Flushing Imneiiech”. Dan ilghaliesc minhabba illi darba ilu is-sottoscritt chien nesa scemgha miscghulha ghal scopiiet ta’ purificattioni ambientali fuc il-parti tal-lochi detto “il-flushing” illi hua maghmul tirchiosament minn plastic.

M’hemmsc sci nghidu. Isc-scema chienet spiccat billi hallet portion chbir tal-“flushing” in cuistioni b’tali mod illi ilna nissaportu flushing b’toqba f’nophsu dan l’ahhar scur. Issa però illi geina sabiesc nittraslocau irridu nassigurau ruhna illi l-perphida proprietaria minn letz’e’burgu tcun cuntenta mita tigi biec taghmel supervisioni illi halleina il-post tali u quali chif sibnieh seba snin u mitt elph euro kera ilu.

Ghaddeina diga minn raptus ta’ panicu schin indunaina illi d-doityourself regionali huwa iddominat quasi esclussivament minn persuni ta’ lingua tedesca di chermania u bhala tali kellna nidrau termini bhal Spulkastendeckel (ipha hemm ucholl umlaut imma ma sibthiesc fuc it-tastiera). Telephonati lill-varii Hornbach u Batiself u Profi irrisultau biss f’ conphutattioni ta’ ideat u generalment spiccau catghu il-linia ph’uicci b’sinial ta’ disgust ta’ chemm ma iniesc colt u tedeschisissat.

Issa seiier nipprova nuza l’approcc personali. Ipprintiait d-disinn tal-flushing in chuistioni chif ucholl uara haphna ricerca ghandi sahansitra il-modell number. Itolbu ghaliia lill chaddisin chollha tedeschi li taphu… inclus (pero mhux limitat) ghal Santissima Grunewalda, Santissima Ludgarda u Santissimo Schophtlochi.

sahiiet

taghchom fl’isfi*a

Gachbu Sfigho

J’accuse Note: Pardon this intrusion by Jacob Sfike. It seems that he is back from a very long period of lethargic inactivity and has decided to invade our site. He normally blogs at ilbollettinodellasfiga.wordpress.com but has been know to invade J’accuse every now and again.

Categories
Mediawatch Rubriques

I.M. Jack – the déménagement issue

Boxes are being packed and labeled. Furniture is being sold at bargain prices and frantic contacts are being made with various moving companies as D-day approaches. J’accuse is moving base and leaving the city. Come May we will be castellans in the village of Dondelange and you can expect more of the current hiccuped manner of posting on the blog. Meanwhile here are a few things I’ve been meaning to post about and had no time to.

1. Rules of referendum

Our pet storyline is making the headlines. Raphael Vassallo explains the implications of the PLPN drafted rules on the next refered. In the article “Divorce: Law assumes referendum will be held along party lines” Raphael points out the rules of the game and how they seem to be written almost exclusively with two parties in mind. Well there you have it. Further proof that the PLPN Dumbing Down theory is not simply a theory. We now have a ridiculous situation where a party that has no position on divorce (PL) and another that has a position but will not do anything about it lest it loses precious votes (PN) are the only two who can participate in the administrative aspect of the referendum. No amount of public formations f Pro- and Con- entities will change the law. Funny? Not really. This is what we mean when we say that electoral rules are written solely with the intention of preserving and reinforcing the bipartisan status quo.

 

2. Flights of Fancy

In the same vein let it be registered that J’accuse’s position on the expat vote in the referendum is consistent with previous positions. We firmly believe that in the 21st century expats should be given the opportunity to vote either by overseas ballot or via post – especially when it comes to a vote in a consultative referendum. J’accuse never agreed with the PLPN farce of sponsored flights – and still does not agree with the principle. We doubt whether any sponsored tax-free flights will be offered in this hour of Air Malta need (although they would actually serve as a hidden form of subsidy for the airline) but should they be offered we will use them until the day the possibility of voting from abroad is offered.

3. Referendum and Church Points

The campaign proceeds with inputs from all sides. The consultative referendum is turning into making a point and just that. So yes, vote if you have to and vote in favour of the introduction of divorce. It will be sad to see Joseph Muscat and Labour acting as though they carried the vote themselves – they did not and they are not helping. Worse still those idiots and nincompoops writing away on facebook as though Labour is facing a new interdiction better wake up and smell the coffee – their party is just as cowardly yellow as most of the no to divorce factoid inventing freaks. If ever divorce is introduced in Malta it will be DESPITE LABOUR, DESPITE PN and DESPITE CATHOLIC proselytisation.

4. Giletti… the worst that RAI can get

The Maltese world is in uproar because a third rate “journalist” on RAI TV dared allege that the Maltese shoot on immigrants and that is why they choose Lampedusa. I tend to see the reaction as overblown and for a while I would also go far as to say that an Ambassador phoning in to correct would be a step too far. Then I think of the Mexican Ambassador officially complaining to the BBC “over “offensive, xenophobic and humiliating” comments made about his country on Top Gear.” It’s not a matter of colonial mentality as other “journalists” might put it. I do believe that an official protest is in place – it’s the rabid reaction by the internet posse that really was over the top. The colonial mentality – or rather the PLPN educated reaction is one of violent tirades of personal retribution on anything that smacks of RAI and Giletti. In a nation of people brought up and stunned into an aggressive-other mentality there was little more to be expected. The reaction, though originally justified, tends to obviate any response after a while. And anyway… does Giletti know that our army are too busy daring each other to chew on poisonous beetles?

5. Libya

It’s not that I wanted to relegate the topic but as the UN sanctioned intervention continues there are a number of pressing questions that cannot be ignored. As I read today of the developments in Sirte I couldn’t help but notice that we have moved very, very far from the protection of civilians. At which point did the advance of the rebels become covered by the UN sanctions? I have no shadow of doubt that (a) Ghaddafi has to go and (b) that the dawn of a new, free Libya is ultimately desirable. What I do worry about is the legal somersaults that will be required to differentiate any intervention that is occuring henceforth from the need to intervene in other nations such as Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and who knows…. China. It’s not a war – there is no casus belli. It’s not a UN Sanctioned rebellion (they made pretty sure of that). Then why are missiles thundering over Sirte and getting closer to Tripoli?

Categories
Informer Rubriques

Informer

Readings for an Informed Divorce Debate.

This is the first in a series of posts I intend to prepare for this blog with regard to the divorce debate. It’s all very well for us all to pontificate and prod each other with our preconceptions but where are we coming from and more importantly what are we talking about? The other day I read a status update on facebook by someone who insisted that we should keep partisan politics out of the divorce debate. It’s already bad as it is but confusing party rhetoric with informed debate could be dangerous. This set of posts goes beyond parties and entrenched positions. In this series, J’accuse will attempt to collate information – sociological and analytical – about what surrounds a question such as divorce.

This first article, translated from French (apologies for the not so exact translation) deals with the evolution of the post-modern family from a French perspective. It would be interesting to hear how this kind analysis fits in with the Maltese reality. Is our social set-up so different from that of the French so as to say that the anaylsis is inapplicable in our island? Or have we not yet taken the time to look in this particular mirror and see what it is we are up to when setting up our domestic units? Do the same processes apply to Malta and Maltese marriages? Is the step of divorce and remarriage a necessary and missing step or not? Discuss. Civilly and responsibly if you please.

Extract from “Sociologie de la famille contemporaine”
François de Singly (Paris, 1993, Nathan, pp. 87-89 and 110-113)

The Post-Modern Family

The history of the contemporary family can be divided into two periods. Fom the 19th century to the 60s one can observe a coincidence between the institution of marriage and the focus on interpersonal relationships. Three elements form the basis of a little contested reference model: love before marriage, the strict division of labour between man and woman, and the care for the infant – it’s health and education. For half a century (1918-1968), the fact that the male would work outside to earn the family money and that the woman would stay at home to best take care of the infants was evident in most places.

Starting from the 60s, the housewife model is criticised, particularly by the female social movements – by feminism. The stability of marriages decreases and divorce by mutual consent becomes possible by the law of the 11th July 1975. Cohabitation outside marriage begins to develop. Neither the marriage institution nor the sexual roles disappear – the majority of couples in 1990 are married and live in accordance to rules of specialisation with regard to domestic tasks – they have however lost a huge part of their legitimacy. Thus, three quarters of the persons questioned on the future of two persons engaged in a stable love relationship believe that these persons should live together without getting married if they do not want any children – marriage would become a necessary option if the couple would want a child. The dissociation between conjugal life and marriage has become strong.

The logic of affection, for a long time extraneous to the family and marriage (the myth of love having been constructed against the concept of marriage of interest) has managed to pervade the marriage institution. During the first period of the contemporary family one could have believed that the fusion between these two elements would have been durable. Now the force of the requirements of affection has progressively undermined the institution. In his essay ‘L’amour et l’Occident’ (Love and the West), Denis de Rougemont had the intuition in 1939 that the love worm resided in the marriage fruit:

“If one therefore got married due to a romance, once this romance evaporates is it normal that at the first sign of conflict of characters or tastes one asks: Why am I married? It not any less natural that, obsessed by the universal propaganda for romance, one admits at the first chance of having fallen in love with someone else. It is perfectly logical that one decides just as quickly to divorce to find a new “love”, which means a new marriage, a new promise of happiness; the three words are synonymous.”

The passage from the modern family to the “post-modern” family is the result of an emphasis on a characteristic of the first period: the focus on relations. What changes in face is that relations have less value themselves than the satisfaction that they are expected to procure to each of the members of the family. Today the “happy family” is less attractive. What is important is being happy oneself. Contrary to certain utopias in 1968 or to certain feminist texts that wanted to destroy the bourgeois family and the patriarchal family, the family has not vanished in the sense that individuals believe that it constitutes one of the ideal means to be happy. The “me” (or “I”) trumps the “us” but the former does not require, the elimination of the conjugal group or of the familial group. (…)

Since the end of the 60s, individuals tend to have a conditional engagement with the family group they have created. Approximately a third of couples married in the 80s have divorced or will divorce. They do this earlier: the maximum frequency lies at four years of marriage (a length of time to which we must add the period of cohabitation with the partner). Conjugal instability during the second period of the modern family has increased, without however forcing a general turnover – as certain commentaries would like us to believe. The majority of married couples remain stable.

The devaluation of “perenniality” (pérennité)

The most important change is the relative devaluation of the idea of marriage that believes that one of the objectives of marriage is stability. For example, cohabitants do not think that marriage “protects affection ties”, “proves to the other that one really loves him/her”. The length of the couple’s relationship has no value unless the partner continues to provide the expected satisfaction. As we have seen with unmarried and graduate women, the belief in autonomy (independence) does not suppress the need to establish conjugal ties – the couple remains the main reference – it only renders unacceptable a union that could be perceived as not serving the construction of a personal identity, or one that does not serve the unification of internal contradictions. Conjugal intimacy must not be lived as a tyranny; it must, on the other hand, be the ideal place, at least in the daily private life which allows one to believe that one’s self is stripped of its social roles and has finally reached a deep zone of authenticity. Such a (reciprocal) request is difficult to fill – the analysis of the division of domestic labour has proven it. If the women would refuse certain arrangements, separations would be much more numerous since they have, for the large part, the almost exclusive responsibility of these jobs. The ideal of individual autonomy within a stable group is not simpler to put in place than the ideals of previous periods. Dissatisfaction leading to divorce could, in this perspective, have two different causes (origins):

– either the belief in the ideal of the post-modern couple is too strong; it prevents the possibility of any compromise (notably, the most common compromise in middle and superior couples is that which tolerates a double professional activity on the condition of not putting into question the hierarchy of male and female investments in the professional sphere);

– or the partner (or oneself) cannot sufficiently play the game by participating in the creation of obligatory compromises, the level of contradictions is to elevated.

