Tag: Franco Debono

Categories
NRD

therealopposition.com

Here’s another one for the New Republic Dictionary – where’s the real opposition? Andrew Borg Cardona beat me to this reflection yesterday in his Times blog (Snappy Little Annoyances). This is no race though and ABC’s pondering only comforted my thinking in the sense that if other people are reaching the same conclusions then the concept might be worth a moment of elaboration and analysis. In this case the idea (or question provoking the idea) is simple: Who is performing the work of the real opposition in Malta nowadays? Surely, I hear you protest,  it’s Joseph Muscat and his merry band of “għaqlin”. Well no it isn’t.

If we needed any confirmation of the absolute abdication by the Malta Labour Party from its duties as a real opposition then the run up to the budget and subsequent follow up have given us enough to digest. There they were arming their cannons with the fodder of overused cliches about the cost-of-living and the water and electricity bills. The likes of Luciano Busuttil, Cyrus Engerer and Leo Brincat crammed social networks with “warnings” that the government benches’ vocabulary would be rife with references to the international state of economic affairs – like that would be a bad thing. The “opposition” wanted you to believe that a government presenting its budget in November 2011 was obliged to do so without thinking about what was going on in France, Spain, Greece and Italy. Basically according to Labour, our Budget in Times of Crisis had to ignore the Eurozone in its entirety.

Did “we the people” fall for it? Well the “sarcastic” elements of the web might have found something to chew on – coming up with Eurovision-like games about the number of times Tonio F would mention the PIGS (that’s Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain and not the porcine patterers) but on the whole the reaction to what on the surface seems to be a very family oriented and equity-driven budget (“equity” that’s a word to hang on to nowadays) seems to be relatively positive and unaffected by Labour’s shenanigans. There is hope yet.

We cannot be distracted though by the sanity of the PN budget planning. Two years before a general election it behooves us to drill the fact that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has not only been caught with its pants down but (if you forgive the extensive milking of the metaphor) it is very evidently lacking any signs of puberty – let alone full blown maturity. We couldn’t put it simpler – the Labour opposition is transparently unable to come to terms with the simplest of facts: a budget is not only where to spend your money but also about where it will be coming from.

Muscat is headstrong about the downsizing of water and electricity bills (while expecting Tonio Fenech to both announce a hike AND a cut in the utility bills) but cannot be brought to explain to anyone who cares to listen where the hell the money to cover those cuts will be coming from. Broad statements and planning coming from the opposition involve spending more and cutting less or some half-baked plans about alternative forms of energy. This while Sarkozy’s government (shit, he mentioned France) is hell-bent on AUSTERITY, SuperMario (darn.,there goes Italy) has been installed to supervise a cost-cutting and tax-hiking exercise to tackle the spread, and Greece (no, don’t mention the Greeks) is battling for survival with the latest technical government.

Even in a time of crisis where in other countries (sorry but they exist) opposition members co-operate with governments in order to perform the tightrope act of equitable measures that might just about keep the euro bomb from exploding, Muscat wants to play at the traditional, old fashioned opposition selling unsustainable populist wares to what he hopes is a sufficiently gullible and greedy electorate.

Which brings me back to the question. Who is the real opposition? Well the likes of Franco Debono embody the kind of unlovable opposition (from a government point of view) that we really deserve. Even with a crisis looming backbenchers found time to rap the government hand on such issues as responsibility in transport reform, divorce legislation, and now criminal justice reform. They did not hesitate to throw themselves four-square behind the government when it came to the all-important measures related to economic stability. better still we got an added bonus because the government could plan confidently and include incentives that remind us of the true worth of christian-democrat politics when practised properly.

The New Republic has the potential to banish futile, old-fashioned oppositions from their undeserved seats and benches in parliament. Joseph Muscat’s failure to breathe fresh air into an old and tired Labour might find that the final test will be an unfortunate one for his fate and of those who would love to preserve the old fashioned way of the all-nixing opposition. Far from being progressive, Muscat and his minions have proved to be a clunking metal ball at the foot of real progress in constitutional, institutional and republican matters. The sooner the Republic is rid of this baggage the faster everyone gets to move on.

