‘President of Malta’ Articles at j’accuse

PR 201337 – “Press Release from the Office of the President” does not feature on the DOI Press Release page. It should be there since PR 201336 and PR 201338 are both on the page. I tried to find out whether the President’s Office that has its own PRO had distributed the PR through the DOI. Unfortunately Caroline Muscat, theShiftNews editor, could not confirm because – get this – the DOI refuses to add theShiftNews to the newsroom list.

Why does the President (and for what matters, even the Speaker of the House) use the DOI for his PR? Shouldn’t they have their own PR office issuing its own press releases? But those are not the glitches in our democracy that we are here to comment today. We are more concerned with the content of the PR 201337 because it concerns the long-awaited disquisition by the President (upon advice of anonymous legal experts) concerning the issue of the Leader of the Opposition in the House (LOOH for short).

Let us begin from the end. At the end of his statement, the President invokes the Principle of Necessity as the underlying reason for his decision. The beauty of the use of this principle is that it sets the minds at rest of all those who disagree with the interpretation favoured by the President and his men (and Adrian Delia of course). Why so? Well the reason is simple. The Principle of Necessity is used as a last resort in the words of the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton “when that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity”.

In layman’s terms the President is saying that he is conscious of the unlawfulness of his decision and interpretation but a higher necessity required him to rule in such a manner anyway. It would be facile to blame the President’s medical background but that would mean ignoring the legal savants who deemed this perilous advice to be good enough for him to administer on the nation.

Said advisors skimmed through Article 90’s inherent contradictions and in lieu of providing a solution based on law, they chose to apply the aforementioned Doctrine of Necessity: an unlawful solution in the better interests of… There lies the crux… the better interests of whom? In the words of the President this would be the “protection of the democratic process and the serene atmosphere which must reign in Parliament and in the country in general”.

In opting for this doctrine the President’s advisors steamrollered over any consideration concerning article 90 other than the admission that a combined reading of 90(4) and 90(2) could result in revoking and appointing Adrian Delia ad infinitum. Having discarded the possibility of leaving the LOOH office vacant (there will be a LOOH according to article 90 has been read as there will be one at all times) the solution was simple: we keep him there because it is a remedy for serenity.

The ball was then thrown into the political party court (from whence it came) with the President washing his hands of the problem and saying “come back when you have a new leader of the party or when you have solved your trust issues”.

Which begs the question. How serene and progressive is our parliamentary democracy when a President reads the constitution (unlawfully by his own admission) in such a way as to impose a LOOH on the opposition who has lost the trust of 2/3 of them?

The press pounced on the words ‘depart from the constitution’ when reporting the President’s Press Release. It’s worse. He openly broke it. “That which is otherwise not lawful” remember?

George Vella fought the law and Adrian Delia has won. Time to quote Swift again…

“It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of decreeing accordingly.”
– Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels

In times of recession it is inevitable that the issue of wages and salaries bounce to the forefront of the news. Whether it is the Italian Footballer’s Association and its negotiations for a collective contract (a uniform style contract) or whether it is politicians and their pay-cheques, the levels of happiness/unhappiness are exacerbated via a beggar-thy-neighbour exercise. Malta does not have a culture of meritocracy – worse still, it can barely be said to have a competitive wage/salary market. As any Euro-institution worker can vouch, one of the main attractions of emigrating to Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg is the possibility of multiplying you wage-earning potential.

In normal circumstances you can expect the leftist scythe of equalization to pass comments on such matters as the “gravy train” or some other ignorant remark based on comparative jealousy. The fact is that most euro-workers, like the undersigned, leapt at the opportunity of not having their job openings or promotion possibilities depend on political networking. They moved to an area where more often than not the rules for mobility are based on merit and clear rules. But this post is not about euro-salaries (although they will inevitably be brought into question).

This post is about the latest flurry of activity comparing the salary of specialists and consultants to that of the President of the Republic. The President? Malta’s equivalent of the Queen? Does nobody see the irony in this comparison? Much as you may be a beady eyed republican overflowing with respect towards the institutional representative of our nation, surely you will recognise that the kind of demands on the President of the Republic are not exactly the same as those on a surgeon in an operating theatre.

Why then is it newsworthy to point out that 117 persons in the public sector have a higher salary than the President? Even if they are not all surgeons (and they aren’t) what is the point of this comparison? Here’s the breakdown (and it is a breakdown) on Maltatoday:

17 consultants at Mater Dei Hospital, two consultants at Gozo General Hospital, four consultants at St Vincent de Paule Home, the clinical chairman, St Vincent de Paule and a consultant at the Department for Care of the Elderly;

71 captains at Air Malta, four members of the senior management at Air Malta, the CEO, Lotteries and Gaming Authority, the chairman, MFSA, the director-general, MFSA, the CEO, Malta Tourism Authority, the executive chairman, Malta Communications Authority;

The chairman, Mepa, the Governor of the Central Bank, the CEO Malta Stock Exchange, the projects manager, Enemalta; the CEO, Enemalta;

The CEO, Malta Council for Science and Technology, the executive chairman, Malta Enterprise, the CEO, Malta Information Technology Agency; the head, flight operations directorate and three flight operations inspectors, and the Rector of the University.

Ooooh. Socialists of the world unite. Chairmen of Authorities are paid more than the president. The Rector of a University is paid more than the president. Hell 71 captain/pilots at Air Malta earn more money than the President. Since when is the President’s salary the new standard? And why are the sums being bandied around independently of context?

Let me tell you why. Malta lacks both a culture of responsibility as well as a culture of merit. People should not be judged simply on the basis of what they earn but rather on whether their output justifies what they earn. In the case of the public sector then we should have an employer who pays well for good employees. Who gives a flying monkeys arse whether that implies a salary better than the Presidents? What they should be evaluating is whether the government is getting just returns for the salary with which it is (probably) underpaying the persons mentioned. Similarly when people underperform (or perform horribly) they should be shown the door on that basis – not because they earn money but because their performance is crap.

The confusing picture painted by an opposition intent on shifting the general look of the country to one of a continued depression fails on this measure. Muscat’s Labour will, like many Labours before it, fuel the fires of jealousy with regards to monetary amounts – implying twistedly that the cleaner, the factory worker and the postman and the baker are being short-changed. Not because they do not get the moneys’ worth but because they pay too much money – can you see it ? More than the President? How dare they?

It’s the stupid culture of relativism raising its ugly head again. Let us flatten the wage bill therefore. Let us pay peanuts and somehow justice will be done.

Elsewhere the draft bill for regulating party funding is still in the running. Party candidates aspire for an equally low paid job of Member of Parliament. How do they fund their campaigns? Who pays for their parties, their meetings with the candidates, their brochures and their websites? Becoming an MP is not supposed to be the most profitable business on the market. Yet so many people aspire to become servants of the people every five years it’s incredible.

Either there’s a glut of altruistic beings on the island. Or there’s something that they prefer not to tell us. God Help Us (and the President) should we find out.

ADDENDUM:

Here’s an example of the current mentality. Comments taken from an update on the Baldacchino shooting on the Times:

Comments

C Cassar(3 hours, 5 minutes ago)

A good example of money not buying happiness or quality of life.

DBorg(1 hour, 58 minutes ago)

Unemployed huh?

spread the word:

Comments

spread the word: