Tag: Joseph Muscat

Categories
Mediawatch

Words of Abduction

abduction_akkuzaWhat is predicted to be Malta’s hottest August for years has begun under the sign of Martin Galea and the images of his post-abduction and freedom interview. The story of the abduction itself  should have turned out to be quite a straightforward one of abduction and rescue yet Muscat’s government have managed to turn this into another web of fishy explanations, hidden motives and bungled communications – to say the least.

Context

Context, a lot of it, is required. This is Libya following the rekindling of  what Western media describe as tribal rivalries. Not too long before the conflagration the government of Malta was busy signing Memoranda of Understanding with whoever was sitting in the shaky seat of power in Tripoli at the time. Any suggestion to the government of Malta that the Libyan situation was not at all safe and that it was about to explode once again into the warring factions we had seen in the post-Colonel scenario would be shot down with the usual arrogant panache that has become such a trademark Labour method in the domain of communications.

In mid-July Malta’s foreign Minister insisted that the situation in Libya was “not very serious” and that there was no need to evacuate Maltese citizens. It would soon become evident that notwithstanding our proximity to the Libyan realities and all the talk of our common history and heritage and friendship (all is well when you are signing an agreement for cheaper fuel) we apparently had no bloody clue what was going on. While other states withdrew their embassies (by July 27 even the US evacuated its Tripoli embassy) we were busy playing musical chairs with out politically appointed ambassador (aren’t they all) to-ing and fro-ing like a headless chicken on crack.

It is important to follow the trail of government speak in this story – especially when weighing who its real interlocutor is. When the government does seem to want to address the media (not only the selected media as on the China trip), it seems to have a second interlocutor in mind – one to whom it is intent on delivering a pleasant message.

Step back again to the days prior to the return to battle on Libyan territory. A few other incidents stick out like a sore thumb. First we had the mysterious Libyan being provided Malta state security in a Saint Paul’s Bay flat. Following some probing prompted by early questions raised on Caruana Galizia’s blog, the government was forced to comment on whether or not a Libyan national was being provided with state-funded security. It turned out that Libya’s former Deputy PM Sadiq Abdulkarim had fled to Malta. No confirmation was forthcoming from the government as to whether or not this was the same person being provided security. They had this to say:

Libya’s Deputy Prime Minister Sadiq Abdulkarim is living in Malta, this newspaper has learnt.A government spokesman would not confirm or deny it, simply saying it “would not comment on matters of national security”.Mr Abdulkarim, who was also Libya’s deputy PM while Ali Zeidan was prime minister, is living under heavily armed guard on the island. […]

Over the weekend, the government was quick to deny media speculation that Mr Zeidan was living in Malta. Government spokesman Carmelo Abela reiterated during a press conference on Tuesday that the man seen under heavy escort in St Paul’s Bay was not the former Libyan premier but said he could not give further details because of national security.

Eight days after the above quoted report, the Times of Malta reported that Zeidan and Abdulkarim had returned to Libya (June 20th). Mr Zeidan returned to the city of Beida where he “made an attempt to reclaim his premiership”. It was Garibaldi all over again. A short rest in Malta before returning to retake the country – or so they thought. As for the Maltese government it stood by its “national security” dictate.

A second interesting development before the fighting began again in Libya was the accusation that Malta or some Maltese were involved in the smuggling of fuel from Libya.Tellingly this allegation surfaced on June 18th in the Maltese press – following its first appearance in a Reuters report. Here’s the Times:

Meetings are being held between senior security personnel in Malta and Libya to verify allegations of fuel smuggling from Libya to Malta and take all decisions necessary to curb such activities, the Foreign Ministry said.

It said the latest developments would also be discussed between Minister George Vella and his Libyan counterpart later today.

The ministry was reacting to a Reuters report that large amounts of fuel were being smuggled from Libya to Malta – even as angry motorists queued in Tripoli and the state oil firm struggled to deliver due to a lack of security at petrol stations

“This phenomena is a threat to Libya and affects national security,” the government said in a statement after Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni met Malta’s ambassador.

This time it was Libya’s government ranting away about “national security”. Curiously these events take place on June 18th, two days before Zeidan and Abdulkarim leave Malta to “reclaim the premiership”. On June 20th we have Libyan PM Abdullah Al-Thinni meeting the Maltese ambassador to voice his concerns while Foreign Minister George Vella met his counterpart in Al-Thinni’s government. There is something very confusing about the Maltese government’s dealing with Libya as a whole. On the one hand it is presumably (strong evidence backs this presumption) providing safe harbour to the deputy of the claimant to the “throne” in Tripoli but on the other hand it is also negotiating with (and therefore clearly recognising) the man occupying the coveted “throne”. 

