Tag: PLPN

Categories
Articles

Closing Time

This is the last article in the J’accuse series on the Malta Independent on Sunday. I have decided to concentrate on J’accuse the blog and limit any print contributions to an ad hoc basis. Until the next print adventure… it’s been emotional. Don’t forget to subscribe to J’accuse and receive updates by mail. Use the box below the video clip to the left of your screen. (Accuse Me!) 

Interesting times. 2012 has begun very much in the way 2011 ended: with the fireworks, the ominous cloud of crisis(es) and a general holding of breath for what is to come. Metaphorically we are still holding our breath and I am not just referring to the election-no-election saga but to the world of wider affairs and economic crises. Malta – the civilisation of 400,000 people at the centre of the known universe – kicked off the year with a horrible double-murder and then shifted its attention to one man who holds the fate of our political history for the short-term, foreseeable future.

I have often referred to the Chinese curse that goes “May you live in interesting times” that is based on the assumption that interesting times would involve war, blood and danger. Well insofar as insular politics are concerned it does not get more interesting than this. The survival instincts of every politician on the island are piqued at this moment – raring to plunge into another battle of passionate electoral proportions and no amount of Standard & Poor degrading will deviate their attention from the ultimate Holy Grail of a parliamentary seat.

Ah yes. We’ve been downgraded. The fact that Malta’s rating now has less A’s than Franco Debono’s school reports has a lot to do with the fact that this country forms part of an elite group of members of the eurozone who are also intimately tied with saving packages and funds intended to soften the damage of any impending crises. S&P were not very positive about these plans and chose to clip the credit ratings of Malta – and France, and Italy, and Spain, and Austria (among others).

Lost in Translation
Well the Merkozy efforts to recreate a solid European Union economically speaking, the S&P rating reviews based on eurozone performance, the events happening beyond the Mediterranean’s navel…. they’re aeons away from reality. Once you land in the island of milk & honey it’s time warp time and all that noise is lost in translation. Joseph Muscat’s election team has a new buzzword… 1996’s Hofra is 2012’s Instability. Sure, economic instability is happening far, far away and trickles down to us in the form of) budget tweaking but we also have political instability don’t we?

Which brings me to the greatest show on earth after the big bang (pace Jovanotti). Franco Debono is a colleague of mine in more ways than one. I too am an Old Aloysian (a year younger than Franco’s) and I too am a law graduate (same class of ‘99). Don’t ask me for my school or university report. In the first instance I was busy being the Aloysian equivalent of Just William – splitting my time between detention room duties and crazy dares as to who would get the grade closest to zero in our spot tests. At university I preferred to concentrate on the extra-curricular buzz of student politics while getting just enough results to have a degree of sorts conferred on me. Experience has taught me that in both cases my time was well spent. Anyway, as Franco would probably never say, this is not about me.

Franco Debono
I had thought of using this last article of mine (see conclusion) to write an open letter to Franco. I would appeal to the sense of disciplined logic that our Jesuit education imparted upon us (Serio et Constanter) and to the sense of social justice that might have trickled into our system at philosophy of law lectures. I would have appealed for a sense of perspective that has long been lost in the heat of the events that are unfolding before us. I would have shown a sense of solidarity with Franco in so far as a number of the causes he claims to champion are concerned.

Yes Franco, there are a few among us who understand the compelling need for change. We understand the incremental amount of damage that the bipartisan system, rules and methods are causing to the development and maturity of our country. I have long claimed through my blog that the PLPN are a huge handicap to open competition, transparent exchange of ideas and to the emancipation from our insular mentality. Franco you might have come to the same conclusion from within the system.

Then something went wrong. You probably got caught up in the vortex of twisted checks and balances that the system kicks on when it’s very own survival is threatened. And you did not help either. I would not be the first one to criticise your methor. Was it panic? Was it an inability to prevent yourself from becoming another politician caught in the rut? Was it an impatience with the rules of the system that insist that everybody wait his turn? Whatever happened forced you to switch to becoming a nervous contradiction – drowning your original crusade in a storm of tantrums, nervous reactions and inconsistencies. That is the picture people have of you now – even those applauding you only do so because of the enormous window of opportunism (sic) that you have thrown wide open for them.

Franco, we share certain convictions about the changes needed in our political system. Yes, even some fundamental constitutional changes might require discussing and implementing. Our similarity stops there. I may salute you for what seemed like the early courage that you displayed when you challenged the establishment. What I cannot salute is the manner in which you seem intent on undoing your achievement noisily, nervously and with an inexplicable unabashed sense of self-aggrandisement. The principles that you originally claimed to espouse have been watered down by your need to constantly focus attention on yourself – forgetting the fundamental tenet of a politician’s guide: that he is there to serve and be judged.

