Tag: Richard Cachia Caruana

Categories
Politics

That last interview

If I did not have the habit of scrolling through the news on my phone while still in bed I would not have noticed that the Times was already half way through an interview with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando by 7.30 am (corrigendum – One TV was, the Times was reporting). If that is not a sign that time is running out on this man’s relevance to the local scenario then I do not know what is.

The only reason his words are being rushed to “online” print as he speaks (rather than being kept for some yawn-inducing suspense until Sunday) is that the level of interest into what JPO has to say will probably be close to zilch by the time a particular meeting is over tonight.

The dentist has not changed one iota from March 2008 when his antics and shenanigans were intended to outwit Alfred Sant’s Labour in a battle of “con the people”. He may have switched allegiance insofar as the inspirations of spin are concerned but the final outcome is (ever so wrapped in poetic justice) same, same but different.

There is a simple logical premiss to be made behind all this. IF JPO really believes whatever he says he is believing then the only step available to him right now is to take his estranged self outside the body politic that is the Nationalist party. He obviously knows as much as everybody else that the only reason that he was not expelled from the party last week was  a matter of convenience – the PN is waiting for him to step out or at worst to be the cause of the premature end of government.

The hemlock had been served but rather than swallow it JPO “fights” on, probably believing that he is some kind of Samson about to bring the whole edifice tumbling down. His is a dirty game. There are no two ways about it. It is a game where values and principles are so far off track that they could be mistaken for whores at a harem.

His final grand “j’accuse” (not that he is worthy of such words) is a mass of conjecture that is being propped up (or isn’t) by a mixture of Labourite wannabe smartarses whose relationship with the truth is one of selective convenience. Worse than that it is more often than not a lack of truth based on a series of implications, insinuations and winks that can only shame the messenger and not the accused. The constant media harangue against the persona of Richard Cachia Caruana ever since the Labour Wikileaks fiasco has only produced a series of unfounded “impressions” and another series of allegations that have been swiftly denied.

The worst part (for JPO) is that the whole business on the agenda now has nothing to do with crude politics. This is far from a party split based on ideological dissent. It is personal. Very personal. Neither does JPO mention, for one second, any issue of governmental mismanagement – you know, of the kind Labour harps so much about. The main crux of his allegation now is some kind of collusion between RCC and Labour in 1996.

JPO knows that his is a lost cause. Hence his preparing the ground with such phrases as “fighting a lost battle”. Funnier still were such excuses as “if I see X and Y at the door I will simply walk out”.

Walk out he should have. Ages ago. Frankly he should never have walked in. When others preferred to waste their spin on alternattiva demokratika candidates remonstrating at Mistra in 2008 they should have focused on the man in sunglasses sitting on the rubble wall or sporting a china tea cup. They might have avoided this raging bull entering their china shop.

Now it’s up to them to pick up the broken pieces. Meanwhile the signs are even clearer that we will not have to wait for a long time for elections to be announced after the summer recess ends.

The lesson for the intelligent voter (if one was still needed) is that voting is not simply a matter of putting a number next to a party endorsed individual. (If you don’t believe me ask Franco on his new blog). You have to really ask yourself – who is this guy/lass I am voting for. After all we now  have a confirmation that the PLPN cannot be trusted when it comes to party endorsements.

Categories
Politics Rubriques

I.M. Jack – Monday’s Highlights

Factitious parties and reconstruction

The nationalist party has as yet not imploded but we still hear of calls for its reconstruction. Back in May 2008 we were penning a little post about the Labour party and the dangers of Clique & Factions and we are today still witnessing the problems that our parties face when factions within them (even one-man-factions) decide to stir the proverbial faeces. Democratically speaking we are now witnessing the obvious corollary of all that J’accuse was warning about last election.

Voting for our political parties in this day and age involves making specific choices about the persons you are voting into parliament. When the political parties, operating under the blessing of an electoral system doctored in favour of the Diceyan bipartite mantra, fail to put into place the necessary safeguards to ensure that all candidates are party kosher (because they prefer votes to value) then it is only a matter of time before the merde hits the ventilateur.