Of course you are entitled to think that in this way the Maltese government is on “friendly terms” with all sides in the fractious break up of Libya. There is a high probability that the Maltese government is hedging its bets and hoping that whichever side is victorious then it can quickly cosy up and resume its agreements regarding oil procurement and immigration problem solving. Aside from the moral implications of this kind of foreign policy, one question remains to be answered? What weight does the Maltese government carry when push comes to shove in Libyan matters?

There’s one final piece of the context puzzle before moving on. This time we go back to May 2014 – a month before the events began to precipitate. Consul Maria Farrugia is called back to Malta on allegations of VISA fraud. Another piece of the network of foreign representatives being replaced by Taghna Lkoll Government appointees crumbles. This time, rather than simply recalling the diplomat we have charges of VISA fraud. Whether such allegations turn out to be substantiated or not is another story – what is important here is that our man in Tripoli is another political appointee who, as it turns out, becomes useless in the moment of need. Farrugia would be recalled at the time of Galea’s abduction and – if you were to take the abductees word for it – would be fundamental for his release.

This is not an abduction

So there you have it. This is the context in which we can better see the news behind the abduction of Martin Galea. Galea was abducted on Thursday July 17th while working for private company NAGECO as a health and Safety advisor. The government of Malta had to wait for his release, his return to Malta, his medical examination and finally for the incontrovertible truth explained in a TMI video interview before it finally conceded that this was an abduction. From the 17th of July till the end of the month, the governments’ handling of the issue begs more questions than it provides answers. With the above context in mind the questions that can and should be asked are the following:

Once the government was apprised of the fact that Martin Galea was missing and possibly abducted how was this information processed and prioritised? We are told that the government was informed of the abduction on Sunday 20th (Joseph Muscat statement in Parliament) and that it started working with the police and diplomatic service to contact the abductors. As late as July 30th statements by Civil Service head Martin Cutajar still insisted that the government never used the word “abduction” – adding that “it was the media who called it an abduction.

It was not just Cutajar, OPM Communications Head Kurt Farrugia also added that “the exact sequence of events was never clear, and the government never had direct contact with whoever was holding Mr Galea”.  In an interview with MaltaToday, a Libyan militia leader (Ayman Al Madani) also denied that Mr Galea was ever abducted. Saying that he played a role in securing Galea’s release he insisted that the Maltese national was not abducted, but taken in by a Warshafana militia when fighting broke out on the road he was travelling on.

Al Maydani has a Libyan contact in Malta – Khaled Ebrahim Ben Nasan who had asked him to enquire about Galea’s disappearance. Ben Nasan seems to have been brought into the picture by Malta’s ambassador to Libya Mannie Galea who, according to the MT interview ” asked him to intervene in the rescue of Galea on midnight of Saturday 26 July, the day after news broke that Galea had disappeared.” This last statement is interesting because it shows a lapse of 6 days between when the government knew of the abduction (20th July) and when Ambassador Mannie Galea contacted possible intermediaries. Did Ambassador Mannie Galea only get to know on the 26th July? It does not sound reasonable.

Also, what is all this concern about toning down the “abduction” and describing it as a case of being secluded for his own security? Which counterparts in Libya are being accomodated by this version of events? Does this in any way have anything to do with the hedging of bets with the internal situation in Libya? If a militia had indeed abducted Martin Galea was somebody making sure that no toes were stepped upon and no feathers were ruffled in case this militia transforms into a “government counterpart”? Whose security was being given priority?

Much has also been made of Ambassador Galea’s absence from the scene – he was nowhere to be seen at the victorious set-up at Luqa Airport upon Martin Galea’s return to Malta. Instead we heard Martin Galea say that he owed his life to Marisa Farrugia, the supposedly disgraced consul who had been whipped back in action by the government to bring back the person who had (according to the official line) not been abducted by one of the militias vying for power in civil war torn Libya. Complicated?