In short, the modernist project seems to be strictly tied to a higher level of separation. It does not seem to be a greater disfunctionality than the traditionalist project. It is more of a general attitude – giving more rights to the individual vis-a-vis “us the family” – that which easily allows the perception of a conjugal dissatisfaction on the one hand and the transformation of the latter into divorce on the other. Divorce is contained, in a certain manner in certain unions. The intuition of Denis de Rougemont is confirmed by such differences in the rate of divorce with regards to values proclaimed many years earlier. The logic that conditions the foundation of post-modern families is the search, not of solitude, but of the satisfaction of the psychological needs of each member of the family.

Reference
D. de Rougemont, L’ammour et l’Occident, Paris 1972 (1938)

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Rubriques Values

I.M. Jack – the one about satire

Today’s Times editorial invites readers “to get serious about laughter” and is an appeal to learn how to laugh about ourselves once more. I read a good article by David Quantick in the UK Independent yesterday in which he welcomed the return of political satire on prime time TV. ‘Twas the post-Thatcher 90’s that killed it you know – and the inability of satirists to let go of the facile spoofing of personalities and return to the dark minefield of satirising issues.

Seriously Funny

We’ve seen it all. The long arm of the law applied to carnival (priests, Jesus and his disciples), to what classifies as “comedy” on TV (Bla Kondixin‘ VIP Xow’s (thanks PG) shoe throwing stunt) and more. If the Maltese are relentless in their beliefs then there is little room for humour quoth the Times editor. M.A. Falzon, writing in the Times two years ago today had attempted to translate the local version of satire to “nejk” – a realm of “banter, jokes and jestful blasphemy” that “rarely makes it into the public sphere”.

Falzon suggested that the reason we find it hard to write (or understand) “nejk” in English is that English generally means serious business with little room for humour. Maltese – with all its “nejk” – is limited to the vernacular – always according to Falzon (and he does worry that “Linguistic nationalists will eat me alive for this”).

I’m not too sure about Falzon’s theory though there is some truth in the fact that the Maltese concept of “comedy” (and not necessarily satire) might differ radically from that of the Anglo-Saxons or French to mention but two others. Incidentally the other field that has been at the receiving end of the grossly overblown and outdated baton of the law is the field of literature. The point of overlap in the venn diagram seems to be a shady area of “taste” that somehow is qualified in terms of either “obscenity/vulgarity” or “immoral/unholy”.

In both cases what is now being waved around as a case of “Censorship in Malta” is really an outdated reaction to provoking events that could (and have been) be seen as being immoral – obscene – vulgar – unholy/blasphemous if taken from a conservative point of view. Whether that means that we are witnessing a real censorship of the “political” kind with the Maltese equivalent(s) of Solzenhitsyn rushing to exile is questionable. True there is an archaic law and perception that needs to be challenged – one that exalts a fictitious mentality of close-mindedness, religiosity and prudeness and does not take in the alternate reality of “nejk” within which we really live.

Does this seem funny to you?

Are we capable of being satirical? Is there space to caricaturise our politicians and their decisions. Can we even caricaturise ourselves in our everyday life to the point of subtle satire? We think that it is more than possible and that it is already being done in spurts. We mostly do not know how to react to it. The impression of a communist style politburo censoring every vague thought is a false one. As I said elsewhere J’accuse has never been censored no matter how critical it has been of the PLPN establishment.

Ignored? Yes. Attempts at character assassination? Of course it’s how business is done. But censored? Nope. Nyet. Sorry. And neither has any of the other variety of columnists/non-columnists been told not to speak their mind. I’m quite sure of that. We do not have censorship in Malta. We have the retarded (sic) application of archaic provisions that is distracting us from a possible development of our literature (maybe).

It’s literature that might not even intend to be funny. Take Vella Gera’s “Li Tkisser Sewwi”. I’m sure Alex never intended to be in the limelight (he says so himself) and never expected this kind of reaction (he said so too). He just woke up one day to find that his particular mode of expression is -according to the police, still to be seen by the court – considered as either obscene or vulgar in the eyes of the law that regulates our society.