We spoke of this in Wasted a bit more than a year ago. Then it was the manner that party representatives purported to represent the great unwashed in the divorce affair that jarred. Nowadays we have the Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando witch hunt. We can never tire of pointing out how right this blog was in 2008 to emphasise the blatant anomaly in the PN manner of doing politics. Backing anyone and anything to the hilt simply because it helps bring votes in the massive showdown of GonziPN vs Sant only gets you into government. Once you are in government you will have to face the consequences of getting “anyone” elected on your side.

We were told at the time that we were irresponsible idiots who never grew up and who were setting ourselves up as objects of hate simply because we advocated a position that people  vote for quality and content and not simply on the lines of party backing and pretty faces (though some would beg to differ on the latter count).

Great brains like Richard Cachia Caruana were busy transforming Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando into a vote grabbing machine – converting the unpalatable cosmetic dentist into a sugar-free sweetener who had become a “victim” of “nasty Alfred Sant”. The gullible ones swallowed it all – hook, line and sinker – and rushed to the ballot box to vote JPO #1 – thus shafting this unpleasant, inconsistent and hopelessly garishly naive politician upon us. Us of the wasted votes. We who had screamed and shouted irresponsibly for the PN to get its act together and to build a foundation of candidates centred around the basic values that had got it through a decade of reform.

Well. You reap what you sow I guess and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has been one hell of a harvest for the PN to handle. (picture: J’accuse Personality of the Year Award as depicted by Bertu in Bertoons). The reconstruction must perforce start from the realisation that some very very wrong choices were made.

sevenorlandos

 

Tennis worth watching

Watching Andy Murray collapse into tears after being defied at the last hurdle at SW19 by the greatest player tennis has seen must have been the most moving moment this weekend. Second best at Wimbledon earns you £560 k not to mention the added branding income that Murray will see flowing his way given his immediate boost in the “world recognition” stakes. Tennis stars earn more money off the pitch once they become a recognisable icon and yesterday’s match meant just that for the Scot from Dunblane. Roger Federer’s net worth, to give an alien example, is around $200 million but we are talking here about a man who has broken all sorts of records in the gentlemen’s sport.

Back to Murray – all this talk about money meant nothing to him yesterday afternoon. His name was not being engraved in the Olympus of Wimbledon greats and he has still not won a grand slam. Sure, he will not be having any cash flow problems for a while but that is beside the point. His is a battle to achieve, one that is ultimately not measured in pounds, shillings and pence but in victories and performance. Values that are fast being lost in today’s world – and not necessarily the sporting one.

Democracy’s value added

Libya has gone off and done the democratic thing – electing its own government and leaders. This may not be the time for the Western world to shout success: the real proof of a democracy lies not in the electing but in the democratic governance. Saturday night saw fireworks in the Libyan sky as the end of voting was celebrated. A 60% turnout seems to be the agreed figure and a liberal alliance is expected to trump the Islamist party this time round. Government will in all probability be by coalition given that over 100 parties were formed to contest these first open elections. Democracy battles to outwit any possibility of civil unrest that would favour the more unstable sides of society. Meanwhile Assad is holding on to power in Syria – claiming that he has the backing of the people.

Seems like yesterday when a bespectacled Colonel speaking to the BBC  yelled “The people… they love me all“.

 That uncanny conviction that ego-maniacs seem to have that everybody loves them. It seems to be so bloody contagious.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development

Ordinary Salaries & Extraordinary People

Labour’s latest rant about Richard Cachia Caruana and his salarial status within the government structures has provided the world with proof, if any was needed, that the PL still sits uncomfortably with its usurpation of parliamentary power for a very private lynching affair. Following a statement by the Labour communications office we read the following comment by the unnecessarily anonymous “Labour Party Spokesman” (best not be able to identify who is behind the latest excuse for politicking):

“Can the Prime Minister explain which civil servant takes a terminal benefit and transitional facility,” a Labour party spokesperson told MaltaToday. “This is proof that Cachia Caruana was not just any civil servant but is the equivalent of a minister. Labour is right when saying Cachia Caruana is accountable to the scrutiny of parliament, because he is not a civil servant like the others.”

The telling bit is the last sentence. Labour (or in any case its anonymous spokesperson) is painfully trying to square the circle of “accountability of civil servants”. The motion presented in parliament by Luciano Busuttil et al flew in the face of all parliamentary convention and practice. Labour would love to seem to be partisans of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and have gone to great lengths to sing to the tune of “strengthening democracy’s greatest institution”. When push comes to shove though, political expediency easily trumps parliamentary convention.

On the law

Our constitutional system is a hybrid one. We do not have the “historic” unwritten constitution in Diceyan terms and questions of supremacy are (currently) controversially divided between the written constitution and parliament. What we definitely have inherited from UK jurisprudence is the system of parliamentary conventions. In Dicey’s words:

“(A) set of rules (that) consists of conventions, understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of… officials, are not in reality laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts”. (The Law of the Constitution)

Among those conventions is that of “ministerial responsibility” that can be both “individual” or “collective”. The modern form of ministerial responsibility is based on two ports – (1) a minister’s political or administrative competence, (2) a minister’s personal morality. The original application of the competence rule held ministers answerable to Parliament for every action undertaken by their department’s civil servants. Ministers took credit for civil servants’ achievements and were expected to resign for any grave errors committed by their staff. The corollary to this is that individual civil servants would not face parliamentary scrutiny or public criticism for their own failures.

In time the expanding nature of government administration led to an adaptation of this conventional rule. The effect of this adaptation was not however that of bringing civil servants within the ambit of parliamentary scrutiny but rather the additional requirement of proof: that a Minister was aware of the or personally involved in a particular decision before being forced to resign.

On the person

In the Cachia Caruana case (can we call it parliamentary impeachment or would that risk opening another can of legal worms?) we clearly have a bypass of the convention of Ministerial responsibility. Parliament dragged a civil servant (ordinary or extraordinary is irrelevant) before it and proceeded to vote. Even if we set aside the fact that the actual accusation was never proved (the Wikileaks accusation did not, if you pardon the pun, hold water) and that the vote was carried merely in Sicilian vendetta style we are still left with an even more important consideration. The Labour party motion blatantly ignored all forms of parliamentary convention for the sake of political expediency.

We now have the baying hounds drawing attention to Richard Cachia Caruana’s remuneration. Forget the return of Maltese relativism for a moment. The issue is much more serious constitutionally speaking. The current trend among the Labour party is to highlight their dedication to the real constitution – the real parliament they say, not the multi-million building in Valletta. They have shot tirade upon tirade at the party in government for supposedly diminishing the role of parliament. When it came to turning the parliament into a vehicle of political expedience the very same Labour party had no qualms but to ride roughshod over any semblance of parliamentary convention. It did not even bother to pretend.

The afterthought has led to a sort of backtracking. It is now crucial for Labour to try to prove that RCC was a kind of Minister – not a civil servant. It is crucial because that way they think that they would save their face. What they are actually doing is providing further proof that their knee-jerk activity acting as a second-fiddle to Franco and JPO.

Then again what do you expect from a party that seems to be determined to introduce the very progressive system of government by facebook?

 

Categories
Politics

Toroq fil-baħar

Il-fekruna għażlet il-Ġnejna biex tħalli erba’ bajdiet fir-ramel qabel lebbtet lejn il-baħar frisk u nadif ta’ l-ewwel jiem tas-sajf. Ma naħsibx li jeżistu fuljetti informattivi li jitqassmu fost il-fawna Mediterranja li jgħarrfu lil klijenti prospettivi dwar l-aħjar post fejn titfa’ bajdtek u tħalli ‘l uliedek jittantaw xortihom. Is-sinjura Fekruna ma tistax tistħajjilha f’xi kont ta’ Lewis Carroll tikkonsulta l-brochures splendidi tal-Malta Tourist Association iħeġġu l-koppji fkieren żgħar jiġu bi ħġarrhom jrabbu familja (jew mill-inqas iħalluha tfaqqas) ġewwa l-gżira ta’Pawlu.

Għażlet il-gżira ta’ Franco u ta’ Richard minn jedda il-fekruna. Forsi kien att ta’ disperazzjoni – kif iktar tispjega fatt li kien ilu ma’ jseħħ mis-sittinijiet? Il-fkieren kienu donnhom ddikkjaraw bojkott tal-gżira meta raw n-nies jindifnu fil-miżbla. “Le xbin tlaqna lejn l-Ellespontu u l-gżejjer tagħha hawn m’hawnx ħlief oqbra imbajda u qniepen.” Għadda ż-żmien u l-fekruna donnha tittanta xortiha. Ilna minn żmien Rio ’92 ma nduqu soppa tal-fkieren. Issa illegali. Għaldaqshekk kolloxsew. M’hemmx ċans li t-tfal tagħha jispiċċaw f’xi bouillabaisse post-modern f’xi ristorant mibni fuq il-foreshore kifsuppost.

Kienet taf forsi bil-programmi estensivi ta’ Joseph? Saret taf li ħadd ma hu se jitħalla joqgħod lura f’Malta progressiva? Kienux is-sireni progressivi li saħħruha bil-kant ta’ Tagħlim, Taħriġ u Xogħol? Ifhem, l-Ellespontu kien ilu ma jbandal hekk minn żmien Xerxes. Għadhom sa’ llum jiddu f-widnejn il-fkieren il-ħoss tal-frosta inkazzata u rrabbjata tfaqqa’ fuq wiċċ il-baħar. Illum hemm problemi oħra. Flus ma hemmx. Futur ikreh. Aħjar immorru Malta fejn minkejja kull sforz tal-iżolani li jitfgħu il-knaten fuq saqajhom l-affarijiet jidhru mexjin sew.

Imma żgur sinjura fekruna? Tifhimnix ħażin. Wara kollox ħaqqek grazzi talli għażilt gżiritna biex tiżra t-tama u l-ħajja. Imma din mhux gżira ta’ ward u żahar. Ilna nitfgħu knaten fuq saqajna. Fil-parlament mhux talli ma kibrux fjuri imma issa intlejna kakti u tingiż. Mhux dik l-agħar sinjura, l-agħar x’ħin tara l-kilba għall-poter u d-dominju tal-assurd. L-assurd iqarrabna wisq mad-dinja ta’ Carroll u Vargas Llosa. Ħarġu l-iskieken, sinnewhom sew u d-demm iċċarċar fuq l-artal ta’ l-ugwaljanza.

Għax f’din il-gżira sinjura fekruna l-ilsna tal-bejjiegħa tal-ħolm jidilkuk bil-għasel tal-wegħda ta’ prosperita. Jgħannu l-għanja tal-ħelsien mill-jasar immaġinarju li għaġġnu f’moħħom biex bħal speċi jiġġustifikaw il-qagħda tagħom. Imma mill-kliem għall-fatti hemm baħar jaqsam. U x’baħar dak. Il-progress f’dan il-pajjiż ma jfissirx li tqiegħed lil kullħadd f’kundizzjoni li jtejjeb ruħu. Ma jfissirx meritokrazija. Il-progress għandu l-minġel f’idejħ u jekk int tajjeb iżżejjed, jekk b’ħilitek inqtajt mill-folla issibu jistennik – u b’daqqa waħda jaqtagħlek saqajk. Hekk… issa ġejt daqs ħaddieħor. U hekk kullħadd l-istess. Kullħadd kuntent. Progress achieved.

“Prosperity or egalitarianism — you have to choose. I favor freedom — you never achieve real equality anyway: you simply sacrifice prosperity for an illusion.” – Mario Vargas Llosa

Żgur sinjura fekruna li se tħalli ‘l uliedek hawn fostna? Iva ħallejna gwardjan magħhom lejl u nhar biex żgur ix-xorti xxaqleb favurihom. Bil-bouncer 24/7 fuq ramlet artna. Imma barra minn fuqhom li jikbru u jitgħallmu u jsiru intelliġenti. Barra minn fuqhom li b’ħilithom isibu xogħol imħallas tajjeb. Għax hemm isibuħ il-progress jistenna bil-minġel ileqq f’idu. Minġel ikreh li jixxejjer bid-dagħdiha tal-għira u l-inkapaċita tal-injurant. Jekk hemm bżonn nipprostitwixxu parlament sabiex nitkażaw jekk taqlax iktar mill-President . Hemm aħna sinjura fekruna… imbasta ħadnilek ħsiebhom sakemm nibtu… imma jżabbu jmorru aħjar minna.