There are other questions of course. The government, through its spokesman Cutajar, insisted as late as the 30th of July that “‘competent authorities’ are still putting together the circumstances of what happened to oil worker Martin Galea who was held by Libyan militias for 12 days and brought back to Malta on Monday evening.” Cutajar also stated that Martin Galea “was given different versions of who the group who took him were”. Meanwhile Kurt Farrugia confirmed Cutajar’s statement adding:

“the government never said it was an abduction. “We chose our words carefully to protect Galea’s life especially when we didn’t have the full picture of the situation. We were still evaluating the situation, and the word ‘abduction’ was used by the media. We always made it clear that the government never had direct contact with whoever took him”. (MaltaToday, 30 July)

As I mentioned earlier it would take Martin Galea’s Independent interviews to get the government to ‘admit’ that it was an abduction. There are more telling points in Farrugia’s statements. There is the admission that the government was rarely on top of the situation. Notwithstanding that this was a country with whom an MOU had been signed earlier that month and that this was country where there was ‘no reason to worry’, the government proved to be rather inept at reacting properly on the ground.

Why not use the term abduction? For whose safety exactly? How exactly does an abduction get worse by calling it an abduction? One possible explanation is that the government wanted to ‘legitimise’ the abductors. A line similar to that sold by militia leader Al Madani would explain this. Theirs was not an abduction but Galea was simply kept aside for his own security. Of course none of this makes sense once you hear about Galea’s ordeal but for a government that puts much weight in the power of persuasion through words, not calling an abduction an abduction must have made a lot of sense.

Also, on the 30th July, the OPM Communications Chief confirms that “the government never made contact with whoever took him (Galea)”. Interesting. So essentially we have clear evidence that notwithstanding all the fanfare with Muscat and Manuel Mallia at Luqa airport, the government had little or no say in negotiating the release of the abductee Galea. So how and why was he released? How are we to interpret his words that it is to Marisa Farrugia that he owes his life?

Were there parallel efforts by different entities all doing their damned best to liberate a person who for all official intents and purposes had not really been abducted? There is evidently much that we are not being told. Muscat’s government has tried to minimise the escalation of troubles in Libya and it is evident that it has much at stake (as a party as much as a government) in the outcome of the troubles. Galea’s abduction was a major inconvenience for the official line that had hitherto attempted to understate the extent of upheaval happening to the south of our Republic.

A network of interests, dues and counter-dues somehow keeps trying to surface while Muscat’s government seems more and more inept and unprepared to take a clear line vis-a-vis Libya. More importantly it becomes more and more evident that the main interest for Muscat’s government when dealing with Libya is not the much vaunted “national interest” but rather a web of party and individual commitments and investments.

One last evident victim that comes out battered from such an experience (notwithstanding what increasingly seems to be the fortuitous liberation of Galea) is the whole branch of the foreign ministry and network of diplomats. When push comes to shove the real damage of privileging political appointments over meritocratic and technocratic employment of trained personnel is dangerously exposed in such situations.

In such situations, Muscat’s hypnotic hold over popular thought using his “Magritte technique” and calling something what it is not (or denying something is what it is) begins to show huge cracks and signs of breaking.

Ceci n’est pas un enlèvement!

(This is not an abduction).

 

 

 

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The ghosts of politics past

ghosts_akkuzaThe French news world was rocked this morning with the news that former President Nicolas Sarkozy was placed under “garde a vue” pending investigations into possible “trading in influence” that he might have engaged in during his presidency. Those more familiar with Italian political jargon would call a garde a vue an avviso di garanzia (indictment). What it means is that the person receiving the order is deprived of his freedom pending investigation by a judiciary authority.

European politicians (at least European politicans) would do well to look closely at the events leading to this state of affairs. Investigations had originally concentrated on Sarkozy’s 2007 electoral campaign – yes, the original Flimkien kollox possibbli or as the French would have it Ensemble tout est possible.  Sarkozy and his electoral team were suspected to have received funding from – of all people – Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi in return for future favours and considerations from and for Libya’s government. While listening in into conversations related to this investigation, the investigators noticed that Sarkozy kept a secret phone registered under a false name.

It later transpired that this second phone was being used to “trade influence” with judicial authorities in order to favour Sarkozy’s situation in another hot affair – known in France as the Bettencourt Affair (another case of trading in influence and corruption). Sarkozy would allegedly use his network to get important information about investigations into the Bettencourt Affair – particularly any information that would draw him into the case. This network involved high-end magistrates and police officers, or as Le Monde puts it: “ les enquêteurs pensent avoir mis au jour un « réseau » d’informateurs, au sein de la police et de la justice, susceptible de renseigner les proches de l’ancien président de la République dans les procédures judiciaires pouvant le menacer.” (the investigators have uncovered a network of informers at the heart of the police and the justice system that might have informed persons close to the former president with regards to judicial procedures that could be threatening to him). 