What’s left unwritten
There, I would have written that and more. I would conclude appealing to Franco’s sense of justice that should be enough to tell him that forcing an election now is the most irrational and counterproductive act he could ever commit. An election needs parties with a program for the next difficult years ahead. Muscat’s labour is aeons away from any coherent plan beyond the all important “getting into power” bit. Gonzi’s PN is still learning it’s lessons from the errors committed in 2008 and that ironically rewarded it with an extended government by coalition. My bet is that my appeal would have been superfluous. By now it is clear to me that come Thursday Franco will abstain on Labour’s motion if only to extend his current nervous honeymoon with the dizzy heights of power.

That is why this is not an open letter to Franco. I have written more about this in J’accuse – www.akkuza.com – particularly the two posts entitled “That Constitutional Question” and “Windows of Opportunism”. More of course will be added to the blog and this is where I break a sad bit of news for you, the reader. In the coming weeks and months if you feel the need to see what the J’accuse take on things is you will only be able to do so on the blog.

Closing Time
Yes. This is the end of the J’accuse series of articles on the Malta Independent on Sunday. I have decided to concentrate on the blogging side and take my ideas and crazy writing back to the blog where they started. I probably miss writing the weekly column much more than you will miss reading it. In any case it has been a great ride and I would like to thank my fellow adventurer Bertu who has prepared the last two toons for this series.

In this country that loves speculation and gossip I must rush to add that this decision of mine is in agreement with the Independent editors – I am merely taking the opportunity of a time of stock taking to refocus on the online blog that remains the primary mode of expression and promises to be an important actor in the coming months. So don’t forget to add www.akkuza.com to your bookmarks (if you hadn’t done so already) and to subscribe to the mail updates.

I hope that it’s been as pleasant for you to read this column as it has been for me to write it. Thank you all for your patience and custom. See you on the net.

Last one out, switch off the lights.

www.akkuza.com is Malta’s longest running quality blog. Since the 10th March 2005 provocative thinking worth reading. www.bertoons.com contains a full collection of the illustrations that have brought you a smile on Sunday over the last few years. P.S. The honeymoon was great – thank you to all the well-wishers.

Categories
Politics

Windows of Opportunism

The good news is that it would be a “landslide defeat”. Labour would probably stroll into government with a victory by default that affords it a “stable” three-seat margin (at least). Such a majority would ensure that Labour can afford to have at least one “Franco” or “JPO” without losing its parliamentary majority. If that’s what counts as stable government these days then Muscat’s dream team would be as solid as a rock.

If the stakes were all about getting into power and staying there then Labour would be the horse to bet on. The core voters would be joined by the disgruntled, the “about time we change” (it’s only fair) and the new clan of PN-haters to form an unassailable lead at the polls and Bob’s your uncle. Or is he?

Windows

Well it’s not all roses is it? Franco Debono is promising to be the hair that broke the (fragile) camel’s back. J’accuse has chronicled how his behaviour has exposed the weakness of a machine that was assembled solely for the purpose of winning an election to the detriment of any coherent plans and values of governance. Sure, economically an argument can be made that the Par idejn sodi motley crew has contributed to the weathering of the economic storm until now. Some circles might beg to differ and will claim that our micro-economy would never have really borne the brunt of the euro maelstrom anyway – so it’s not thanks to Tonio and Lawrence that we’re quite ok.

Although budget wise we got a half-hearted OK by the Commission this week (bar some expensive tweaks to the deficit) the government remains unaccountable for a long list of grudges and defects that is only aggravated by its perverse ability to antagonise through perceived arrogance. A disjointed team was exposed in the issues of Transport Reform, Divorce Legislation and social and criminal reform laws – not to mention the honoraria fiasco. There is much revising and soul-searching to be made.

For every mea culpa on the government side there was a mini-window of opportunity for a prepared opposition to shine. Do we have a beacon prepared to step in once the current set of governors crumbles? J’accuse is painfully aware of the over-used cliché of the “unelectability of the opposition”. The fact that it is oft repeated and the fact that it was a major weapon in the armoury of GonziPN’s last election victory does not make it outdated automatically.