Wara kollox x’iriduhom dal-flejjes kollha? Bil-flus tagħmel biss toroq fil-baħar, u x’iżżobb se nagħmlu bihom dat-toroq eh?

Aqdef ja bagħla aqdef.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Cabinet Decisions & RCC’s Head

The Labour party has finally found a way to get at Richard Cachia Caruana on something based on fact rather than on the irritation at an unelected person having a purported strong influence on cabinet decisions (pace Franco Debono). The accusation is based on Wikileaks that portray an active RCC (oh the heavy acronym) lobbying with the US for the reactivation of Malta’s Partnership for Peace membership. The buzzphrase on social networks this morning is : “Allura RCC ikbar mill-parlament?”

I’ve always found this fixation with RCC quite a curious one. The man obviously has much clout and his opinions seem (or seemed) to be highly valued within the inner decision making circles of government. That he might not be directly accountable for many a blunder might raise important questions about the structure of our elected elite. On the other hand there is a bit of an emptiness in the grudges that are held against the man. The business of government is one that does not only require elected politicians in their roles of PMs and ministers but also gets done with a caravan of policy advisors (at least we hope so) who come election day risk their position as much as the rest of the ministerial entourage. Feeble as it may be – it does give you an idea of a form of accountability.

Secondly, RCC might be counted among a list of a few intelligent persons upon whom the Gonzi cabinet depended for a long time as a sounding board as well as to prepare future policy objectives. Again the main caveat here is that I do not know the man from Adam except for the rumours within the halls of civil servicery that are not too kind on him insofar as temper and perfectionist tantrums are concerned. Be that as it may I still find the accusations of “unelected mandarin” rather feeble and populistic. After all what do you expect? Governments will lend an ear to whoever they believe are competent advisors – my only grudge here is that all too often it seems that this government depends on one channel of information without really viewing alternatives – but that is another story.

Back to the PfP issue. When the participation in the PfP program was finally reactivated in 2008 it was a cabinet decision. Not parliament mind you – cabinet. Whether the groundwork for this reactivation had been prepared by extra-cabinet members such as RCC is something one would hope for rather than condemn. Switch back to 1996 and consider Sant’s de-activation of PfP membership in the name of “neutrality”. Irrespectively of whether you agree or disagree with Sant’s interpretation of neutrality there is one point that sticks out on that day.

The seat at Castille had barely gotten used to the shape of Sant’s behind yet Sant via his cabinet took a decision to withdraw from the PfP. One could also safely assume (or, again, hope) that Sant was acting on the basis of advice from specialist persons within the field – unelected technocrats who participate in the work of government in order to facilitate its operation.

Is Sant greater than parliament? No. Neither is RCC. Nor is the cabinet. The fact remains that Malta’s original decision to take part in the PfP formed part of a wider EU participation program in an early nineties nationalist government. The withdrawal by Dr Sant was accepted as a legitimate cabinet decision by his government (based on an electoral programme promise) and the re-activation by the subsequent nationalist government was the result of another cabinet decision that itself was based on the fact that the nationalist party had never changed its policy on PfP membership (which is why I believe that it is correct in claiming that it did not need to include the re-activation in subsequent electoral programmes).

Whether RCC as part of the hidden machinery of government lobbied with governments and institutions or not is a probability that is now confirmed by the Wikileaks. We see no wrong in the fact that this occurred since the decision to activate, withdraw or re-activate lies purely within the power of cabinet and in this case RCC would be acting as the humble servant of the latter.

It’s either that or else we can safely say that both the Labour government 1998 and the Nationalist government 2008 acted as though they were above parliament. Which would not be such a great surprise but we’d rather stick to facts than speculation or misinformation.