Tag: propaganda

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development

Civil Society and its critics

A long read. This post takes a look at the actors and interests in the current debate on the rule of law in Malta. 

This afternoon the European Parliament will discuss a resolution on the Rule of Law in Malta. Point 5 of the Draft Resolution reads that “[The European Parliament] Regrets that developments in Malta in recent years have led serious concerns about the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights including freedom of the media and independence of the police and judiciary”.  Point F of the preamble in the same draft resolution notes that “whereas this assassination led to street demonstrations and civil society protests in Malta calling for justice, accountability and respect for the rule of law”.

Our second parliament (because that is what the EP is, OUR parliament not a foreign institution) is about to discuss the state of the Maltese nation with particular attention to the legal framework that holds it together. Today’s discussion is an important milestone in our nations’ constitutional development and Civil society has been instrumental to get this discussion high on the agenda at both a Maltese and European level.

In May last year the group calling itself “Advocates for the Rule of Law” took out their first full page advert on the Sunday Times. The ad read ” Situations Vacant : Police Commissioner,  Chairman FIAU, Attorney General – needed for the proper functioning of a democratic society #ruleoflaw_MT, #maltaconstitution, #bringitback”.

I will be in Strasbourg for the commemoration of the Daphne Caruana Galizia Press Hall this evening and will also follow the debate. It’s a two hour drive from Luxembourg and it is only right to be there for this moment.  It is because I live in Luxembourg that I rely on feedback from Malta for news “on the ground”. What are the streets saying while one of our highest institutions discusses a motion that practically describes a nation in constitutional crisis? The feedback I am getting is that the effort to “return to normal’ seems to be winning. Four weeks after the assassination that supposedly shook Malta to its foundations we risk seeing Italy’s elimination from the World Cup snatching the frivolous “news cycle” baton once and for all.

So what exactly is happening? How can we have a nation that (at least in appearance) is hell bent on returning to the “u ijja mhux xorta?” normal while at the same time an important part of its institutional set up is ringing alarm bells? To understand this we have to look at the actors in this drama. What part has Civil Society played in this development – and who, above all, are its critics and detractors?

Dramatis Personae

1. The European “Partners”

The dynamic of the European institutions is such that national and supra-national interests meet in a huge chamber where ideas are bounced around. A resolution by the European parliament is not binding in the strict sense of the term for example, however one would be a fool to dismiss it as “international diplomatic spiel” that is void of substance. In the first place the EP acts within clearly defined legal parameters and on the basis of principles that are universally accepted at a European level. That is why today’s resolution begins with the consideration that the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. In other words, action by the EP is grounded in principle and in law.

The major pitfall at an EU level is that the parliament resolution may be used to further competing national interests. In this particular case we may note that members from certain EU countries might use this moment of weakness in order to attack areas such as Fiscal policy and Gaming. It’s a cheap trick – one that aims to obtain what their respective countries failed to obtain during legitimate negotiations that led to Europe-wide legislation. In layman’s terms, the members of the EP who will be using this debate to put the blame on a competitive Fiscal or Gaming Policy will be deliberately obfuscating the actual matter at hand – something that was already seen in the PANA committee debates earlier on. In doing so they will provide much needed fodder to the defending government who will obviously claim that this is an assault on the country and its well-being (more about that later).

The rest of the EP – those not intent on winning brownie points for their own country’s gain – will be acting with the interest of the Union in mind. The interest that has already seen similar concerns for countries such as Poland and Hungary will now focus on Malta. It is in the interest of the citizens of Malta first and foremost, but also in the interest of the Union as a whole for the Union is only as good and great as its weakest link.

2. The Establishment in Power

By far the biggest actor with much to lose in this debate is the current custodian of government. The massive media machine has long been set in motion with a huge effort in counter-information that is supposed to negate the crisis and convince the people that all is back to normal. It is working. Only yesterday, the head of the establishment in power promised more wealth and more rights for the future. The greatest interest of power is its preservation and the key to preservation of such power is convincing the people that all is well and that the future is bright.

Millions of euros are being spent on this kind of propaganda. Every effort by civil society to call out the emperor’s nudity is countered by an army of official and unofficial counter-information. Last Sunday one of the comment articles in the Times was entitled “They doth protest too much” – it was a suavely written piece at the service of the current status quo. It was also a clear example of the direct attack on civil society based on the age old cliche’ of “divide and rule”. Doubts are sown, motivations are questioned and before you know it you are thinking: Maybe they do protest too much.