Muscat’s Labour seems intent on repeating GonziPN’s fatal error of 2008. They prepare for some sort of electoral victory but is this a party that is proving that it has the right credentials to govern? The smokescreen of the Franco saga might invigorate Labour hopefuls and build their hope for a change in government. The removal of the power weary Nationalists would not come a moment too soon for them. The mistake they make is that they equate the satisfaction of removing an expired government with the automatic assumption that anyone who steps in by default will be good for the job.

Who do you want to be today?

As Anglu Farrugia and Joe Mizzi table a motion for a vote of no confidence (to be held on Thursday 19th) Muscat’s Labour is counting on a snap election and a short-cut to the corridors of power. What it will do with the power when it holds it is anybody’s guess. Until now we do know that Labour is not Nationalist. We have promises of utility bill cuts without an explanation as to where the money to cover these expenses will come from. We have a farcical approach to manifesto writing (the cards to my chest approach) coordinated by an old timer and now with an arriviste error-prone wannabe as a manifesto secretary.

At the moment when it could have made its will clear and its vote count – the divorce votes in parliament- Labour wavered. This was the party in opposition mind you, not the one in government. In that instance Muscat displayed an inability to muster his men and his party behind one clear progressive cause notwithstanding the fact that it was not nuclear science. Did Labour (in opposition) manage to block vote a YES to divorce? No it didn’t. Muscat – in opposition may I remind you – conjured up the FREE VOTE. What is the free vote other than an admission that the Labour leader could not really be sure which way his member’s consciences would be playing?

On a straightforward progressive policy that should have been a piece of cake Labour faltered. It failed to take a clear party position and was unable to be clear about the way it would vote. This was the party in opposition with no governmental power to lose. Opportunism dictated that Labour gives the impression of going both ways. Thankfully in the end common sense prevailed and parliament enacted a divorce law. But not thanks to Labour. Not thanks to the PN either but still… it’s not the point here.

From the Libyan crisis to the Euro Crisis to Transport issues it has been evident that Labour is operating on the knee-jerk opportunist basis. It is a short-term policy based on populism of the basest order. The error lies in the fact that Labour has chosen to emulate the PN in its worst form – that 2008 electoral bouillabaisse that Lawrence Gonzi is ruing to this day. this kind of electoral machine gets you to cut the ribbon but leaves you reeling under your own unmerited success.

Joseph Muscat might get to sit in the driving seat at a Castille office… the real worry is whether once the persian windows are thrown open and he is blinded by the sunlight coming from across the wesgħa tal-Furjana he better have a clue about where he wants to go next… otherwise he will find that it will take much less than a Franco Debono to bring him crashing down into reality.

 

Categories
Politics

That Constitutional Question

Identifying Lou Bondi’s pitch on Tuesday’s Bondi+ was not too difficult. Franco Debono is doing a good enough job of undermining any valid points he may have with his behavioural shifting from the conspiracy theorist to the unabashedly ambitious politician. Franco seems to be unable to reconcile the values of his political mission with his unbridled hunger to slither up the greasy ladder of power as we know it. His behaviour plays into the hands of the spin-doctors of  “taste” who are prepared to highlight his faux pas until they totally eclipse any reasonable matter he may rightly wish to bring onto the forefront of the national agenda.

Bondi desperately tried to pitch the Franco vs Gonzi angle repeatedly throughout the program – infamously culminating in Franco’s refusal to “parrot” the words that the anchorman (and Nationalist quasi-candidate endorser) had desperately tried to plant in his nervous interlocutor’s mouth all evening. One aspect of this angle pitched by Bondi was his continued insistence that Franco was way out of his rights when he threatened to bring down this government by withholding his confidence vote when the time comes.

In a little “f’hiex tifhem?” (a very typical Maltese challenge of “what’s your expertise in this”) moment Bondi referred to his university lecturing credentials (“I taught politics and not just sociology – ghandek zball madornali“) presumably inspired by Franco’s earlier stunt of using his school reports. For a second I was worried that the two would pull down their pants and compare the size of their private members (sic) but a little side jab about the “Santana booing incident” (as witnessed from the I’m A VIP Quasi-Minister section of the crowd) did the trick.

Back to the constitution.

For it is a constitutional issue we are talking about. Does a lone MP from the parliamentary group of the party in government have the right to threaten to bring down the government? In bipolar (sorry, bipartisan) Malta we tend to run off with the idea that the game is one of simple mathematics – you win an election, you have the autocratic right to govern (should I say Oligarchic Franco?). Sure, what with the pilfering and tweaking of the electoral laws we have perfected the English constitutional bipartisan system to perfection and driven more than one death blow to the possibility of proportional representation.