Is it censorship? No. I don’t think so. I think it is the result of a society that is uncomfortable with itself when it looks in the mirror. What does that say about the future of satire in Malta.

It says it is possible. But that we have a long, long way to go. It goes beyond politicians or expected saviours (Oliver? Why Oliver?). It goes straight to the heart of what literature can be all about. Provocative, illuminating, and often a satirical exposé of the state of a nation. Warts, cunts, penises and all.

Funny that. He said “exposé”.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Rubriques

Non Sequitur #95 Honorarium

From the table of the house comes a random collection of PQs (parliamentary questions) and their answers. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the stuff honoraria are made of. You’ve got to love MP Silvio Parnis’ dedication to the old and aged. It’s the table of your house of reps ladies and gents… it’s where you read about how Malta gave 5,000 € for the maintenance of Auschwitz-Birkenau, that the Hijab is not prohibited on the workplace in government depts and that information is still forthcoming about milking cows and goats.

Here’s a (random) selection:

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22327 Data: 20/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Fond Auschwitz-Birkenau – flus offruti
L-Onorevoli OWEN BONNICI
staqsa lill-Onorevoli TONIO BORG (Viċi Prim Ministru u Ministru tal-Affarijiet Barranin):
Jista’ l-Viċi Prim Ministru u Ministru tal-Affarijiet Barranin jgħid kemm offriet Malta fi flus għall-fond ta’ Auschwitz-Birkenau li twaqqaf biex jiġu mantnuti l-kampijiet oriġinali wara appell tad-direttur tal-mużew Piotr Cywinski?

Tweġiba:
Malta offriet is-somma ta’ € 5,001.50 għall-fond tal-Fondazzjoni Auchwitz-Birkenau. Dan il-pagament tħallas f’ Ġunju 2010.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22330 Data: 20/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Reliġjon Musulmana fuq il-post tax-xogħol
L-Onorevoli GINO CAUCHI
staqsa lill-Onorevoli LAWRENCE GONZI (Prim Ministru):
Jista’ l-Prim Ministru jgħid jekk hux permess lil persuni nisa, ċittadini Maltin li jħaddnu reliġjon Musulmana, jilbsu l-velu (Hijab) waqt li jkunu fuq il-post tax-xogħol tagħhom f’dipartimenti, aġenziji u kumpaniji tal-gvern?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat li ma hemm l-ebda regola għall-impjegati tal-gvern li timpedixxi li jintlibes il-velu (Hijab)

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22292 Data: 14/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: qligħ ta’ flus minn wiri ta’ films pornografiċi
L-Onorevoli ADRIAN VASSALLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli CARMELO MIFSUD BONNICI (Ministru tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern):
Billi l-liġi ta’ Malta tgħid li ħadd ma jista’ jaqla’ flus minn wiri ta’ films pornografiċi, jista’ l-Ministru jgħid għaliex il-Pulizija għadha ma ħadet ebda passi kontra lukandiera u kontra sidien tal-cable tv li qed ixandru u hemm min anke ammetta li qed jikser il-liġi sfaċċatament? Fiex waslu l-investigazzjonijiet tal-Pulizija illum, sitt xhur wara li l-Ministru stess ordnalhom jinvestigaw l-ovvju?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat illi l-investigazzjonijiet għadhom għaddejjin.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22248 Data: 07/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: investigazzjoni dwar tfiegħ ta’ bajd fuq karozzi u djar
L-Onorevoli EDWIN VASSALLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli CARMELO MIFSUD BONNICI (Ministru tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern):
Jista’ l-Ministru jinvestiga permezz tal-Pulizija fl-Għassa tal-Mosta, min kien il-persuna/i li għal darbtejn nhar ta’ Ħadd konsekuttivament għamlu straġi fi Triq Dawret il-Wied, Triq il-Bwieqi u Triq il-Fuħħar żona ta’ Santa Margerita fil-Mosta, fejn dawn il-persuni waddbu mijiet ta’ bajd fuq il-karozzi u mal-faċċata tal-bini fejn għamlu ħsara bi tbajja li jħalli warajh t-tfiegħ tal-istess bajd?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat illi l-Pulizija, filwaqt li għadha qed tinvestiga l-każ imsemmi mill-Onorevoli Interpellant, qiegħdha tagħmel aktar sorveljanza fl-inħawi msemmija.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22228 Data: 07/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Sid ta’ Razzett – ngħaġ u baħar tal-ħalib
L-Onorevoli EDWIN VASSALLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli GEORGE PULLICINO (Ministru għar-Riżorsi u Affarijiet Rurali):
Jista l-Ministru jwieġeb mistoqsija parlamentari 21674 u jgħid jekk huwiex permessibbli li sid ta’ razzett li fih irabbi n-ngħaġ tal-ħalib, ikun jista’ jrabbi ukoll baqra għall-ħalib? Jekk dan mhux permessibbli, jista’ jgħid għaliex dan mhux possibbli?

