Tag: Manuel Mallia

Categories
Mediawatch

Manuel Mallia’s Rule-By-Law

 

Speaking in parliament last night, ex-Minister Manuel Mallia took a swipe at whoever had anything to do with the leaking FIAU documents. In a scene befitting pre-1989 East Germany, Mallia told parliament that the leaker of the report as well as anybody having access to it (including the PN) should be prosecuted because they are guilty of a crime having violated the confidentiality of said documents. “The documents of the FIAU needed to be kept secret because the unit’s investigations were sensitive and disclosure of information would undermine those very investigations”, Dr Mallia said.

What we have here is a clear example of “rule-by-law” where the strict letter of the law is used to silent dissent and to annihilate any possible means of rendering the powers that be accountable. Manuel Mallia’s threats, for threats they are, do not come in a vacuum. They must be put in the context of the dismissal of former FIAU official Jonathan Ferris and of the FIAU Head of Compliance. They must be put in the context of the admission by most of the national press that they have been forced to revise archived reports under threat of expensive litigation. This must also be put in context of the lack of collaboration reported by the European Parliament PANA committee

In any other context but this, this matter would be considered as Whistleblower territory. In any other context the content of the leaked document would be of much graver concern, the consequences of the failure to act upon the content of such documents would be the focus of a responsible government. This is not another context. This is Malta of L-Aqwa Zmien – rule by law is misconstrued as rule of law, anything in the power of government to hide, to shut down criticism, to avoid proper scrutiny, to annihilate any dissonant narrative is fair game.

We are living in a time of Rule-By-Law. This is also why the calls for a return to a system of rule of law are being made.  In contrast to rule-by-law (rule by means of norms enacted through a correct legal procedure or issued by a public authority), Rule of Law implies also the safeguarding of fundamental rights and freedoms – norms which render the law binding not simply because it is procedurally correct but enshrines justice. It is the Rule of Law, thus understood, that provides legitimacy to public authority in liberal democracies.

Meanwhile Manuel Mallia’s witch-hunt had better expand internationally: Green MEP Sven Giegold’s website contains a link to leaked FIAU documents.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The idiots among us

idiot_akkuza

“Quand j’entends, par exemple, madame Taubira dire qu’elle n’est pas au courant (du fond du dossier), elle nous prend pour des blaireaux. – Gilbert Collard.

One hot issue in French politics right now is that of Sarkozy’s tapped phone. It turns out that Sarkozy was being tapped while conversing with his lawyers and a huge fuss has been made about this – literally left, right and centre. Collard is a Front National representative and he was talking about France’s Justice Minister Mme Taubira who had claimed not to have known about the goings on. According to Collard, it is all a question of accountability and responsibility – Taubira’s portfolio means that police and fonctionnaires with the police and magistrates fall under her jurisdiction. “If she says that she was not aware”, Collard says, “then she is treating us like imbeciles”. Yep. “Blaireaux” means “badgers” but in street language it means idiots.

There’s much of that going around nowadays – politicians treating citizens as though they were idiots. Nothing new under the sun, only that it is becoming much more an “in your face” kind of treatment.

Last Sunday, one of Malta’s main newspapers carried a strongly worded editorial criticising Labour’s one year in government. Anyone who managed to read it would have been pleasantly surprised by the reality check being proposed on a number of fronts by the Sunday Times. A particular paragraph dealing with the impeachment proceedings against Judge Farrugia Sacco did not go down well with the person currently sitting in the institutional seat of Speaker of the House. For the benefit of the members of the public who like me prefer not to pay for the fare on offer on the online papers here is the offensive paragraph in question:

“Once that commission (note: “for the Administration of Justice”) reached a conclusion that was obviously inconvenient for the government, Dr Muscat and the Labour-appointed speaker went out of their way to ensure he (note: Judge Farrugia Sacco) would not be impeached before he reaches retirement age in the summer”. (STOM Editorial – 9 March 2014)

It so happens  that the person currently occupying the post of speaker did not take too kindly to the editorial. Free as he was to disagree with its conclusions – and point out his disagreement publicly if he so liked – he decided to take it one step further. Labour-appointed speaker Anglu Farrugia has demanded that the Sunday Times withdraw what he described as “serious allegations against him ‘as a person and as a Speaker'” and threatened to take legal action should the Times not give the withdrawal equal prominence as its allegation.

Reality check: this is the two thousand and fourteenth year of the christian era. 2014. For the second time during the Labour-led legislature, a labour-appointed public official has decided to use the parliament and its structures as a means to silence criticism. Joseph Muscat had earlier taken exception to a statement by opposition leader Simon Busuttil and transformed the parliament into a mini-jury in order to get the man to shut up (only to scuttle off to watch a football match rather than be present for the proceedings that ensued).

Heaven forbid, of course, that we insinuate in any way that members of parliament and its speaker are not within their rights and prerogatives whenever they try to defend themselves and their reputation. Having said that the zero-sum game that Farrugia is engaging with the Times is not a defence of a prerogative. It would not take too much of a genius for even the leak-recipient that is the Times to notice that the chain of events leading to the postponement of the possible impeachment smacks highly in the very least of incompetence for want of trying. It would be the duty of a vehicle of the press that notices such a lacuna in the mechanisms of our institutional representative structures and processes to point such a lacuna out. It’s a fair comment – accuse it of bias if you like (bias? the Times?) but do not gag it.