 

Categories
Zolabytes

Party financing agreement a must

Two days ago we had a Zolabyte by PN MP Franco Debono who continues his quest for the regulation of party financing. Today we bring you a voice from the other side of the house. Labour MP Leo Brincat has been involved in the issue since the Galdes Report on party financing. Here he exposes the pitfalls of the process of regulation and points out what must be solved in order to move on. Is Labour’s Leo right in lamenting that “we are already too late”? (article reproduced with the kind permission of the author).

The article by Nationalist MP Franco Debono on party financing (September 8th) made interesting reading.

The core issue and problem is that, although he seems to believe that this is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with without any further undue delay, I was never ever convinced of his own party’s commitment to plugging the gap of this democratic deficit.

I write through experience, having had the honour to serve as the Labour Party’s nominee on the ad hoc committee chaired by the late Anthony Galdes, a former civil servant and private sector senior executive of impeccable qualities and standards, that eventually led to the so-called Galdes Report.

There are various aspects that have continued to worry me and haunt me since.

Fifteen years have passed and the Nationalist government that has been at the helm of the country for more than 13 of these years never ever made any serious effort to conclude matters on this issue or legislate on the matter. Hardly ever did it, as a party, make any formal commitment to spell out its intentions on the subject and show it is prepared to go the whole hog to ensure that agreement will be finally reached on this important issue.

On the contrary, the perception the Nationalist Party would prefer to perpetrate the status quo continues to gain ground not only in political but also in commercial and entrepreneurial circles.

There is hardly any point in my colleague Dr Debono lamenting that no significant developments have taken place since 1995 and that no concrete measures have been implemented when there was never any real agreement on the document’s findings itself… something that left the implementation process as dead as a dodo from the word go.

In the run-up to the last election, the PL had committed itself publicly to implement the recommendations of the Galdes Commission on party financing while the general feeling now seems to be that one should take that report as the basis for moving ahead, given the decade and a half that have passed since then.

If one wants proof of the PN’s lack of real commitment on party financing one should scrutinise the fine details and the differences that actually derailed the Galdes Commission.

That the three established parties agree with the principle of transparency in party financing is not enough. As the adage goes, the devil is in the detail and, if my memory serves me well, the proposals put forward by the PN during the formulation of the Galdes report had made it clear they were only after piecemeal solutions that almost defeated the whole purpose of the exercise by ensuring that the parties in question will not optimise the potential benefit of such an accord.

It is interesting to note that, at the time, the commission had been made up of the PL (through yours truly), the PN, Alternattiva Demokratika and Dolores Cristina, who was an independent member and who, to be fair, gave many positive inputs throughout the various discussions we had.

Ironically, both the AD and the only independent member (Ms Cristina) had agreed at the time with the benchmarks proposed by the PL. It was the PN that had stalled the process.

The time is already overdue for such agreement to be reached on such an issue – regardless of whether there is a functioning parliamentary select committee or not – since, by next April, this government will have been in power for three years in this legislature. With elections then fast approaching it is more likely there will be more foot dragging by the government side to reach any form of agreement.

On the other hand, I feel one should also legislate concurrently on the expenditure limits and funding of political candidates too. This, not only to ensure a proper level playing field during election campaigns but also to ensure that certain candidates who might easily find their way to the House (again or for the first time) will not have any strings attached through contributions they received.

The capping of expenditure by political candidates must also be updated and revised upwards to a more realistic level to ensure that the existing laws will not continue to be flagrantly abused of as happens regularly in every election campaign.

In an interview published in another section of the media, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had been reported to have dropped the biggest hint to date that the government may be reconsidering its earlier opposition to the Galdes conclusions (September 26, 2007). Alas, since then, we have not seen any concrete proof of this, no matter how strongly Dr Pullicino Orlando might genuinely feel on the matter.

Now is the time for the three political parties to get real on the whole issue of political party financing.

The PL has already come forward with a 15-point plan on transparency, which many conveniently chose to either ignore, ridicule or downplay.

On the issue of party financing, people expect that, rather than having these parties disagreeing to agree, if they all believe strongly in transparency they should knock into place an agreement on party financing without further delay.

We are in my opinion already far too late.

Website: www.leobrincat.com

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Zolabytes

Party Financing and Democracy

There’s one MP in the house who has maintained a constant position with regard party financing. In an article appearing in today’s papers Franco Debono reiterates his call for proper regulation of party financing while drawing on international reports that describe how failed regulation leads to “trading in influence”. We publish the article in its entirety here as another Zolabyte with the kind permission of the author. General Franco strikes again!

Some months ago, while being interviewed on public television (Dissett), I had described the issue of political party financing as extremely urgent and a priority. I strongly argued that the issue should be tackled immediately, considering its direct bearing on our country’s democracy. The interviewer had dismissed my claims to urgency, apparently comforted by the fact that the issue was, at the time, being tackled by a parliamentary committee.

Recent events have, since, brought work in that committee to a standstill. Moreover, about 15 years ago and we were, compared to most countries, already late, a report (the Galdes Report, 1995) had been tabled in the House of Representatives but still, to date, nothing has come out of it. Since then, no significant developments have taken place and no concrete measures have been implemented with regard to the issue under discussion.

The issue of party finance is crucial and central to any democracy in this day and age.

As the Council of Europe’s Third European Conference of Specialised Services in the Fight against Corruption, held between September 28-30, 1998, had declared: “…political parties play an essential role in democratic systems.

“Their operation requires appropriate resources while electoral campaigns have become expensive. Faced with increasing expenses, political parties are unable to live only on their members’ fees and have to solicit and accept donations. Trading in influence has, thus, developed. In order to remedy this situation, which is detrimental to the rule of law and democracy, it is necessary to ensure political parties are financed in a wholly transparent manner.”

Political parties are challenged today with complex tasks, including researching and developing relevant and updated policies as well as communicating their message in the best possible manner in order to garner maximum support and win elections. Such tasks necessitate a sound structural organisation and infrastructure, which cannot be put in place and function without adequate financial resources.

The process of securing the necessary funds could lead to abuse. Parties could potentially end up at the mercy of particular donors who may seek to exert control through undue or unlawful influence. Legislation all over the world has been enacted precisely with the aim of averting such jeopardy and limit the dangers to democracy.

Since political parties are not just voluntary organisations accountable solely to their members, but organs of a constitutional nature and relevance, the necessary legislation tackling the most urgent issue of disclosure and public auditing of parties’ finances should be enacted. Strengthening democracy means ensuring political parties are financed in an accountable and transparent manner.

Thus, the Galdes Report, tackles such issues as whether there should be a ceiling on private donations, whether donations exceeding a certain amount should be prohibited and sums exceeding which amount should import a duty of disclosure.

In the United States, disclosure of small amounts by small donors was held by the Supreme Court to potentially seriously infringe on the rights to privacy and association and belief and, thus, one must always strive to strike a balance.

Tackling the issue of eligibility for state financing, linked primarily to the number of votes obtained by a party in the previous general election, the Galdes Report again establishes the requirement of the compulsory publication of financial statements and accounts, as well as disclosure of particular donations, exceeding certain amounts. It proposes strict penalties in cases of default or non-observance, enforced by a regulatory and supervising authority to be established under the same proposed legislation.

The report had, for instance, also tackled the issue of candidates’ expenses during election campaigns, which amount, just under €1,400, 15 years and four elections ago was deemed too low and unrealistic. It was suggested that it should be increased, in addition to proposing a more realistic definition of the relevant period preceding an election. We are still debating this today and nothing concrete has as yet materialised.

This aspect of transparency is important too.