Tweġiba:
L-informazzjoni għadha qed tinġabar u risposta tingħata f’xi seduta oħra.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22171 Data: 06/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Riklami fuq il-kuntratti tal-BWSC
L-Onorevoli OWEN BONNICI
staqsa lill-Onorevoli AUSTIN GATT (Ministru għall-Infrastruttura, Trasport u Komunikazzjoni):
Jista’ l-Ministru jgħid kemm swew ir-riklami fil-ġurnali intitolati “the truth prevails BWSC contract“? Fejn dehru? F’liema ġurnali?

Tweġiba:
Ninforma lill-Onor Interpellant li din il-materja ma taqax taħt id-dekasteru tiegħi.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22122 Data: 02/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Ħsara fit-telephone
L-Onorevoli SILVIO PARNIS
staqsa lill-Onorevoli AUSTIN GATT (Ministru għall-Infrastruttura, Trasport u Komunikazzjoni):
Jista’ l-Ministru jara li jitmexxa l-każ tal-anzjana li rrapportat xi xahar ilu peress li t-telephone tagħha (li dettalji tiegħu qed jingħataw separatament) huwa bil-ħsara?

Tweġiba:
Ninforma lill-Onor. Interpellant li l-materja in kwistjoni ma taqax taħt id-dekasteru tiegħi.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22094 Data: 01/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: każ ta’ post ta’ anzjana
L-Onorevoli SILVIO PARNIS
staqsa lill-Onorevoli DOLORES CRISTINA (Ministru tal-Edukazzjoni, Xogħol u l-Familja):
Tista’ l-Ministru tara l-każ  ta’ anzjana, li d-dettalji tagħha qed jintbagħtu separatament, li din kellha toħroġ minn post 18-il sena ilu, li kellu area kbira u apparti dan l-gvern ta l-post bil-kera u din il-kera għadha titħallas sal-lum, pero’ llum jidher li l-gvern se joffri biss xi  €14.000 għal dan il-post, meta din hija somma li llum lanqas garage ma tixtri biha?

Tweġiba:

Nitlob lill-Onorevoli Interpellant sabiex jagħmel il-Mistoqsija lill-Ministru kkonċernat, f’dan il-każ il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, Ekonomija u Investiment.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22101 Data: 01/12/2010
Seduta: 294 – 07/12/2010 06:00 PM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Qrati Maltin – Kawżi ta’ libell pendenti
L-Onorevoli ĊENSU GALEA
staqsa lill-Onorevoli CARMELO MIFSUD BONNICI (Ministru tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern):
Jista’ l-Ministru jagħti tagħrif dwar kemm hu n-numru ta’ kawżi ta’ libell li huma pendenti quddiem il-Qrati Maltin u li fihom hemm bħala atturi membri parlamentari? Kemm ilhom pendenti dawn il-kawżi tal-libell quddiem il-Qrati Maltin?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat illi sat-3 ta’ Diċembru kien hemm 47 kawża ta’ libell pendenti li fihom hemm bħala atturi Membri Parlamentari. Infurmat illi dawn il-kawżi ilhom pendenti kif jidher fit-tabella t’hawn taħt:-

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta