Categories
Articles

J’accuse: Oliver’s Twist & Other Perspectives

Almost 20 years have passed since I used to hitch rides to the university in the evening to attend a series of lectures by Professor Oliver Friggieri. If my memory serves me right, the lectures were about creative writing in Maltese but in actual fact they served as a real eye opener that went far beyond any tips on how to use your pen creatively. If you learn the benefits of learning and asking questions at the age of 16 then the world is your oyster. “Id-dinja mistoqsija, mimlija b’elf ghaliex” (“the world is a question full of a thousand ‘why’s’”).

What Prof. Friggieri imparted, among many other things, was the importance of observing the world around you, looking for clues of change as well as for the strands of similarity that occasionally get to give us a sense of identity or belonging. It was Oliver’s twist on life and it became a useful tool as life went on.

It was a pleasure to see Oliver (forgive me the first name sense of familiarity) on TV last Monday. There he was giving his take on different aspects of our life and the way we are. Are we partisan? Why? Where do we begin to look for an answer? There was that and more peppered with what I saw as the humility to declare (admit?) the limits of his comprehension. This was apparent when he was asked whether our party TV stations make us more partisan: “It’s a difficult question and I cannot answer it.” Oliver has never tired of reminding us that the world should be our reference point and nothing should be examined out of context. Twenty years may have passed but his philosophical yardstick used to see the world around him remains pleasantly reliable.

Mind the revolution

Browsing through Facebook the next day I was surprised to see a negative reaction to Oliver’s appearance on TV. The general idea was that Oliver was yet another of the mild intellectuals of the island who dance around controversy preferring the fence to the battlefield. I think that assessment is unfair. Oliver is less about controversy and criticism and more about sociological snapshots. He is less about the controversial medicine and more about the discovery of DNA and our origins. He has been observing for a long time now and is not about to pop a cigar into his mouth, grow some beard and wear military slacks while announcing the intellectual coup d’êtat on the nation’s corroded junta of partisan ignorantia.

Expecting Oliver to become Simón Bolívar is wrong. You also have to wonder exactly what kind of revolution people are expecting. We have become somewhat lax with words − something Oliver tried to explain to Lou. As an expat feeding solely on news as it is filtered, I can vouch that it is more and more difficult to fathom what is really going on in the country. When you reach a situation that a Times report is so convoluted that it could provoke a seminar of interpretations, then it is difficult to really observe and comment.

The picture is twisted beyond ken. I read an article in an English language newspaper that seemed to refer to authors generally commenting on the infamous Realtà article. Nowhere in the article could you find an indication that these were witnesses in the Magistrates’ Court. It was only after reading other papers that I understood why the likes of Maria Grech Ganado and Ranier Fsadni had decided to “revive” the subject. Then there was the reporting on the honorarium saga. What with parties wanting to spin their take, and with journalists getting half-baked reports, it was a total mess. Look at the post “Honour Among Thieves” in www.akkuza.com to see what I mean.

BERT4J_110123

Praeter intentionem

Or as Aquinas would put it − per accidens or outside the moral intention. We are becoming more and more slack with the use of our words or reporting. Most times we get the excuse that the resulting miscommunication was “not intended”. We try to define the indefinable such as “What is a real Nationalist?” after the latest manual revolutionary (from the DIY of PN backbenchers) has drawn his dividends from the D’Hondt one-man majority conundrum.

We swing between the hands of the Opposition that would love us to believe that this is the eternal battle of Rich (arrogant) vs. Poor (subject) and the gaffes of the party in government (We didn’t mean to get greedy). We fall over ourselves in asking the ridiculously sublime question of “What would Ugo Mifsud have done?”

Sadly a necessary and important debate about formulating a proper pay scale for MPs that justifies their job has been turned into a political football. The point is that while we apparently already know the answer to the question whether our politicians deserve the money they vote themselves, we fail to ask ourselves the even more important question: “Do we deserve the politicians that we elect?”

Honoraria: What lies beneath

Fausto Majistral has done a wonderful job of asking the right questions about the honoraria. Again you can find his post entitled “Honoraria: What lies beneath” in J’accuse − the blog. It’s less about whether Gonzi meant it, whether J.P. Farrugia deserved it, or whether Joseph’s Labour have really grasped the concept that it’s not theirs to donate if they pooh-poohed accepting it in the first place. It’s more about where we want

to go with our House of Representatives. Alfred Sant and Franco Debono have both made not too subtle statements about the current state of disrespect that surrounds our House of Representatives.

Something tells me that that is a lesson that our wannabe revolutionaries and half-baked political class still cannot get to terms with. We do not need saviours but a good set of servants, well paid if necessary, but servants nevertheless.

U ssirlek poezija (and it becomes a poem)

Jack Frost is back in the north of Europe and it’s a cold cold time again. It gets warmer in the living room catching up on the excellent series “Mad Men” with a smashing soundtrack (Enoch Light’s Autumn Leaves is a screamer). For the app fanatics about, I strongly recommend “Google Goggles” − watch your iPhone solve the hardest of sudokus before your eyes. One last word goes to one of the world’s latest citizens.

A big welcome goes out to baby Ella who turns eight (days) today. It’s a big, big world Ella, but if you ask the right questions you can turn it into the most wonderful of poems. At least Oliver told me so!

www.akkuza.com provides a wealth of information to the lost expats. Venture inside to interpret the mixed messages coming from the isle of milk and honey.

Categories
Politics

Honour Among Thieves

There’s nothing better than giving a Times report the “Lorna” treatment in order to really get an impartial picture of the partisan positions in the honorarium saga. Farrugia’s meeting with the PM was swell. The Cabinet took a day off to find a way out of shit creek without a paddle and an announcement is expected shortly. Meanwhile Inhobbkom J is preparing his position on the honorarium saga without wanting to wait for the new government position. Which only makes sense in a cuckoo world where Inhobbkom J can be seen as a potential saviour from that mess that is the PN government in such cases.

So here goes. For the uninitiated the “Lorna” treatment is what J’accuse used to reserve to articles penned by the much missed Lorna Vassallo when her contributions to the Times of Malta’s opinion columns provided us with occasions of mirth punctuated with goggle-eyed bafflement. Just search TGIL on the old J’accuse site and you’ll get the gist.

Labour Party to announce position on ministers’ salaries, honoraria

The Labour Party is expected to issue a formal position on ministerial salaries and the honoraria given to MPs, informed sources said this afternoon. [cue Michael Jackson: Can you feel it? – the tension is palpable… what will they come up with this time?]

The Labour parliamentary group this afternoon held an unexpected meeting [as in they all serendipitally surfaced in Hamrun by pure chance. FBI despatched a unit from Quantico to examine this supernatural occurrence] , at the same time as the issue was also being discussed down the road by the Nationalist parliamentary group at PN headquarters [It was so supernatural that they were discussing an as yet undisclosed subject referred to by the codename “the issue”… informed sources told J’accuse that this might refer to a mucuous substance exuded rabidly by the coincidental congregation].

The issue [there they go again with the mysterious “issue”] was also discussed by the Cabinet this morning. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi did not give details of the outcomes [they don’t know what was discussed, how it was discussed or what was said but they do know … with what seems to be absolute certainty…. that it’s plural] and said a decision would be announced later. However informed sources said ministers would refund part of the honoraria which they have been paid since 2008 [there go the deep throats… so the issue having been settled they moved on to tell us that there will be a form of ministerial refund of the honoraria they have been receiving since 2008].

Meanwhile, sources in the Labour Party said the party would announce its position, independently of what the government decided [since when is that news? Would they even bother with the government decision anyway?] The position would be announced by Labour leader Joseph Muscat [in the presence of white suited minions of course].

The PL had criticised ministers for having given themselves a double pay – their ministerial salary and their honoraria as MPs. As recently as last Sunday, Dr Muscat said one could discuss reviewing ministerial salaries, but he was against having a double pay [is that a general statement? would he apply this principle to the private sector? is there a double pay for discussing ministerial salaries? who writes these articles?].

Dr Muscat, who was also offered the honoraria along with the Opposition leader’s salary, had also declared that he would donate the honoraria (of €26,000 per year) to charity [still perpetuating the myth that he has refused the honorarium but ALSO AND AT THE SAME TIME donated it to charity… syou wish he could decide on that one].

Opposition MPs had been left at liberty to decide whether to accept a €7,000 annual increase to their honoraria. However a fund was set up for those who opted to donate the money. [See what we mean Joe? It’s confusing. You either ACCEPT the honoraria AND donate it to charity OR you DON’T ACCEPT the honorarium  AND it’s not yours to give.]

There you have it. We await with trepidation for Gonzi’s declaration. Will they give the money back? Will they hang on to some of it? What will this tell us about Gonzi’s control over his one-man majority party? Remember what J’accuse told you on the day after the election? Well you should. Coz you know what we hate to have to remind you that we were right.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

Via Salaria

In ancient Rome the Via Salaria linked the Eternal City to the port of Castrum Truentinum, now known as the Port of Ascoli. It was called Salaria because it was the road used by the Sabines to retrieve the precious salt from the mouth of the Tiber. Salt was one of the primary units of payment in ancient Rome – hence the term “salary” from “salarium”.

In modern Malta our parliamentarians do not arrogate themselves a new salary but rather opt to increase their “honorarium”. I doubt whether we have a Via Honoraria running from the new parliament square to the respective centres of the PLPN MPs. In the meantime MPs from both sides perpetuate the pathetic fallacy of “not accepting” the honorarium while insisting on distributing its proceeds according to their wills (if something is not accepted then it is not yours to distribute).