It is time to rethink the structure and internal organisation and set-up of political parties as constitutional vehicles. It is time to think about the relevance of political party stations today. It is a time of great challenges where we must continue to revise and upgrade the constitutional architecture for the future.

As has always happened under successive Nationalist Administrations, we must continue strengthening democracy and this is the next step.

It is time to pass from reports and committees to action and legislation. And we must continue on the good work being done in public broadcasting , upgrading it too.

Dr Debono wrote his doctoral thesis for the law degree on The Constitutional Implications Of Party Organisation And Party Finance (1999).

Website: www.francodebono.info

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

Well Hung

Why Cameron would love to be Maltese

I cannot help wondering how David Cameron must wish that he was a Maltese politician. Rather than sitting at the negotiating table with that pesky Nick Clegg (the tiddler that he is) he’d be sitting firmly, decisively and stably at the head of some carcade on Tower Road, Sliema, celebrating his relative majority victory – the constitutional provisions written for the “Big Two” would have done the rest.

How silly of the Brits not to have thought of the advanced electoral systems that have been refined through the ages by the PLPN. Cameron would not be fretting over conjuring some “big, open and comprehensive” offer to lure Nick into his coalition government. He would be sitting happily at the head of a fictitiously constructed majority of seats – purposely engineered to compensate for any defects resulting from the expression of the will of the people.

Of course, the above scenario would perforce include an electoral system that would preclude any of the Lib Dems obtaining a seat in the first place – and Dave’s your uncle. Poor Dave. He cannot enjoy the automatic coronation for relative majorities proffered to the anointed ones under the Maltese Constitution: instead he will have to sweat it out to build a government that really represents a majority of the elected parties. A coalition between Tories and Lib Dems (18 million votes) just makes it into a decent 59 per cent of the electorate.

Numerologies

Let’s face it: the UK election results were disappointing for the movement of reform that was promised under Cleggmania. The Lib Dems actually obtained five fewer seats than last time around but, and that is a big but, let us look at the numbers that count. Out of 30 million voters, 11 million chose Tory, nine million chose Labour and seven million opted for the Lib Dems. A close call, no?

Let us translate those figures into percentages of the voting population. The Tories had 36 per cent of the votes, Labour 29 per cent and the Lib Dems 23 per cent. No absolute majority. No biggie here. Vote-wise, a Lib-Lab coalition (52 per cent) forms a parliamentary majority as much as a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (59 per cent) would.

The situation goes awry when we see the number of seats that each party won in Parliament expressed as a percentage. The Tories got 47 per cent of the seats (with 36 per cent of the vote), Brown’s Labour got 39 per cent of the seats (with 29 per cent of the vote) and the Liberals? Ah, the Liberals’ nine million votes (23 per cent of the voting population) got… drum roll please…. nine per cent of the seats in Parliament. Nine per cent. You read it right.

So, disappointing as the result may be, it is not for the reasons most people have come to expect. You see the result is NOT disappointing because now, more than ever, it is an eye-opener of the blatant distortive effect that an electoral system plotted out to ensure bipartisan “stability” has on effective parliamentary representation. An electoral law that serves to dumb down representation in order to preserve stability has this twisted effect on democratic rationality: there is none.

Election Night
Image by Patrick Rasenberg via Flickr

Clegg’s Law

It might not be about to replace Sod’s Law, but Clegg’s Law is a firm candidate for the prizes of Phyrric Victory, Lose-lose Situation of the Year and Sacrificial Lamb on the Altar of Democracy rolled into one. Clegg, you see, is in a dilemma. He is exactly at the point where all the naysayers of proportional representation want him to be: the much demonised and warned-against “kingmaker”.

Before the election Clegg made two semi-commitments regarding possible coalition governments. The first was that he believed (erroneously, according to J’accuse) that the party with the relative majority of votes had some sort of moral right to govern. The second was that no matter who he formed a coalition with, Gordon Brown would no longer be Prime Minister (again, with the benefit of hindsight a premature claim). As things stand, these conditions would point to a coalition government with the Bullingdon Babyface.

It’s not so easy though. Following the early results, the Lib Dems put their kingmaker position up to auction. The initial bid had to conform to a number of conditions, but most important of all was the eternally elusive question of voting reform. Because, you see, the Lib Dems had to wear two hats in these elections. First they wore the hat of the normal party, with policies to iron out, programmes to put into effect and plans for government – coalition or otherwise. Secondly though, they also had to wear the hat of pioneers of change – the hat of the only party insisting openly on a clear reform of the rules of the game.

The kingmaker has no crown

It is this dilemma that risks turning Clegg’s brave stand into a schizophrenic disaster. The Lib Dem’s bipolar situation raises their stakes tenfold. They have a duty to the electorate – a mandate obtained both via policy promises (Hat number 1) and reform promises (Hat number 2). Sitting at the coalition table with someone like Cameron means negotiating a compromise plan. Cameron knows that. His “openness” has involved, until now, no offer for electoral reform.

Clegg can stand firm on electoral reform – making it a sine qua non of the negotiations, thus risking being labelled a stirrer of instability. This would not only throw mud on Clegg’s face but also on future possibilities of stronger electoral performances of the Lib Dems as a party. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron’s refusal to work for a fairer representative system will be eclipsed by Clegg’s breaking down of a possible stronger stable government. The kingmaker shamed – every naysayer’s dream.

Then there is Brown. Rather than bow out gracefully, he has (rightly, again in our opinion) pointed out that, should Cameron fail to entice Clegg with his all or nothing approach, then he is willing to provide the second option for a coalition. Clegg is still bound by his “governing without Brown” promise and Brown knows that. Which is probably why he has dangled the electoral reform carrot in front of him. Brown accepts a fast track for a referendum on electoral reform. With Brown, Clegg would get a fair chance to discuss reform (note, though, that the referendum might not succeed).

Constitutionally, there would be nothing wrong should Clegg opt for a Lib-Lab coalition. Cameron’s questionable moral authority to govern simply because of his relative majority of votes can be put even further into representative perspective when we look at it geographically. Do you know how many seats the Conservatives won in Scotland? One out of 59: Dumfriesshire. They only did slightly better in Wales, wining eight out of 40 seats. The best bet for a strong Tory government would probably be an Independent England. Otherwise, they have about as much moral authority to govern certain parts of the UK as Edward Longshanks.

Democracy in the 21st

So Clegg is in a right fix. Stable and moral government under current rules means playing along with the game and forgetting about electoral reform. A Labour coalition might open a long shot for the referendum, but what does that say for the chances of the referendum actually succeeding after the predictable vilification Clegg will suffer for not having chosen the horse with the highest feelings of legitimacy?

Clegg’s fix is the fix of every other party that will try to break a bipartisan mentality, and I have begun to strongly believe that the solution for change is not to wait for the incumbents (PLPN, Labservatives) to cash in on their feeble promises of reform – but to educate, educate and educate the electorate. It is after all the electorate that needs to understand that the current status quo only results in electing two versions of the same, the same but different politics intent on performing in the inevitable race to mediocrity.

Joseph 2010 tries Eddie 1981

That was the verdict after a tearful (is that true?) Joseph Muscat led his angered troops out of what passes as our temple of representative democracy following a heated vote and ruling by newbie speaker Frendo. Labour stormed out of Parliament in a collective tantrum after Frendo opted to re-listen to votes in order to understand whether allegations by members from the government benches would be substantiated – and whether MP for Gozo Justyne Caruana had also erred in her vote.

’Coz Mario did it first, you know. He was tired, miskin. Exhausting, this government business. He said “yes” instead of “no” and then it was too late. The House of Representatives (of what?) descended into absolute chaos as bullies started a yelling competition while Tonio Borg tried to make a point of order. Our representative relative majority government and relatively incapable Opposition went about representing us as well as they could.