This evening government will amass its forces in order to propagate its counter-information against the “intrusion of the foreigner” – which is an old socialist trick that finds a ready acceptance among a voting populace with an insular mentality. The bottom line for today’s official Newspeak Newsletter will be: This is a traitor’s conspiracy to rally the foreigner against Malta. It will probably work.

3. The Government’s Courtesans

In the times of Le Roi Soleil being part of the King’s court meant everything. Unless you were in favour with the king your titles and nobility did not mean much. Over the years this government has built its own team of courtesans – lobby groups, interest groups, appointees, employees and other dependents – who owe the same government a regular show of fealty. Whenever trumpets need to be blown they are there: at the beck and call to do the governments’ bidding. The assault on the calls for change was boosted by the rallying of the courtesans.

Constitutional reform was brushed away as a ridiculous idea, calls for immediate change such as the resignation of a police commissioner and attorney general were once again given the “motive” treatment. Divide and rule. Assign dubious motivation. Then go for the jugular: civil society is asking for mob rule. The two-thirds majority is an absurd suggestion. Miss the wood for the trees. Nitpick their arguments into submission.

The courtesans are an important part of Muscat’s Gattopardian puzzle of maintaining the status quo. They are intent on getting a share of the illusion of wealth that is being created. As plans of neutering our center of thought unfold with a new law giving control of University to government, as our students celebrate the victory of partisanship over thinking, as our Chief Justice becomes a lone voice in an institutional desert, Muscat’s grip over the courtesans means that he can strangle a good part of civil society into submission. Without that part the dissenting voices of civil society become squeaks and squeals that cannot be heard above the Newspeak noise.

4. The Converted

Civil society in Malta had long lost a huge part of its number. The discerning, questioning, part of civil society – the one that legitimately and constantly demands and asks questions of its representatives and of the custodians of its sovereign institutions – has always been a very tiny minority. The rest of what used to be civil society have been groomed into partisan submission. The general narrative – that the nation is passing through one of its most prosperous and wealthy times ever – suits the large part of the converted perfectly. It includes of course those who have voted for and will continue to vote this government based on the promises of prosperity at all odds. It now includes a large part of those who could not bring themselves to vote this government but were also fascinated by the easily obtained prosperity – and could not bring themselves to question whether this was based on healthy foundations.

The converted have no colour. For a long time we wrongly assumed them to be two huge chunks of red or blue. There was a unifying factor of ego-litics – the politics of the self – that they held in common. The common good, the common wealth is not theirs to worry about. Their party, and through their party their aspirations for the self, is what counts most.

5. The Foot-soldiers of Old

The current constitutional crisis saw civil society (or what is left of it) attempt to reform and rally around the call for change. A weak link in this rallying call was the presence of foot-soldiers of old. These are failed politicians of the past: those who seeing the opportunity to revive a dying political career would jump on the bandwagon in one last Hail Mary attempt. There is nothing wrong in a second start mind you, however the dedication to the cause must be clear and the determination to stand by it at all costs must also be clear. If at every opportunity, the cause is hijacked in an attempt to whitewash faults of the past then the damage to civil society is clear.

Malta’s tribalistic politics is the kind of environment where a civil society that can easily be associated with the aims of one or another of our partisan elements is in danger – particularly in these times of heavy counter-information. This is not an appeal for purity, this is not a call for those who are without sin. This is a call for clear commitment.

6. The Cynics and the disparate movements

The biggest weapon available for rendering the civil society cause redundant is the descent into paranoid accusations between exponents and those who have genuine concerns regarding the finality of the cause. The critics and the cynics have their genuine concerns. The defence put up against such concerns does sometimes border on paranoia. What happens generally though is that the whole point of the need for a clear rallying point is missed.

The biggest fault to date of the current movement for change is its disparate nature. Civil Society Network remains an abstract label without a clear definition. Other efforts are working in their little corner built upon spontaneous action triggered by anger and helplessness. That much has been achieved until now is practically a miracle.

The real civil society – what is left once all the establishment, all the converted and all the courtesans and foot-soldiers are removed – still needs to rally clearly behind a definite long-term cause.The groundwork is already there: the rule of law and the return to a democratic society. What is required is a concerted effort bringing together all the elements of the real civil society who are prepared to take the struggle to the long haul.

Civil society has too many obstacles before it and cannot afford to be bogged down by incompetence and division.

The people united can never be defeated.

Categories
Campaign 2017

The truth when they lie

The fog of war is thick. The battle lines of this campaign were drawn around the question of truth. There is no doubt that whatever Joseph Muscat had in mind when calling this election it was not really the supposed prosperous golden age that the country is passing through but rather the long list of failures in the field of governance (check out this site) that were not going away anywhere soon. The dangers of institutional breakdown remains the main motivator for this campaign: on the one hand you have a collective force, a coalition of sorts, whose campaign is built around getting a corrupt clique out of power as soon as possible, on the other hand it has become evident that the sole aim of the campaign (of the election itself) is to build a huge smokescreen around the issue of governance.