Last election’s carcades were hooting to the tune of a D’Hondt majority (see Bertoon illustration that we cooked up the next day). the D’Hondt system of voting combined with our “tweaked” constitutional provisions had led to a relative majority government – no party had obtained more than 50% of the votes but one party had 1,500 votes than the other. A constitutional clause had come into play and the way it worked was –

a) if only two parties are elected to parliament,
b) if none of the two parties obtain more than 50% of the votes,
then the party with the largest number of votes (a relative majority) will be entitled to an adjustment of seats in order to be able to enjoy a majority of seats in parliament. That’s all found in article 51(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Malta.

Interestingly (and useful for later discussion) the provisos to this article are a rare instance in which reference is made directly to “political parties”.  It’s interesting because the Constitutional structure relating to representation and government (and therefore to the management of the basic power entrusted by “the people”) centres around individual “representatives” as elected to parliament by universal suffrage. The constitutional link between elector and elected is direct – there was no original intention for the intermediaries we now call “political parties”*.

This important distinction between political parties and members can be clearly seen from the Constitutional article on the appointment of the Prime Minister – article 80:

Wherever there shall be occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment , is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House (…)

Again. No parties. The President takes one good look at the House of Representatives and determines whether any member among them can count on “the support of a majority of the members” – that’s what is in play whenever a “confidence vote” comes into play. It’s an opportunity to put to test whether the PM still enjoys that  majority support. In the current context it’s what Joseph Muscat would like to table (a motion of confidence) and where Franco’s threat might come into play (by not voting for the PM and thus undermining his ability to “command the support of a majority”.

Now comes the hard part for hardcore nationalist voters to digest. Franco Debono is the latest symptom of the Coalition of the Diverse called GonziPN that oh-so-miraculously snatched victory from the jaws of defeat last election. The rainbow coalition within GonziPN was possible because of a lack of scrutiny, a loose combination of values (if any) and mainly because any candidate who could steal valuable votes that could lead to the relative majority victory (and therefore to the automatic majority in parliament) was backed to the hilt. Remember the JPO saga? Remember the spin masters backing what was very evidently a loose gun to the hilt – basta nitilghu?

So when the members of parliament finally took their place in the house of representatives Lawrence Gonzi could assume that he commands the support of the majority of members. He assumed it because any leader of a political party in Malta who has just won the election assumes that his party members will back him to govern. Easy. Alfred Sant assumed that in 1996. Lawrence Gonzi had no reason not to in 2008. The mechanism is not foolproof however. At the basis of the whole system remains the basic currency of power transfer – the representatives themselves. As Franco has reminded us more than once the “support of the representatives” cannot be taken for granted.

The mechanism of “support” or confidence is a check on the power of government. Viewed from outside the convoluted scenario that Franco has created around himself (with the help of the bloodsucking media) you will understand that the right of a member to withdraw his support is an important check in our democracy. It is just as important (if not more) as the existence of an opposition.

Even though our political parties operate on the assumption that “loyalty” is universally automatic they have now been exposed to the democratic truth that it is not. The failure is not of the system but of the arrogant assumption that the bipartisan mechanisms that the parties have written into the constitution will guarantee their permanent alternation. Franco’s methods might be obtuse and distasteful especially when they betray blatant and crude ambition but on a political level the renegade politician who disagrees with the party line was not only predictable but threatens to become a constant in the future.

The more political parties ignore the need to be coherent politically and the more they just throw anything at the electorate in the hope that something bites the more they can expect of “Franco-like” personalities. The failure to whip Franco into the party line is not a democratic failure or a constitutional flaw but a failure of the political party to operate as an effective vehicle of democratic representation.

D’hondt worry? Frankly it was only a matter of time. It’s actually a miracle it took this long for the shit to hit the fan.

* In a recent House of Commons document (Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation)  political parties were defined as “the mechanism by which people of any background can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy and deciding  how society should be governed. While they are not perfect organisations they are essential for the effective functioning of our democracy. Without the support of political parties it would be difficult for individual Members of Parliament, as legislators and/or as members of the Executive, to organise themselves effectively for the task of promoting the national interest—including by challenge to the Government, where that is necessary and appropriate—and ensuring that proposed new laws are proportionate, effective and accurately drafted.”

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Midnight in Malta

This week I watched Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen’s latest invitation to an hour or so of light pseudo-intellectual engagement, and enjoyed every bit of the movie. Gil Pender, the protagonist played by Owen Wilson in this modern fable, is a Hollywood scriptwriter who happens to be in Paris with his fiancée while struggling to write his first novel. We witness Pender’s attempt to write his novel while trying to satisfy the needs of his rather shallow and socialite fiancée.