Quite a network there. From electoral funds and favours linking Sarkozy to a dictatorial regime to meddling in the judicial and police system in order to protect ones own interests. This is a strong warning signal to politicians – given a functioning system of checks and balances there will always come a time when past mistakes and abuses will come back to haunt you. Such events also highlight the importance of the rule of law and of institutions of review that allow for independent monitoring of the political elite.

Simon Busuttil at the helm of the PN’s storm tossed ship is surely aware of the dangers of the errors of the past committed by others coming back to haunt him. It makes his task of changing the direction of the ship and shedding that image all the more difficult. Sadly the people’s habit of thinking in terms of guilt by association – so often milked by past PN administrations and its sympathisers will not help this particular ghost vanish too quickly.

Joseph Muscat on the other hand is currently running the show of government without making too much of an effort to hide not so tenuous links with authoritarian governments. His main political moves during the first year of his legislature were obviously dictated by and dependent upon agreements with such governments or their people; three obvious cases spring to mind: (1) the Chinese influence on the power station; (2) the huge question marks hanging around the process of attribution of Malta’s passport scheme and those who would ultimately benefit from it; (3) the hopelessly short-sighted dealings with transient Libyan governments over the provision of petrol (and subsequent use of Maltese resources to provide “security” to unknown persons).

Add to all that the bumbling interventions in the army, the sorry state of affairs of the police, the current spats with the Ombudsman, the hideous conniving to postpone a judge’s impeachment – and you begin to see a ghost in the making for Muscat’s band of politicians.

En garde à vous!

Categories
Politics

They think it’s all over, it is now

match of the dayWhat better way than an historic footballing phrase to end this round of MEP elections that was characterised by a peppering of footballing jargon. I was told that I was still very pedantic in my posts (thanks markbiwwa) so I shall give you the bullet point view. Better still let’s do it pagelle style sticking to the footballing metaphor for a little while longer.

Final Result It dragged on for over 72 hours. We finally got a result. The fact of the matter is that the result was already there in the sealed ballot boxes before the counting began. Malta had voted with a significant downturn (80,000 non-voters) and the result was only waiting to be unveiled. It would be a laborious process made even more laborious by the fact that the two main parties were short of counters: the effect? Less agents to allow the skeleton crew to monitor every step. The PLPN system continues to debilitate our way of doing politics – down to making the smallest electorate’s decision the longest one to be read. Don’t get me started on ballot boxes abroad. Verdict: SLOW

Non-European I’ve tackled it elsewhere. There is nothing European about our MEP vote. The voters were dragged into another partisan sling-match and this resulted in a chain reaction of events that gave us most of the types of votes (see below). Interestingly you can compare the victorious Renzi’s approach to the result and that of Muscat. The former painted a red map of Italy – his first reaction was similar to that of our premier (we will not let this go to our heads), the second was to rush to Brussels with a clear message: this is a vote for change in Europe. The Maltese vote was absolutely not concerned about spreading representation in the European parliament for Malta’s best interests. It was all about “winning” over the eternal opponents. Verdict: ISLANDERS

Winners & Losers: There can be only one. That is the mantra that is sold time and time again when time comes for choosing representatives. This is the real winner takes all mentality that should not be translatable at a European level since we are choosing who represents us within the formations that make up the European Parliament. Instead we had the PM pouncing on polls and setting the target on an electoral “win” translatable in votes obtained while the opposition fell for the trap and accepted the challenge to a large extent. In the end, the “gain” for the Maltese is measured in how well represented they are in the European Parliament – at 3-3 it’s a draw between the Popular Parties and the Socialists. No Green representative yet again. At most if you really want a result it’s a resounding draw. Verdict: NO EXTRA TIME