So the government of redacted contracts, hidden deals, selling of public land, and of structures to hide income in shady jurisdictions came up with an idyllic utopia storyline: The Best Time (L-aqwa zmien). Muscat is supposed to be some kind of mixture between Midas and Pericles and all the commoners of this world will enjoy the trickle down effect of the fabled Muscatonomics. The propaganda machine is well oiled and we now have learnt that the PL knew it would call an early election much before the most recent Panama Paper allegations. The groundwork of newspeak had been prepared with the main two “facts” to be thrown as a foundation for L-Aqwa Zmien being (1) record unemployment, (2) budget surplus. A slick machine that is well honed to reap the short-term benefits of the austerity policy while hiding real figures and projections under a huge carpet the size of GWU headquarters served the purpose. The implication: Par idejn Sodi? Look no further than Muscat.

This is one giant Potemkin village fashioned out of bubbles and risky deals in order to impress. Above all it is fashioned in order to distract. This blog had sussed out Muscat’s modus operandi from the beginning. He is a master in prestidigitation – using one hand to wrought a brilliant illusion while the other is busy at work behind everyone’s back. This election campaign is all about that. The whole front is a distraction from the truth. The truth is what he wants you to look away from. The truth is what his campaign will attack with vigour in order to attempt to prevent it coming out. Potemkine villages existed for Soviet Russia. They could work because in Soviet Russia the means of communication were under strict control.

This is not Soviet Malta. Yet. The danger signs are clear though. Only this morning we read that Jacob Borg of the Times has been summoned to court over a report regarding Pilatus Bank. Matthew Caruana Galizia of ICIJ fame was blocked from Facebook after being reported to the Zuckerberg company for having published documents related to the Panama Papers saga. The government that championed whistleblowers came down on the latest whistleblower that hit the headlines like a ton of bricks. I could go on but you get the idea.

The battle over the truth is getting vicious. It will bring out the worst of the worst and the irony of it all is that once this election is over we will only just have begun. The necessary reforms that must be put in place will require hard work and coordination as well as commitment. We are really risking the fine line between a modern liberal democracy and a third world country best described by the great Hitchens (in Love Poverty and War).

“Sooner or later, all talk among foreigners in Pyongyang turns to one imponderable subject. Do the locals really believe what they are told, and do they truly revere Fat Man and Little Boy? I have been a visiting writer in several authoritarian and totalitarian states, and usually the question answers itself. Someone in a café makes an offhand remark. A piece of ironic graffiti is scrawled in the men’s room. Some group at the university issues some improvised leaflet. The glacier begins to melt; a joke makes the rounds and the apparently immovable regime suddenly looks vulnerable and absurd. But it’s almost impossible to convey the extent to which North Korea just isn’t like that. South Koreans who met with long-lost family members after the June rapprochement were thunderstruck at the way their shabby and thin northern relatives extolled Fat Man and Little Boy. Of course, they had been handpicked, but they stuck to their line.

There’s a possible reason for the existence of this level of denial, which is backed up by an indescribable degree of surveillance and indoctrination. A North Korean citizen who decided that it was all a lie and a waste would have to face the fact that his life had been a lie and a waste also. The scenes of hysterical grief when Fat Man died were not all feigned; there might be a collective nervous breakdown if it was suddenly announced that the Great Leader had been a verbose and arrogant fraud. Picture, if you will, the abrupt deprogramming of more than 20 million Moonies or Jonestowners, who are suddenly informed that it was all a cruel joke and there’s no longer anybody to tell them what to do. There wouldn’t be enough Kool-Aid to go round. I often wondered how my guides kept straight faces.

The streetlights are turned out all over Pyongyang—which is the most favored city in the country—every night. And the most prominent building on the skyline, in a town committed to hysterical architectural excess, is the Ryugyong Hotel. It’s 105 floors high, and from a distance looks like a grotesquely enlarged version of the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco (or like a vast and cumbersome missile on a launchpad). The crane at its summit hasn’t moved in years; it’s a grandiose and incomplete ruin in the making. ‘Under construction,’ say the guides without a trace of irony. I suppose they just keep two sets of mental books and live with the contradiction for now.”