There is no real depth to Woody Allen’s characters in the movie but this is probably because he is busy eagerly exploring psychological themes. “Midnight’s” recurrent theme is very topical, especially in our current political climate, and deals with what is called “Golden Age nostalgia”. Our writer protagonist is plagued by this nostalgia and ends up travelling in time to the age he craves for most − Paris in the 20s. There he gets to meet his heroes from Scott Fitzgerald to Hemmingway, from Dali to Buñuel (Allen and his surrealist obsession) and while interacting with them he discovers, among other things, that even these people − living in what he considers to be the best age ever − themselves craved for a better age in the past: La Belle Époque Paris.

Nostalgia

“Midnight” is about artistic nostalgia. Over the past week we have witnessed a twisted form of nostalgia on our own shores. In between storms and floods that laughed in the face of the “Ghaqal” and “Serjetà” adverts, we were regaled with a battle of historic political propaganda. Political anniversaries tend to be more pronounced when the year is a multiple of five. There is no other reason for this than the fact that we think in decimals.

The 25th, 30th or 80th anniversary of an event has no deeper meaning than the 21st, 32nd or 11th. This is more so when the occasion is one of remembrance and not a celebration of endurance or longevity of some record. It’s one thing celebrating a long stretch of time − like an Independence anniversary or the founding date of a club for example − but remembrance is not about the time that has passed but about the meaning of what is being commemorated. On 11th November we do not go around counting the years since 1918 − we just remember and honour those who died for our freedom. That is the point: “Lest we forget”.

Which is why the fact that 25 years have passed since the tal-Barrani incidents should not be the main reason for remembering what happened and what we believed we were fighting for at the time. Yes, I definitely count myself among those who believe that this kind of episode in our history should not be forgotten and should be one of the learning blocks in the building of a nation. It is also not out of a twisted exercise of “balancing” between historical truths that I also believe that the “Interdiction” period for example is also part of our collective memory.

Luce

What happened this week though did not feel like remembrance. Remembrance does not use history as an instrument for current political campaigning. The feeling you got was that the memories were being used as a warning against the current Labour clan because they would bring us more of the same. As an unnamed blogger put it: “It’s like asking those who lived through the Second World War to dismiss a Nazi that seeks power. Forgive maybe, forget never.” By that rationale Labour would be eternally unelectable because it could never shed the historical links to an ugly past. Which is rubbish. There is a reason why the Nazi party has been outlawed and the Labour Party hasn’t.

That was the Nationalists shooting themselves in the foot by attempting to turn history into contemporary electoral propaganda. Then came the Labourites − and they went one better. I watched a clip from the ONE TV programme Inkontri that supposedly chronicled the work of post-1987 government till today (To see the full clip go to the blog www.akkuza.com on the post called “Daqqiet ta’ Harta”).

I felt physically sick. First it was evident that the effort was a counter-reaction to the tal-Barrani PN series. Worse though was the fact that it was clear to anybody with a brain between his ears that this was an effort at blatant political revisionism. Revisionism is not even the word. This was creative fantasy that falls to the same level as holocaust denial. You’d think that the PN governments since 1987 were run by a clan of Mintoff’s friends − from Ceausescu to Kim-Il Jong through Gaddafi.

The Labour Party still cannot come to terms with the fact that in a liberal society you do not lock up or gag people like Lou Bondì and Daphne Caruana Galizia but you get the right to answer and argue back or ignore them. The irony of watching the Inkontri presenter stand outside PN HQ and complain about how in today’s society the right of free expression has been completely negated, was in all probability lost on the fawning viewers.

Golden Age

Back to Allen. The nostalgia for a Golden Age is described psychologically as a form of escapism. It is a form of denial of modern realities. The Nationalist Party might have committed a faux pas when appealing to the sense of solidarity that many of us had in 1987 when the call for “Work, Justice and Liberty” gave us an instant rush. The faux pas was not about remembrance but about its abuse. The distraction effect from today’s’ troubles is minimal and to be honest the transference of the sense of optimism and hope experienced at the time is nigh impossible. Better keep their feet to the ground.

As for Labour, the problems run deeper. Nostalgia does not help much but the past keeps raising its ugly head even when “those bastard Nationalists” are minding their own business. There’s worse. Labour acolytes must have experienced another psychological phenomenon mentioned in the Allen movie: “Cognitive dissonance”. Wikipedia describes this as “the discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously”.