Prior to the voting debacle, grown-up men on the government benches defended the Power Station contract and agreements blindly and ignored the big questions that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Then grown-up men from the Opposition benches had a parallel discussion with presumably a different interlocutor. It was evident from the discussion that all sides were intent on speaking and no one was listening. Our young journalist of an Opposition leader rued the opportunity to have the debate screened live on public TV so he could preen and crow in a show paid for by our taxes.

At the bottom of the power station contract issues lie the problems of transparency, of political party funding, of reforming our system of representation in order to create a wider gap between private interests and partisan politics. None of this was discussed, except for when the renegade Franco Debono reminded the House of the need for a law on party funding. His calls were soon drowned by the ruckus and by what has been described farcically as an “attakk fahxi” on Justyne Caruana – Malta’s new version of Burma’s Aun San Suu Kyi.

bert4j_100509

Well Hung

It’s pretty clear that if the UK electorate did not vote strongly enough to force through the necessary electoral reform, it will be a hundred times more difficult to get that kind of message through to this masochistic electorate of ours. Our PLPN farce that has once again descended to incredible levels of mediocrity this week will hang on for another mandate. Whether we have the not so smooth operators of PN or the bungling drama queens of Labour in government after the next election, J’accuse is still of the same opinion as it has been in recent times – the greatest losers are the voters, hung parliament or not.

Malta’s number one political blog and mediawatch still has the same address: www.akkuza.com – blogging so you don’t have to.

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Mediawatch

I.M. Jack (shorts)

A few comments here and there while we gear up for the usual article writing and news observing. There’s lots of titbits being thrown up in the news that deserve at least a fleeting bit of attention.

Exhausted Parliament
For those who missed the farce that calls itself parliamentary representation yesterday there was much to hear and see. On the PN side most members faffed on about how nothing had been proven and hence the administrative decision is sound. BWSC contract apart we are still left in limbo as to whether the administrative and procedural shortcomings will be seen to. Franco Debono yelled “transparency law and regulation of political party funding” to an audience too distracted (tired) to listen.

Joseph and Anglu tried hard to emulate the PN coup of 1998. They’ve been at it for some time now – instead of concentrating in building a strong and valid alternative to this tired and exhausted government they still pin their hopes on what? On a lapsus, a renegade MP or on their dramatising a problematic democracy in what they hope would be a reversal of 1981. He even got his walk out. Who knows? Maybe a long sabbatical out of parliament might do the Labour party good – enough time to get it’s ideas right.

Poster for a Russian circus show named "1...
Image via Wikipedia

Lawyers Without Restrictions

An Egyptian group calling itself “Lawyers without Restrictions” has called for the banning of “One Thousand and One Nights“. They are suing Egypt‘s very own General Authority of Culture (they might be twinned with our classification board) and they are suing under article 178 of the Egyptian Criminal Code which bans publication of material deemed “offensive to public decency” with violations of that code bringing a jail sentence of up to two years.

Ludicrous isn’t it? Arabian Nights, Ali Baba and all being banned because they are offensive to public decency. Thank deities of choice that we live in a Western community where such lawsuits are relegated to our medieval past. *ahem*

Language Lessons

Tonio Fenech did not spare a few tirades at the level of English on the Labour side of parliament. Ironically though whenever he read from the Auditor General’s report he did not exactly strike us as the champion of the English Speaking board. We just loved “hundsajt” – a rendering of the word “hindsight” that is right up there with “majtezwell”.

Euro Crash

Having planned a trip to the Big Apple in the near future I am somewhat demoralised by the rapid decline of the buying power of the Euro in the US of A. A few months ago a euro would have bought you a dollar and a half. It is now down to a bit more than a dollar twenty-five. Thank you Greece, thank you UK, thank you Freddie bloody Mac and Fanny bloody Mae. Greece is still not out of the merde and we’ll just have to see what the European Economic Summit will bring us before wondering whether our purchasing power in New York will have gone up in the angry flames of Athens. How some idiots can still claim not to feel “involved” by the politics in other countries (let alone being “bored to tears” by relevant developments in their own) is beyond any reasonable persons ken.