And now the PN

In the middle of all this there is a campaign that is still unfolding. I would add a little note on the PN and its reactions to some of the campaign issues. The imperative nature of voting this government out has overshadowed any criticism that might be directed to the outfit in opposition. Still, a few words of advice are not out of place and I will dare put a few here for the perusal of whoever might be interested in taking note:

1. On the issue of the www.simonbusuttil.com spoof site. Huge overreaction from the PN. There is nothing wrong with a spoof. Even during election time. The whole point of a spoof is to mock, satirise someone or something. If anything the reaction should be on a political level – more of a criticism – that the Labour Party has officially had to rely on spoof for its campaign rather than leave it to the satirists. Unfortunately satirists have had the wind taken from their sails since the achievements of this government (and I’m talking low levels) are beyond their ken. This government – from Panama to Velbert to Australia Hall satirises itself. Bottom line. The PN should get a grip and not make a big deal about this website. PL on the other hand is resorting to hopeless and desperate tactics in one big campaign whose only reason is to distort or hide the truth. The best repky by the PN would have been “sure it’s amusing, your little satire. We did not even need to create a spoof site… just go over to www.gov.mt … nothing shouts spoof more than our current cabinet and government”. Nuff said.

2. On the Broadcasting Authority. This is one of the authorities in our nation that has been completely neutralised by constant PLPN manipulation over the decades since 1964. Much fuss has been made over the decision to get David Thake and Norman Vella off air since they are candidates in an election and they should not have excessive airtime. Let’s face it the decision is ridiculous. Especially in this day and age when any candidate could simply open an online radio/podcast and transmit it. Why not prevent candidates from having blogs then? In any case though the PN here are only “victims” of their own underhand games that they were more than willing to play over the years. Besides, I am not sure whether silencing Thake and Vella is really a bad thing – in their case the Japanese proverb that the silent man is the best man to listen to really applies. Anyway, how many pensioners criticising the PN billboards could Thake really muster before going mad. Speaking of the Broadcasting Authority I have not seen any Forza Nazzjonali exponent lamenting the decision to leave out Alternattiva Demokratika from the debates, then again, hell has not frozen over yet.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

The truth, if he lies

turhtjospeh_akkuza

La vérité, si je mens (The truth if I lie). We’ve carried that movie motto on this blog as from the start back in 2005.  I was reminded of this motto when I read Dr Muscat’s interview on the Times today. It’s the truth, if I lie – it’s a nonsensical phrase actually that can be substituted by “I promise” or as we were used to hearing on the streets of Malta when we were young “Promise to Jesus”. Whatever your choice of phrase is, Muscat’s assertion really needed this kind of appendage at the end. Here’s what he was reported to have said:

“As for the dwindling number of arrivals to Malta, Dr Muscat denied suggestions made by his predecessor, Lawrence Gonzi, that this was the result of some form of agreement with Italy, insisting this was only due to better collaboration with the neighbouring country.”

We can safely assume that Muscat was already squirming uncomfortably at this point since he had already had to pull out an enormous amount of somersault arguments to deal with the Michael Falzon hot potato. I’m sure in the back of his mind he was blaming the failure of Saviour Balzan and his name dropping stunt to distract attention from the myriad scandals that the Labour government is brooding upon.

But back to his statement. Muscat gave us a clear example of his Magritte Policy – the “what you see is not what you get” statement. In the very same sentence he tells us that there is no form of agreement with Italy but that ther is better collaboration with the neighbouring country. Come again? In what universe of CHOGM flop organising and nation paralysing nincompoops with a degree in management and economics is an agreement not a form of collaboration?

We are not talking about two friends meeting in a pjazza and deciding who will pay for the pastizzi and coffee at is-Serkin. Nor is this a “gentlemen’s agreement” to rent a flat that will only be put to paper should circumstances require and should pressure be too much. No. These are two sovereign nations dealing with each other at diplomatic level and reaching agreements that has repercussions on the operation of their administrative and military forces. Orders will be given as a result. Priorities will be set in an IF/THEN format such as: If migrants are rescued at sea THEN do not take them to Malta BUT proceed to ITALY no matter where they are found.

That sort of thing requires formulation, confirmation and agreement in the form of positive action usually in the form of signatories scribbling their names on very formal paper. More importantly, an agreement normally involves obligations on both sides. Now we can all see for ourselves that Italy is taking on the bulk of migrants (erm ALL recently found migrants) – Muscat himself has never denied this and we have questions being asked in Italy and the EP about it too. So we know what Italy’s side of the obligation consists of. What then is Malta giving back?

Muscat wants you and the kool-aid drinkers to believe strongly that this is the result of “better collaboration with the neighbouring country“. If this vague meaningless phrase can be put quickly in succession after a denial of anything the dastardly Gonzi said then it will add muchly to its level of credibility. What Muscat does not and will not answer is what Italy are getting in return.