When psychologists first studied cognitive dissonance they looked at groups that had predicted imminent disasters (such as the end of the world). They looked at what happened when the prediction failed − and noticed that such groups grew “by sharing the cult beliefs with others they gained acceptance and thus reduced their own dissonance” (Wikipedia). Another example often given is “smoking”. You know it is wrong for you but you smoke anyway − the two thoughts coincide uncomfortably in your mind.

Loyalty and Creed

Nostalgia is about thinking of the golden ages of our respective parties and of the events that made them stronger. Engaging heavily in nostalgia at the moment is very probably a form of escapist denial − a failure to engage with current issues and the present. The dissonance in the voters’ mind is between the side of him that wants to see his party as a solution − come what may − and the side of him that is beginning to see gaping flaws in the way forward that is proposed.

Muscat’s 51 proposals from another planet must have induced cognitive dissonance in many a Labour sympathiser. It was evident even in the comments on J’accuse. While the Labour Party was evidently pitching the list as a set of solutions (see the official email sent out explaining how Gonzi has only got questions but Muscat has solutions), sympathisers still insisted on “giving Muscat a chance” or about how this was just a “general plan” not the solution itself. Even given all the evidence in the world that the 51 proposals was just a list of propagandistic blah-blah, the Labour side of the brain fought desperately to “believe”.

Striking Twelve

The Belgians finally got a government this week. On 2nd December, the first day of government, a general protest was announced and thousands took to the streets protesting against the austerity plans. That baptism of fire was not enough though − an issue of Belgian government bonds was oversubscribed on the very same day. The news at the end of the day was about the mixed messages being given by the Belgian people (for a change). Was this an episode of national cognitive dissonance?

Whatever the case may be, we would do well to pull our socks up and leave nostalgia to historians. At times like this, positive governance and clear direction is not a luxury but a basic necessity − the less political games and distractions the better. Decisions such as investing in sustainable energy and power as well as reforming a justice system cannot and should not be taken lightly. The less time spent in futile propaganda wars the better.

It’s either that, or it’s midnight in Malta.

 

www.akkuza.com has been blogging non-stop since 10 March 2005. We haven’t stopped writing and you haven’t stopped reading. That’s a good enough reason to keep at it.

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Pride and prejudice revisited

The Statue of Liberty turned 125 last Friday. Back in 1896, the French government donated the statue to the people of America and “Liberty” soon became an iconic symbol and gateway to the land of opportunity for thousands of migrants that reached the shores of the United States in the last century. Events closer to home this week made me wonder whether we should have our own statue in Malta. Actually, make that two statues − you know how it is in this country − you need to have a black and a white side to every opinion… so you probably will need two statues too.

This week we had the Independence Day celebrations. It had not been hard to predict that the build-up of news about Malta’s valiant efforts in assisting our Libyan brothers was aimed at boosting the feel-good factor that is normally associated with the 21st September speeches from the podia at il-Fosos. The event came and went, and the PN leaders duly delivered. We had a new message: “Pride”. We should be proud to form part of this nation that against all adversity has assisted the injured and wounded in Libya. In one evening’s speech, the six-month long hesitation whether or not to back the rebels was washed away. The image of the injured Shwegya became the 21st century equivalent of the proud Maltese helping the shipwrecked Saint Paul.

They tell me that our prized tapestries are being restored in Belgium right now. In the past, tapestries were used to tell the story of some national epic or narrative. They would boost the pride of the tapestry owners – sometimes free cities of the merchant north. Our political writers with a strong PLPN bias weave our modern day histories into special tapestries. Only this time the actors did not quite fit the bill. While the yarn of “proud and charitable” Malta was being spun in some places, the acts of the citizens elsewhere told a very different story. Two stories actually … a black one and a white one that should earn us the two statues I mentioned earlier.

The black − No to injured Libyans

The first sabotage attempt at undermining GonziPN’s efforts to weave a new heroic story into the tapestry of our PLPN history books came from an unexpected source. The (very Christian) spokesperson of Malta’s Union of Nurses (and Midwives) complained that Mater Dei has enough on its hands as it is and does not need to play nurse to any injured Libyans. Paul Pace, head of the MUMN told the government that “bigger countries with more facilities should address such problems”. Boom goes GonziPN’s plans of a proud nation humbly serving the weak and the injured. Bang goes any semblance of pride. Incidentally, don’t hold your breath for a Joseph Muscat position on this mess by the way. It’ll be more like a free vote − otherwise he’ll either have to criticise MUMN (read votes) for their tunnel vision or he’ll have to criticise Gonzi’s plans thus losing cred on his “I love New Libya” mantra.