Using the “position of Speaker” in order to throw unnecessary weight around is an unfair attempt at gagging the fourth estate. Such cases have been dealt with long ago in real liberal democracies. The freedom of the press and its right to point out deficiencies in democratic representation has long been encapsulated and spelled out in the jurisprudence of the aforementioned liberal democracies. We even had our own moment of glory before the European Court of Human Rights with the famous  Demicoli vs Malta – where the Court found that the requirements of impartiality must always be preserved whenever the House felt its privilege was violated.

Incidentally, one of the two members of parliament to raise the original breach of privilege back in the eighties was the Joe Debono Grech. Another of the old-timer appointments to token but remunerated positions by this meritocratic government (we also learnt recently, among others, of Alex Sciberras Trigona’s and Joe Grima’s appointment as envoys to World Trade and Tourism Organisations). The revamped (Daily Mail inspired) MaltaToday reported yesterday that “Debono Grech refused to stay for a public consultation meeting for the Gozo minister when he learned that he was not to be placed at the head table.” Not much of a twist on the learning curve there either.

And finally, for something completely different and pythonesque, since we are on the subject of institutional disfigurement we might as well mention the news that Minister Manuel Mallia’s minions are organising government official activities in the very impartial venues of PL Clubs. Yes, that’s Kazini tal-Labour. Here’s how the Times reported the matter (my bold):

Government officials employed with the Home Affairs Ministry’s customer care unit have been detailed to attend meetings with the public organised at PL clubs located in the minister’s constituency. According to newspaper adverts titled ‘Always close to you’ (Viċin Tiegħek Dejjem), Manuel Mallia will be holding a series of meetings with the public in the coming weeks in seven localities in the districts from which he was elected last year. Without giving details of the actual place where Dr Mallia will be meeting the public, the adverts state that two days before each meeting, “people from the ministry’s customer care will be present at the respective locality’s Labour Party Club to meet the public”. (Times Online – 11th March)

What will the excuse be this time? That we are saving public money by using venues kindly provided by the Labour Party? That the Minister did not know and was not aware?

Blaireaux anyone?

 

“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” – Thomas Jefferson

Categories
Citizenship Politics

In the end there was the Word

promises_akkuzaMinister Mallia will in all probability not resign. He went on record during the “secret” negotiations regarding the IIP scheme that should a residency requirement be included then he would resign from his ministerial position. We are not supposed to know about it  because the negotiations were secret but that secrecy, like virginity, cannot be regained so “Tant pis, monsieur ministre”.

Jason Azzopardi and Karol Aquilina both attest to Mallia’s promise. It would be their word against his, only Karol Aquilina is apparently in the habit of taking meticulous minutes (not like Mintoff’s Cabinet) and neither Owen Bonnici nor the directly interested person have denied Mallia’s promise to resign. Labour of course are trying to make a mountain out of the broken promise of secrecy – during their weekend conference they said that only a child “goes to tell mummy what daddy told him”. Which does beg the question about the kind of families Labour has in mind… but I digress.

The point is that the promise was made during negotiations. Negotiations are built on trust. You trust that the person before you means what he says and would back it up with the necessary action. There would be no point in negotiating if this element of trust went missing. If you do not deliver on what was agreed in negotiations – no matter how secretive they may have been – then you lose your trust rating. You become incredible. The wrong sort of incredible.

Much is being made of the fact that “lawyers are literal minded” and that they believe in “the rule of the law”. The focus though should not be on lawyers but on the diplomacy of politics – whatever the politician’s profession may be (and lets not forget that we now have former disc jockeys in diplomatic circles). Diplomacy is all about negotiation. You can be skillful through conviction or you can be successful through bartering and trade. In all cases you are expected to deliver on your word. Your word counts.

When the EU Commission was sold the idea of the IIP it was immediately clear that it had been given a particular idea of what the revised IIP would consist of. The wording of the first Commission position following the historic agreement included strong words such as “effective residency”. We still do not know whether the revised scheme itself, once made public, will be such as to conform to what the Commission was made to expect in those particular negotiations. Will Joseph Muscat and his Henley & Co. sidekicks (or is it vice-versa?) be true to the words they delivered in Brussels?

Back to Mallia. His position is rather untenable. He may cry foul about the fact that his promise behind the curtains of secrecy was suddenly made public. It does not change the tenor of what is actually happening with regard to the value of his word. Mallia’s position at any table of negotiation is now worthless. His reputation (and in Malta reputation is a big word that covers bloated marketing exercise of the “thick with experienced lawyers” kind) as a convincing criminal lawyer will no longer serve to cover the fact that his word is not worth anything. The opposition will rightly not be able to sit at any negotiating table that includes someone who fails to be true to his word.

When in opposition the Labour party would rant and rave about how the Nationalist Ministers would not resign whenever Labour deemed that it was time for them to go. In this case we have a Labour Minister who himself gave his word that should something happen he would resign. That something has happened. Or at least Joseph Muscat promised the Commission that it will happen. How valuable is the word of a politician? We’ll soon know.

In the beginning there was the word, now all we are left with are politicians.

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle. (reprise)