Maybe Dr Gonzi is right, maybe he is wrong. That is not the point. The point is that Muscat will only say the truth if he lies. He will not tell you what he promised Renzi and Italy because, as we know by now, he is above accountability.

And for the next two weeks he will be more than that. He will be busy having tea with what he sees as the selfie-imposing VIP while you are confined to your house and (if you are a businessman) losing money due to the national paralyis that is needed by the party that couldn’t be trusted to organise a piss-up in a brewery.

The truth, if I lie.

 

Categories
Politics

Labour’s Bullshit Factory

bullshit_akkuzaThere’s no two ways about it. The only quirk in the Grand Theory of Labour’s Bullshit Factory is that Muscat seems to be resiliently surviving in the popularity stakes. The people still hang on to whatever fairy dust he can throw at them – and from the looks of it there is not much left. Labour supposedly had a well-oiled machine in the run up to the election. I say supposedly since no matter how many plaudits can be wasted on their “achievement” it still boils down to a PR stunt so big that one can only blame the gullible for having fallen for it hook, line and sinker. It did rely muchly on the idea that twenty-five years of nationalist government had given rise to much corruption and fit in nicely with the average Maltese voters penchant for martyrdom and self-pity that puts the Secret Policeman’s Ball to shame.

Two years into Labour government and when the words and charades fell apart we have a government that is mired in its own bullshit. We may have a 58c COLA increase but there are innumerable cheques that cannot be cashed (and I am not talking about the salaries given to the friends and friends of friends of taghnalkoll meritocracy dudes but about promises unfulfilled): Take Minister Joe Mizzi and his latest revelation that the public transport subsidy will have to rise to 23 million euros. It makes Manuel Delia’s fiasco suddenly look like a Nobel Prize Achievement. Not just that. This particular purveyor of champagne socialist bull has the gall to refuse to explain what effect this will have on the tariffs for the normal gentry who rely on such transport. Those who don’t (rely on such transport) have just been told that many of the roads they patronise (as in patrons) daily will be shut for works – presumably to be inaugurated in a couple of years’ time by a beaming Minister.

So Arriva was not THAT bad after all was it? Bar a few questionable choices regarding the use of bendy buses it seemed to work quite well. Turns out that Labour’s only interest was finding something else to urge the people to feel uncomfortable about – then they would mumble something about 51 proposals from another planet and everyone would think all would be hunky dory under Joseph. J’accuse never fell for that sales pitch (see That Bohemian Planet 51) because anybody with a head on their shoulders and a brain between their ears could smell the Labour party’s particular brand of bull a mile away.

Now what do we have? We have ministers toying with public safety, others playing around with our code of laws as though it were a restaurant menu that needs bringing up to date, we have obscure dealings with not so democratic and open nations, we have a refusal to be accountable in parliament, we have a mess of an energy program complete with a faffing minister who does all he can to divert attention, we have a transport fiasco about to blow up again and we have a never ending system of nepotistic and taghnalkoll appointments that is about as barefaced a raspberry to the all that bullshit about meritocracy and transparency.

Now do you see how ironic the Dr BS moniker actually is?

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Institutes of Confusion

confucius_akkuzaChina Today. It’s all about China isn’t it? The latest very superficial Memorandum of Understanding to be signed with what Saviour Balzan in his infinite wisdom terms a “former communist giant” was the subject of discussion in parliament tonight. The opposition raised some valid questions about a number of matters mentioned in the Memorandum – o as the case may be, about a number of matters not mentioned in the memorandum. One matter that both parties seem to be warm about is the benefits of cultural exchange with the global behemoth – in particular the setting up of the Confucius Institutes. Many seem to labour under the impression that this kind of centre of cultural enlightment has the same value as, say, the Alliance Francaise or the Istituto Culturale Italiano. Only it doesn’t does it?

Confucius Institutes have been set up the world over by China in an effort, true, to spread its cultural enlightenment to the world. These institutes though are not totally bereft of controversy and this mainly because of the very nature of their backer. Alas Chinese culture includes a dark void in such subjects as democracy and human rights. Don’t expect the institutes to be a shining example or learning center where these subjects are concerned. Last year a number of Canadian Universities were up in arms and sought to eliminate all ties to their Confucius Institutes precisely because of behaviour that was not fitting for liberal democracies:

Here’s The Times’ educational supplement (no not the Times that accepted the trip to be part of the Potemkin group selected by Muscat – the real Times):

The most recent controversy over the Confucius Institutes has flared up in Canada, where one university is shutting down the programme on its campus because of a human rights complaint and two more have declined to serve as hosts.