As for the proud nation sticking its neck out for others, the best source to tap the pulse of the nation remains the online comment boards. Here is a Ms Maria Vella writing in The Times: “Let us stop being all politically correct and call a spade a spade! Mr Pace did not beat around the bush and stated the situation as it is. We have enough Maltese patients (who pay taxes and contribute towards the running of this hospital) waiting for treatment, in corridors or at home, or even worse sent home because of lack of space but we find place and resources to treat foreigners. Whilst my sympathies go to the injured Libyans, charity should begin at home!” Now there’s a thought Mr Prime Minister. A sympathy card to Libya and that’s that. Where’s Tonio Borg when you need him? So the first statue, possibly at the entrance to Grand Harbour should be pointing our unwanted immigrants back home. Let’s call him Charity. I can picture the colossus standing with the two faces of hypocrisy as his outstretched hand ends in a finger pointing out to sea. In his other hand he sports a colander and a flag of the nation he calls home.

The white − yes to rich magnates

The second sabotage attempt comes from an unexpected source. Writing in The Times of Malta, property developer and estate agent Frank Salt describes the new conditions for obtaining a residency in Malta as “a large hammer being used to crack a delicate egg”. Apparently, the new conditions for your average Russian euro-burner to settle down in Malta are “very complicated, extraordinarily expensive, virtually prohibitive” − dixit Frank. It seems that the developers’ apple cart has been upset:

Here’s Mr Salt’s angry question: “Was it sensible for the authorities to continue to allow new building developments specifically targeted at potential new foreign buyers, to sprout up all over our Islands, when they knew that they were about to unload this bombshell, that would and could, and no doubt will, upset the whole apple cart?”

And the property developers are angry. They’re angry at the government that encouraged them to develop land to sell it off to non-EU citizens (not injured Libyans mind you… for that we have Mater Dei) and then came up with these conditions. Here’s Frank being Frank again: “Today, the local property industry first works its backside off promoting Malta as a safe, inexpensive and pleasant place in which foreigners and their families can come and live in peace. Then, when the market gets off its feet, quality developments are built, foreign residents, permanent and temporary come to Malta to see whether they would like to live here… bang… once again it is time to mess things up.” Bang indeed.

Finally, there is the music for the environmentalist’s ear: “Now we have to see how we are going to sell the hundreds of properties that are currently on the market and those hundreds more that have new permits to build.”

I’ve got an idea for Frank if he doesn’t mind me telling him. I’m thinking that our developers could sell some of that space to … lemme see… a Qatari developer who could then invest some of his money into … hmm… a hospital.

There would be some divine justice in that wouldn’t there? An exclusive hospital built to service the wounded and injured from the Arab Spring. The developers would get their money. The nurses would get their break from the influx in Mater Dei and the government would sell this off as some smart move. Lovely no?

While he’s at it, our Qatari developer could also sponsor the second statue. This one stands across the harbour from Charity welcoming visitors with arms wide open. At his foot stand a giant-sized cash register and piggy bank. Preferably, “Opportunity” (for thusly I have named him) will be richly dressed, complete with top hat as a wannabe Mr Moneybags.

The Pride of Lions

Forget my grandiose statue building plans and just think for one moment about the realities of this island. On the one hand we have our political establishment living in an alternative world where Malta “proudly welcomed” sixteen (16) wounded Libyans. (This is, by the way, the same Malta that welcomed hundreds of thousands of injured from the Crimean War and the battlefields of World War I (the Gallipoli and Salonika campaigns) without batting an eyelid.)

On the other hand, the talk on the street and on the web boards is anything but this charitable and proud nation. When we are not busy kicking up a fuss about the foreigners taking up space in our hospitals (don’t bleed on my soil), we are complaining that new laws do not allow money-spending magnates to set up residence on our rock (please let them come bleed euros here).