The PN government is now under siege and has resorted to the equivalent of hunting for the mice in the sewers in order to survive. The sudden hike price of commodities from fuel to gas to milk can only serve to exacerbate the unpopularity of a government that seems to have lost the feel of the people’s pulse. Joseph’s Labour might be poised to take advantage of the situation by promising the usual progressive package that protects the weak. The problem lies in the fact that the current economic conditions will not discriminate between conservative intervention or socialist laxity.

Just look at what happened in the UK yesterday. The LibDems and the Tories were both vociferously against any VAT hike while they laboured in opposition. They completed their U-turn yesterday with the announced increase of VAT to 20%. The only saving grace was the fact that essential products (the most cited were bread and nappies) are zero-rated and hence not affected.

So are we to grin and bear the hikes while our salaries plateau over the next few years or are we all to run for parliament in the hope to get a piece of the very special pie that seems to be reserved at the top?

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The Currency of Salaries

Joseph Muscat has renounced the right to a salary increase that is due to him after a decision taken in parliament in 2008. Apparently half the parliament was unaware of this decision – a side-issue that begs the question of “Where the f**k were the guardians of the opposition benches that day?” Even if we do grant the point of temporary lapse of attention to the totality of the opposition benches what we have here is an opposition leader and two of his party MPs deciding to not take the salary increase (honorarium).

***ADDENDUM***
Since we have no problem admitting where we were wrong, there is no “side-issue” to speak of. The decision for the new honoraria was apparently a Cabinet decision and not one taken in parliament – though we still harbour doubts about whether or not a law has to be changed for it to come into effect. The answer to our hypothetical question (Where the f was labour?) is therefore “not in the Cabinet”. We stand by the rest of our argument though – the scale of salaries is not a measure for assessing politicians’ performance. If it were so, 100% of the people who have moved to work with the institutions in Europe would theoretically make better parliamentarians. An AST1 (entry level grade) earns as much as a local (national for Privitelli) MP.
***

Cool. Sort of. As in while you can immediately understand how this latest gimmick fits in with New Labour’s fetish with salaries (remember the PQ about people earning more than the President) it is hard to reconcile this position of abnegation with anything beyond the making of a puerile point. They’re waiting for us to say it. Just in time for Christmas: would you dare criticise Labour’s leader for not pocketing extra MP dosh?

Well. The answer is Yes. J’accuse Can. For the argument we made back when the presidential PQ was posed still holds strong. It is not how much you are paid that is really important but the respect you gain by justifying whatever salary it is and doing your damn job. Even if Joseph Muscat were to suddenly get a bout of fantastic altruism and half his salary I don’t give a flying copulation. It is what he is doing while warming that chair in parliament as a representative of the people’s alternative to government that counts. I will judge him by his programmes and projects and NOT by his salary.

His alternative budget was ludicrous and only won some points because of Bondi’s hash of a programme – Bondi’s slip was Muscat’s gain in public perception. Which did not mean that Muscat’s grandiose faff that is an excuse for future planning will actually work. Meanwhile Muscat’s minions are busy on facebook reminding us how the Great Leader forwent so many euros increase from the mouths of his own babes in order to save 120,000€ that can now be spent on childcare or some other fantasmagorical mental masturbatory pink socialist idea.

The truth is that it won’t. -be spent on childcare, or on a new sleigh for Santa or whatever they might dream of in Mile End. Money spending and planning is called budgeting and that is up to the government of the day to do. To get to even write the budget you have to be elected to government. With a plan. A concrete one that does not involve not putting money in one’s pockets like some latter day St Nicholas but rather involves ideas on how our economy can survive the current climate and hopefully how money can be justly distributed into the pockets of the hard working and the deserving.

So. Bravo for Joseph for foregoing the salary increase voted by parliament. He seems to be of the type who revel in a warm round of applause and gasps of awe at his magnanimity. It is a pity that his performance as the generator of alternative government remains dismally hopeless for those who care to look beyond the antics of the latest trend in salary scale gimmicks.

Per Una Lira
(originale di Lucio Battisti – versione youtube di Giuliano Palma & the Bluebeaters)

Per una lira
io vendo tutti i sogni miei
per una lira
ci metto sopra pure lei
E un affare sai
basta ricordare
di non amare
di non amare
Amico caro,
se c’è qualcosa che non va
se ho chiesto troppo,
tu dammi pure la metà
A un affare sai
basta ricordare
di non amare, no
di non amare
no, no, no, nooo
Per una lira
io vendo tutto ciò che ho
Per una lira
io so che lei non dice no
Ma se penso che
Tu sei un buon amico
non te lo dico oh no
Meglio per te