McMaster University in Hamilton, near Toronto, will close its Confucius Institute when the current term ends this summer, citing the institute’s requirement that its instructors have no affiliation to organisations that the Chinese government has banned, including the spiritual movement Falun Gong.

In the past few years, too, the University of Manitoba and the University of British Columbia have turned down proposals for Confucius Institutes to open on their campuses.

The Confucius Institutes are under the control of Hanban, a branch of China’s Ministry of Education. They supply money, teachers and Chinese- language instruction to universities.

The network has grown from one campus in Seoul in 2004 to more than 400 today, including 11 in Canada, 70 in the US and 11 in the UK. According to reports in the Chinese media on 11 March, the head of the Confucius Institutes, Xu Lin, has said the institute plans to expand to 500 branches worldwide by 2020. (Link)

There’s more in this article in the New York Times also highlighting all the strings that are attached to setting up a China funded institute within a Western University. In the article the difference between Confucius Institutes and the Alliance Francaise is stressed:

The British Council currently operates in more than 100 countries; the Alliance Française and the Goethe Institute, in Germany, all run on similar lines. And though the United States Information Agency library program has wound down considerably with the end of the Cold War, the State Department still makes an effort to promote American culture overseas.

However, none of these programs are based on university campuses. And according to Mr. Davidson, none adopt the same homogenous approach to their native cultures found in Confucius Institutes. “No one would regard Zadie Smith or Grayson Perry as someone controlled by the British Council,” he said.

“The Chinese are very clear on what they are trying to achieve,” said Mr. Davidson. “They want to change the perception of China — to combat negative propaganda with positive propaganda. And they use the word ‘propaganda’ in Chinese. But I doubt they have to say, ‘We’ll only give you this money if you never criticize China.’ The danger is more of self-censorship — which is a very subtle thing,” Mr. Davidson said.

Wikipedia, the site censored in the People’s Republic, has an article dedicated solely to Criticism of Confucius Institutes – such is the extent of controversy surrounding these units of Chinese propaganda abroad.  Academics find the idea of the institutes abhorrent because they symbolise the stifling of academic freedom – and they insist on being intrinsically linked to university campuses. Their use as a tool of propaganda while censoring controversial parts of the Chinese story (the three T’s are blacked out: Tiananmen, Tibet and Taiwan) makes them stick out like ugly warts within the Western concept of liberal seats of learning that is supposed to underlie the very basis of academic development.

On March 28, 2012, the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on “The Price of Public Diplomacy with China,” focusing upon Chinese propaganda efforts in the U.S., including Confucius Institutes on university campuses. Representative Dana Rohrabacher said, “The two pillars of America’s status as an open society are freedom of the press and academic freedom. Communist China, which does not believe in or allow the practice of either type of freedom, is exploiting the opportunities offered by America to penetrate both private media and public education to spread its state propaganda.”Steven W. Mosher testified, “there have been allegations of Confucius Institutes undermining academic freedom at host universities, engaging in industrial and military espionage, monitoring the activities of Chinese students abroad, and attempting to advance the Chinese Party-State’s political agenda on such issues as the Dalai Lama and Tibet, Taiwan independence, the pro-democracy movement abroad, and dissent within China itself.”Responding to Mosher’s testimony, Rohrabacher argued, “It appears as though Beijing is able to expand its campaign against academic freedom from China to America when U.S. universities value Chinese favors and money more than truth and integrity.

That’s it really. It’s not just the US universities. Dealing with China means that sacrifices have to be made and reaching ugly value conclusions. Dealing with China brings in Chinese favors and money but the ultimate result is that what suffers are truth and integrity.

The object of the superior man is the truth. – Confucius

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Abre los Ojos

Labour (Inhobbkom’s Labour not Ed’s New New One) is busy conferencing this weekend. They’re huddled cosily in the university’s Aula Magna for a full day of talks in a conference entitled “Revisting Labour’s History” and I still cannot get over the fact that I was unable to make it there. Yes, you read that right, I would have loved to witness at first hand this conference of sorts that is part of the wider Labour strategy of “Re-”s. They’re re-visiting their history, re-inventing their logo, re-gurgitating old economic principles, re-moving their facial hair and (once again) re-cycling an image that has been a work in progress since is-Salvatur ta’ Malta went into re-tirement (never a minute too late).