It’s normally Joseph Muscat’s job to blame Dr Gonzi for everything under the sun (including tsunamis and world economic crisis). I’d just simply say that our political establishment are getting the “proud” citizens they have nurtured and that they deserve. What you reap is what you sow. Maybe the time has come to wake up.

www.akkuza.com is hoping to survive this weekend of bachelor partying. If all goes well we’ll be back online Monday – as proud as peacocks. This article appeared in the J’accuse column of yesterday’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

* Image – a “welcome” poster for “foreigners” received in my postbox from the “friendly” (thankfully a minority) side of Luxembourg… tolerance is all around us

Categories
Jasmine

The Pride of Lions

Do you have Independence day hangover? Are you still reeling from the injection of pride in our country and its achievements – especially in its delayed reincarnation as the potential Florence Nightingale of the Libyan Spring? Or are you still feeling rather indignant at the “divisive” call for AST’s resignation? Better still, are you still clutching your aching sides after laughing all night at Labour’s non sequitur style reponse that “if my ex-Foreign Minister was an arsehole then your ex-Leader /PM / President played host to a flurry of arseholes in the early nineties”?

However you may have woken up this side of Independence Day, you will surely have gone through your morning papers and probably, like J’accuse, you’d have noticed the glaring inconsistencies in this proud nation’s dealing with foreigners. Here they are in black and white.

The Black – No to injured Libyans

On the one hand GonziPN’s efforts to weave a new heroic story into the tapestry of our PLPN history books have come under fire from an unexpected source. The (very christian) spokesperson of some Union of Nurses complained that Mater Dei has enough on its hands as it is and does not need to play nurse to any injured Libyans. Paul Pace, head of the MUMN told the government that “bigger countries with more facilities should address such problems”. Boom goes GonziPN’s plans of proud nation humbly serving the weak and the injured. Don’t hold your breath for a Joseph Muscat position on this mess by the way. He either criticises MUMN (read votes) for their tunnel vision or he criticises Gonzi’s plans thus losing cred on his “I love New Libya” mantra.

As for the proud nation sticking its neck out for others – here is the best source to tap the pulse of the nation … the Times online comment board:

Ms Maria Vella

Today, 09:59

Let us stop being all politically correct and call a spade a spade!

Mr. Pace did not beat around the bush and stated the situation as it is. We have enough Maltese patients (who pay taxes and contribute towards the running of this hospital) waiting for treatment, in corridors or at home, or even worse sent home because of lack of space but we find place and resources to treat foreigners.

Whilst my sympathies go towards the injured Libyans, charity should begin at home!

Now there’s a thought Mr. Prime Minister. A sympathy card to Libya and that’s that. Where’s Tonio Borg when you need him?

The White – Yes to rich magnates

Frank Salt, of Frank Salt properties, describes the new conditions for obtaining a residency in Malta as “a large hammer being used to crack a delicate egg” (TOM – Messing with the economic motor). Apparently the new conditions for your average Russian euro-burner to settle down in Malta are “very complicated, extraordinarily expensive, virtually prohibitive” – dixit Frank. It seems that the developers’ apple cart has been upset:

Was it sensible for the authorities to continue to allow new building developments specifically targeted at potential new foreign buyers, to sprout up all over our Islands, when they knew that they were about to unload this bombshell, that would and could, and no doubt will, upset the whole apple cart?

And the property developers are angry. They’re angry at the government that encouraged them to develop land to sell it off to Non-EU citizens (not injured Libyans mind you… for that we have Mater Dei) and then came up with these conditions. Here’s Frank being Frank again:

Today, the local property industry first works its backside off promoting Malta as a safe, inexpensive and pleasant place in which foreigners and their families can come and live in peace. Then, when the market gets off its feet, quality developments are built, foreign residents, permanent and temporary come to Malta to see whether they would like to live here… bang… once again it is time to mess things up.

And then there is the music for the environmentalist’s ear:

Now we have to see how we are going to sell the hundreds of properties that are currently on the market and those hundreds more that have new permits to build.

Dunno Frank. I’m thinking that you should sell some of that space to … lemme see… a Qatari developer who could then invest some of his money into … hmm… a hospital. There would  be some divine justice in that wouldn’t there? An exclusive hospital built to service the wounded and injured from the Arab Spring. The developers would get their money. The nurses would get their break from the influx in Mater Dei and the government would sell this off as some smart move. Lovely no?

Finale

Of course mine is a tongue in cheek suggestion to Mr Salt. What really jars is the existence of this reality on our tiny rock. On the one hand we have those christians who cannot accept the idea that our valuable hospital space is being taken up by “foreigners” (stop bleeding on my soil) and on the other we have those business minded few who are dying to get the right type of foreigner (those who bleed money) to our shores.

It’s normally Joseph Muscat’s job to blame Gonzi for everything under the sun (including tsunamis and world economic crisis). I’d just say simply that our political establishment are getting the “proud” citizens they have nurtured and that they deserve.

What you reap is what you sow. Maybe it’s time to wake up.