Naming the votes: The ballot sheet had to be reprinted because of the Engerer debacle. More expense to the voters and a chance for more charades at partisan level leading to the infamous “suldati tal-azzar”. The alphabetical order gave us the “donkey vote” – unlike the one in Shrek this one is not funny and rather mechanical. Combined with the siege mentality born of partisan votes it meant that most times vote inheritance could be – to a certain extent – predicted. Bar the “protest vote” of course. Discounting the firmly convinced AD and Imperium voters you end up with a number of undecipherable cross-votes switching from right and left of the spectrum with an undignified nonchalance. Even the comical Zaren tal-Ajkla garnered a thousand plus votes that probably did not have the main parties laughing as much as the bored counters in the counting hall. Verdict: STICKS AND STONES

Racist Alarm: It’s a huge wart on these election results. Lowell bowed out rather late in the day having summed over 7,000 votes. You cannot see anything other than a warning sign in this. The intolerant vote is not one to be toyed with and the main parties are duty bound to tackle this head on without much ado while setting aside their partisan approach. Muscat’s final pre-electoral speech did woo the anti-immigrant lobby with much talk about standing firm – his record in this field is still not convincing when it comes to really understanding the humane approach – thankfully the warning signs were lit across the continent so there might be a renewed sense of cooperation among European leaders across the board. Verdict: SHAMEFUL

Simon Busuttil: The gun was jumped early in the vote count. The first result – the numerical one – was devastating for the PN. Many elements within the PN were as quick to speak of “defeat” as the elements in the PL were prepared to speak of “victory”. The after effects of the Busuttil vs Muscat bout were reaped at this moment – strike while it is hot. So on Monday and most of Tuesday the question put to Simon Busuttil was “Will you resign?” I do have the benefit of hindsight but it would have been much better for the the PN leader to wait until the sixth seat was finally decided before pronouncing himself on the matter. It’s all so different now that Comodini Cachia will be filling the last spot. Had the message been drummed earlier on about what constitutes a real victory in European terms there would not be so much of a conundrum within the PN. Sure, there is work to be done and it has to be done yesterday but given the starting point, the proximity of last years general election and the resources of the current PN the three-three draw is anything but a defeat. Verdict: SURVIVOR

The ladies: A pleasant aspect of the end result is the majority of women that will be flying up to Brussels and Strasbourg. Four out of Malta’s six MEPs are women. They deserve to be there in the same way as any other candidate deserves to be there. I am glad that this is a pleasant aspect of the outcome. It would be amiss though to not analyse this vote just like any other labelled vote. For a long time early in the counting process we heard about the Gozitan vote having an effect for example. There seems to have been some form of slight cross-voting between parties from women candidate to women candidate which cannot be ignored. Even if we grant that the last two (Mizzi and Comodini Cachia) benefited from the donkey vote in their own way there is still an acknowledgement to be made that women candidates found some special favour among the electorate (even within the labyrinth of partisan and protest voting). We cannot ignore the fact that women candidates could have been chosen over their male counterparts in an effort to provoke a different kind of change in the way politics is done. When I said it is a protest vote I meant a protest against the politics we have had until now dominated by male figures. If you like (prefer) call it a vote for change. Applaud it I will but in the end, as someone else has already commented, if they end up parroting their parties and allowing partisan politics to trump real representation then this change will not count for much. Verdict: A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

There’s much more to be said but I’ll leave these handful of points for your perusal. A plus.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

The Leader’s Ship

Joseph Muscat has reiterated his wish that Malta becomes a ‘leader’ in Europe. Muscat’s record of bravado and not too cleverly disguised machismo might still have some appeal with the sheep in his fold but the contradictions and cracks in the ably constructed mask  do not cease to multiply. The Labour party and its acolytes continue to speak as though there is no world outside the cave, as though its interpretations of the shadows on the wall are the only ones that count. Meanwhile the myths of nationalism, faith in the Maltese people and meritocracy continue to crumble visibly for anyone interested in noticing them.

If Joseph Muscat is hoping to “lead” Europe with his citizenship programme then he has either lost the plot or never had one. The latest voice to criticise Labour’s scheme comes from Labour’s very own European family. Socialist leader Swoboda stated that the citizenship undermines European values. Quite a heavy statement that. All Muscat sees of course is 1 billion something euros rushing state into Malta’s coffers. The weak tweaking of the scheme was sold to no one other than the “social partners” that had already been bought to the Labour side before the election. In substance it remains the same. There is no element of leadership or creativeness in this scheme. It is an outright sale of a European visa – technically Malta is selling something that is not even entirely its own to give away.

Does Muscat expect other countries to take Malta’s ‘leadership’ cue? What would happen if all 28 countries put the same citizenship for sale at the same price and the same conditions. Aesop’s goose that lays golden eggs comes to mind. In Malta the voter still gets sold with the promise of money shooting into the nation’s coffers – supposedly used to mitigate the infamous ‘cost of living’. It’s a half-baked plan though and worse still it has been entrusted in the hands of “foreigners’ who will be cashing in on Malta’s moment of foreign policy folly. And to think that all that fuss was made on a Maltese clock a while back.

What leadership from a government that is “learning as we go” with petrol procurement? Yes, you can already hear the broken record of “better than the corruption under the nationalist” – sure it is, meanwhile petrol and diesel are more expensive than under the corrupt blues and nobody is batting an eyelid. This same government expects to lead while it commits gaffe after gaffe in sectors such as health care reneging on promise after promise sold cheaply to an electorate whose only motivation was that it was fed up with being screwed over by the same people. A solution to Mater Dei? Pull the other one.

Even the transport shift away from the infamous Arriva is turning out to be a not too veiled ploy to simply give the reins in the hand of a Labour papabile without too much of real reform. No sooner that the incumbent was mobbed out of its contract we have the roadmap government selling the idea of higher subsidies. More bills for the taxpayer to foot eventually thanks to a reluctance to take a real holistic approach to the problem. Add to those bills the probable high bill of the National Bank settlement and you  can see government’s sudden urgency to find some easy money.

No wonder Muscat is insisting on the hairbrained citizenship scheme. He might believe that he looks like a determined nationalistic leader – calling foul on those dastardly nationalists who are working against “national interest” but to the more intelligent among us it is evident that the only one operating against national interest is Muscat himself.

We also had George Vella replying to worries echoed in this blog about the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons off the Maltese coast. “No chemicals will be dumped in the Mediterranean” – well, George, that was not the question was it? What really worried anybody who cared was the evidence that this ‘destroying chemicals at sea’ business sounds like something that is happening for the first time. Was Malta – loud, foot stamping Malta, Malta the leader – given a place at the table of nations monitoring the activity? Are our authorities being kept informed of the steps being taken and have they been given any form of reassurance?

We do not really have a leadership or any aspiration to lead other countries. We are in the hands of a bunch of politicians working on knee-jerk policies that are the result of issuing many cheques before the election that now threaten to bounce.

And the nationalist party? Well, they are intent on still sticking the middle finger up at a large swathe of the electorate. Their latest solution: Norman Vella. Now isn’t that grand?

leadership_akkuza

Categories
Mediawatch

Ich bin ein Malteser

It’s the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination today. Back in 1963 Kennedy was in Berlin addressing a city that had just seen a wall erected by the Soviets in an attempt to curb its citizens freedoms. Kennedy wanted to send out a message, he wanted to encourage the Berliners in their fight for freedom and to show them that they are not alone – that they had the solidarity of the whole of the west.

To underline that sense of solidarity and oneness through freedom, Kennedy chose the famous phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner”. Here is how the President put it:

“Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was civis romanus sum [“I am a Roman citizen”]. Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner!”… All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner!””

The sense of pride of being a citizen of Rome in 60 A.D. or of Berlin in 1963 was underlined by the set of values that being a citizen of a certain nation (or city-state – hence, “citizen”) represented. Kennedy was tying the sense of Berlin-ness to the sense of freedom that the West was meant to encapsulate (not always too well) in the times of the Cold War. Granted, he did end up saying that he was a doughnut (ein Berliner) but that was more due to grammatical shortcomings than anything else.

I wonder what resonance the phrase “Ich bin ein Malteser” would have nowadays. The pictogram below shows four possible ideas that might have sprung to mind in jest or seriously should you have stated that phrase to a passer-by in Frankfurt for example.

malteser

 

An aficionado of canines might think of the “Maltese dog“, a sweet tooth might think of the chocolates, a traveller yearning for sun and sea might have thought of that poster he saw at the travel agent. Germans would also think of the Order of Malta’s relief agency that is present on German streets. That was before our government decided to turn salesman and sell citizenship over the counter as though it were pastizzi or hobz biz-zejt. Without any shadow of doubt, as those of us who work in international environments have discovered much to our chagrin, the instinctive reply now would be “How much for your passport?”

You see, our salesman in Miami either has not grasped this fact or just prefers to ignore it. “Jiena Malti”, “Ich bin Malteser”, “Sono Maltese”, “I am Maltese”, “Je suis Maltais” … it has lost that proud ring to it. It’s not only a matter of pride for pride itself. It’s also about meaning and values. What does being Maltese mean nowadays? Enterprising? Welcoming? Jovial? Sunny?

The sale of passports – no matter how refined – ends up becoming an even further denigration of all that is Maltese. Standing by and justifying such a sale with a “cosi fan tutti” attitude is only symptomatic of how devalued our sense of citizenship has become. Ironically only 8 months after a campaign that banked hugely on the concept of “being Maltese” we find the very idea of citizenship and belonging being eroded at a rapid pace.

50 years ago to this day JFK died in suspicious circumstances. His spirit and yearning for a free and better world did not die with him. I strongly doubt whether we can really say “Ich bin ein Malteser” today and feel just as involved and in solidarity with the struggle for a better world.

 

Categories
Energy Middle East Politics

Tan-Numri

This blog never had aspirations to being a number cruncher and we always begin our budget-time assessments with a caveat the size of Manwel Mallia’s mattress. While I do not feel that the minutae of budget balancing is within my sphere of expertise (nowadays everyone seems to be an “expert” in something “f’hiex jifhem?”) I can and will assess the noise created by and around it.

It does not take much to see that as a general line the “state of the economy” bit of the affair tells us one simple message: that the economy was being safely marshalled by the previous PN government and that the PL financial gurus simply had to hold tight to the rudder and control an already steady ship. How does an ignoramus like me notice that? Simples really – there are no groundbreaking measures that would signify a sudden change in direction – little wonder that Muscat expects the Commission to approve his latest milestone in the mysterious roadmap.

When it does boil down to the nitty-gritty Muscat seems to be making much of the fact that he is putting his money where his mouth is. True, we are surprised in the sense that this is the first time that Labour seems to be actually acting in the manner it had promised before the election – and this with regard to one very particular item on the budget list i.e. the cost of water and electricity. Surprised we are because given Labour’s haphazard approach to accountability, environmental transparency, meritocracy etc we should not be blamed had we expected even the black and white promises on the utilities bill to be thrown out of the window.

In his intervention with the press, Simon Busuttil tried (rather vaguely in my opinion – could have been clearer) to explain how the money saved on electricity and water will be repaid threefold via the newly introduced or increased indirect taxes. That’s one for the number crunchers to confirm/contradict. If it is so (and quite frankly it must be so since the money must come from somewhere) then Labour’s deceptive basket of “cutting the utilities bill” will turn into a time bomb ready to explode when the voters realise that their pennies saved have actually transformed in pounds pinched.

What did jar insofar as the opposition reaction was concerned is the assertion that this budget contains no job-producing measures. Given the noise coming from other social partners this particular reaction might turn out to look like one of those that is simply “negative for the sake of being negative”.  The MEA (Employers), MDA (Developers), MHRA (hotels & restaurants), GWU (you know), and the Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise all seem to have hooked on to more positive aspects of certain measures in the budget including job-creation. Bar the angry nurses (MUMN), the FORUM seems to have had positive words for most of the budget plan, leaving Simon Busuttil and the echoes in a few blogs/columns sounding like lone negative voices.

I am (painfully) aware that the “negative” mantra is something close to Joseph Muscat and believe you me I am not using it in the same sense. Labour’s little measures (COLA, petrol prices, cigarettes, educational footballers) might have served as a little decoration around the most awaited measure of cheaper utility bills (let’s face it, it was the only thing most people were looking at this time round). Some other measures such as the incentives for first time house buyers will be warmly welcomed (for a better highlight of positives and negatives check out Mark Anthony Sammut’s early assessment).

Should Busuttil have focused so strongly on job-creation? I believe that the biggest flaw in Labour’s budget hype is the very fact that it is much ado about nothing. The bigger emphasis should remain on the citizenship for sale system that stinks from top to bottom. other than that Busuttil should have thanked Muscat for confirming that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the direction in which the PN was heading finance-wise and allowed this first Labour budget to shine by reflecting the light shone earlier in the year by its predecessors.

As for the cut in utility bills. While Muscat played his little fiddle in parliament last night, East Libya (the oil rich East Libya) declared an autonomous government and gunshots were being fired in Tripoli. Meanwhile we have obscure deals built on Chinese whispers and a not too tenuous link between the latter and our new citizenship scheme.

When it comes to surprises Muscat cannot be more of a jester than this.