There’s something manifestly wrong in the way Labour went about this whole “re-” business though, and this weekend’s conference contains some clear pointers to what that could be. Someone, somewhere is guilty of a gross miscalculation when choosing the title first of all: “Revisiting Labour’s History”. It’s the political equivalent of a Freudian slip combined with all the evident trappings of a modern day “Pimp my Party” in the making. The term “revisit” is a few letters away from becoming “revise” and I have a hunch that this is not a small coincidence.

In legal terms, when a court revisits an earlier decision it normally does so because of the necessity of reinterpreting the earlier position – there would be not other reason to revisit and reopen the case. In historical terms there is another “re-” word that is of relevance here. It’s the idea of revisionism. Revisionism need not always be extreme as in holocaust denial. Reading through the agenda of this weekend’s conference, I couldn’t help but think that Labour is sorely tempted to rewrite some chapters of history of its own. They’ve been at it for a while now and we have all become used to the polyphonic history of our islands – whether it is sung by Mary Spiteri to the tunes of Gensna or whether it is yelled from the pedestals of il-Fosos by the latest crowd-stirring nationalist orator – the messages are always excitingly dissonant and cacophonous: the result of two virtual realities and perceptions colliding.

Rapid eye movement

The political audience is already, as it is, doomed to the regular resurrection of revisited myths and legends in our political discourse. The narratives woven by opposing parties are now firmly ingrained in our collective minds and it is hard to reasonably detach from them completely. It is extremely significant that, bang in the middle of the process of change and reinvention, Labour chose to “revisit” its history and discuss, among other things: “The Worker Student Scheme: 1978-1987”. As I type (11.30am, Saturday, 2 October), Peter Mayo is about to launch into an explanation of how Great Leader Mintoff (May God Give Him Long Life and Order a Hail of Stones on All His Evil Wishers) sowed the seeds of the stipend system and how we must be eternally grateful for his insights that allowed us to progress to a university accepting 3,000+ freshers this year.

The irony will be lost on the listeners sitting in that cosy hall of the Aula Magna on the 2nd of October 2010 that 33 years and one day before this the atmosphere in that very same place would best have been described as tensely electric. I wonder whether Peter Mayo will stop for a moment to explain to the young listeners (I’d imagine a Nikita Alamango fawning in the audience – one who according to her latest Times “blog” post cannot stand the PN reminders of the past) that on the 3rd October 1977 the opening ceremony at university featured heavy protests by the medical students who had just been shut out of the course (and always risked brutal cancellation if the thugs decided that it was open day at Tal-Qroqq).

Sure, it was not yet 1978 so it might (just) be beyond Peter Mayo’s remit. He will be forgiven therefore for not reminding those present that only two days later, on 5 October 1977, the man dubbed as is-Salvatur tal-Maltin would walk past a group of students chained to the railings in Castille oblivious to the fact that his government’s decisions in the educational sector (the much lauded Worker Student Scheme) were about to deny thousands of young people the path to tertiary education and send them abroad in droves.

Remember, remember the 5th of October

To be fair to Peter Mayo he probably couldn’t dare criticise the workings of the Great Leader. Not after a wonderful morning discussing his battles with the church in the sixties and his “electrifying” speeches to the proletariat. The electric effect Mintoff and his handymen had on some parts of the population would best be described as “shocking” actually. Whatever you may think of Labour’s dim-witted purposive ignorance of the past and bulldozering of historic relevance, don’t you for one moment run away with the idea that it is only the party of Joseph, Evarist (Bartolo – of removed stipends fame) and Alfred (Sant – of interview boards at university) who is in the business of revising historical facts.

You see, I sympathise with such Young Turks as Nikita Alamango who are frustrated at having to carry the burden of Labour’s past every time they squeak a new idea or criticise the current regime (sorry – did I say regime? – it’s the “Re” word fixation). Hell, this week even the German Republic paid the final instalment in World War I Reparations (started paying in 1919 and was suspended as long as Germany was split). Ninety-two years on and the German conscience is slightly freer – so why not Labour? Most times they are right. PN lackeys all too often emerge from the primordial slew of infertile political ground and rely on historical mudslinging for want of a better argument.

The problem I have with Labour is twofold – disputing the relevance of past actions is one thing. Revising (sorry, revisiting) them is another. Revisiting them on the anniversary of events that marked the watershed of Old Labour’s hopeless politics of the late 70s is insulting – insulting not just to the PN hardliners but also to neutral observers like myself who can see through the charade. Labour cannot expect this to go unnoticed. It is strategically stupid and politically insensitive. It does not stop at conferences: Recently, someone from Labour’s “think-tank” (IDEAT) was busy on Facebook quoting a party press release which stated that the current government’s agreements with China are a confirmation of the Labour vision of the seventies. Sit down and weep.