More to come.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Politics

Frankly it's Franco

The debate in parliament has begun in earnest and the Times of Malta reports Franco Debono’s intervention. The young (no longer youngest) nationalist parliamentarian is busy calling a spade a spade and exploring possibilities of what could have been done and what can be done. Here’s Franco’s (reported) words:

The auditor also spoke about Enemalta having been placed at risk because prototype equipment had been selected. He had pointed to administrative shortcomings, rather than irregularities. He also said he found no hard evidence of corruption. Suspicion, however strong, remained just that unless it was proved, Dr Debono said. The auditor had not found any violation of the laws which would annul the contract. But he said that some things could have been handled differently.

Quite so. If you feel “involved” with Maltese politics – a bit more involved than, let’s say, the UK election would grip you – then you would find this Auditor’s report business quite interesting. The governmental reaction has raised more than a few eyebrows: the bulldozering trademark arrogance of Austin Gatt, the enigmatic responses of PM Gonzi and the foot-in-mouth syndrome that seems to have afflicted Tonio Fenech do nothing to reassure the voter about its capability of handling such situations.

A tender process is about administration. A power plant is about future costs, future environment and future quality of life. Brushing the ugly incosistensies highlighted by the Auditor’s report under the carpet is surely not the way forward. The government’s reaction gives the impression of being as knee-jerk as it is opaque. You do not have to be an energy expert like Profs Mallia to smell that not all is well with the particular options that would be purchased by this tainted contract. The Times editorial had some harsh words for the government on the 5th May:

It would seem that often enough the government is acting rashly as in its enthusiasm to defend itself at all costs it fails to adequately assess the implications of assessments made by those whom it asks to investigate. This has glaringly been the case in the Fairmount ship conversion contracts and, even more so, in that of the award of the contract for new power generation plant at Delimara. It is all very well for the government to say now that it would seriously look into the recommendations made by the Auditor General in the case of the Delimara contract. But the investigation is as yet inconclusive. The mind simply boggles at the number of serious shortcomings listed by the Auditor General. (…) Good governance, propriety and accountability demand that the tale in both cases does not end before the whole truth is found.

Franco Debono’s intervention in parliament tonight is commendable and encouraging. His is the first voice from the government seats to move beyond the hide and seek played over the past week. He may yet vote with the government when push comes to shove but he has now gone on record indicating the necessary remedies for the shortcomings that we have witnessed until now.

Much as Joseph Muscat would like it to seem so, the BWSC contract is not the be all and end all of this government’s term. His grandstanding on the issue – calling for government MPs to vote against the contract, requesting live broadcast on PBS for the parliamentary debate and threatening future “action” risks making a mockery of a valid political point.

The political point is that certain administrative practices must change. The political point is that considerations to be made when administering for the public – tendering contracts for roads, power stations and the like – must no longer be the pocket of entrepreneurs and cliques – they must be the real interests of the people.

Franco Debono makes an interesting step in parliament today. It is not enough. It will not be enough. Nevertheless it is commendable and needs support and encouragement.

Renegade yes, but for a reason.

Meanwhile:

Labour MP Evarist Bartolo concluded his speech saying:

The Labour MP said he agreed with Nationalist MP Franco Debono on the need for a law to regulate political party funding and transparency in this area, so that one would not have corrupt gangs who controlled how decisions were taken.

UPDATE

Listening to audio transmission from Parliament. Minister Tonio Fenech reads from the audiotr’s report “With the benefit of handsight (sic)”… not the best pronunciation. A few seconds later he addresses the opposition “Nispera li tifhmu ghax bl-Ingliz”. We hope so to… between deliverer and recipient there’s not much hope for the Queen’s English is there?

UPDATE II

Just listening to Joseph Muscat makes you sit down and weep. This is not a politician. It is a quasi-journalist living a dream. How can you be “involved” in local politics and not despair at the sad, sad choice that is available to voters. Where are our LibDems???

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]