Virtually real

Mine is not simply an angry case of indignation though. Labour’s Revisionist Conference is part of a wider mentality that is the inner workings and thinking of the two major parties in this country. In this day and age of multimedia and mass communication, the modes of communication might be evolving at such a rapid pace that we will soon be tweeting in our sleep, but there is one basic constant whether it’s TV, radio, newspaper or Internet and that constant is the word. In principio stat verbum (in the beginning was the word) and it’s going to be with us for a long time yet.

Words and their meaning are at the basis of whatever construction of reality we choose to live in. Einstein once stated that reality is an illusion but a very good illusion at that. The PLPN (un)wittingly engage in a constant battleground of establishing the reality in which we live (and that is why they NEED the media influence). Whether we are considering the “cost of living”, the “minimum wage” or the “living wage”, we sometimes fail to notice that a large number of constants that we take for granted in these arguments are the fruit of elaborate definitions of perception suited to whatever party is making its claim. We are not that dopey really – there is a general acceptance that “parties colour the world as best they see it”, and although as a nation we struggle to come to terms with irony and sarcasm we still manage to joke about the PL-PN chiaroscuro worlds.

I am not sure however about how much the electorate is in control of the button that switches us between perception and reality. How capable are we of switching off the virtual reality and putting our foot down when we believe that things have been taken too far? Can we decide when we want to open our eyes? Are we, like the character in Almodovar’s Abre Los Ojos (open your eyes – spoiler warning) still able to opt out of the programme that creates a “lucid and lifelike virtual reality of dreams” and yell that enough is enough? Worse still – have the very parties that are responsible for the manufactured realities that we inhabit become so embroiled and enmeshed in them that they are unable to find the switch themselves?

Denial

Take the Nationalist Party. They are an incredible subject for this sort of test. This week they engaged in a mind-boggling collective exercise of denial of truths. We had Minister Tonio Fenech and his cataclysmic Tax-Free Maid slip. Watching The Times interview that gave Tonio a chance to right his previous wrongs was like watching an exercise in verbal prestidigitation featuring a ministerial equivalent of the Mad Hatter. Quizzed on VAT he replied on Stamp Duty and vice-versa, and then went on a trip about not having to answer about private affairs that he himself had brought up as a public example. You could only squirm in your seat as you watched Tonio attempt to make his statements vanish into thin air. Apologists tried other tactics – the cream of the crop coming from the Runs claiming that since the law is inadequate then Tonio and his maid are right in not following it to the letter. Perception? Forget the doors… they’ve swallowed the key.

Meanwhile El Supremo del Govermento was busy wearing the party hat, having been asked to pass summary judgement on the PBO-VAT saga. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi found absolutely nothing incongruous with the fact that his very exacting sec-gen failed to apply his own standards of political propriety when faced with a legal crisis of his own. Same same but different – just like in the alleyways in Thailand when they sell fake brands. Fake – it’s just an illusion of reality but not exactly so.

As if PBO and Tonio were not enough, we also had the DimechGate spin-off in the form of the uncomfortable presence of Robert Arrigo – the last of the disgruntled backbenchers. PN councillor Yves Cali was the latest to slip in a frank interview with The Times in which he more than just alleged that Arrigo was in the business of throwing his weight around the council to get what he wants. Yves (or Bobby) tried to retract his statement so an irritated Times published a transcript of the interview in which the allegations were made. A transcript – that’s a word for word proof that the statements were made. Quizzed about this, Paul Borg Olivier (fresh from his own reality check) came up with the quote of the week by insisting that the transcript published by The Times was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Yves Cali”.

Open your eyes

bert4j_101003

Take your time and read that short, Orwellian PBO phrase. If ever there was an example of the convoluted logic somersaults performed by parties to twist your perception of reality, here it was.

The transcript (a text bearing witness to reality at its crudest) was not faithful to the statement of clarification (an attempt at revising/reinterpreting that reality). And which reality does PBO want you to believe? No prizes for guessing.

We need to open your eyes. This is a political generation that one week expresses its love for the environment on car free day while parading in front of journalists using alternative modes of transportation and then, in the following week, the collective parliamentary group (PLPN) self-allocates a huge chunk of (previously pedestrian) Merchants Street for reserved MP parking in connivance with the Valletta Local Council (remember Cali? “We serve our MPs and Labour serve theirs”). The excuse? It will free up more parking for residents and visitors. Park and Ride anyone?

It’s time we opened our eyes – and remember, sometimes actions speak louder than words.

www.akkuza.com would like to congratulate Toni Sant (and friends) for the www.m3p.com.mt project. Happy Student’s Day to you all!

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta