Tag: Simon Busuttil

Categories
Constitutional Development Mediawatch

The Blame Game & Simon

blame_akkuzaOpposition leader Busuttil was lambasted from some quarters for having dared suggest that the whole Enemalta procurement scandal was actually abused of as electoral fodder by Muscat and his men. What Busuttil suggested was really not too hard to understand – if the information was available long before the election loomed ominously, why was it withheld until a time when it would pay Labour in opposition as an extra baton to imply government corruption?

Busuttil was not implying that the information should have been kept quiet until after the election (who would think such a thing anyway?) but rather that it should have surfaced when it was discovered and not much later. While the PAC continues on its fishing expedition trying to pin the whole scandal onto Lawrence Gonzi Busuttil’s kind of assertion will fall on deaf ears or attract the playground type of response that the Labour machine has been honed to give.

The HSBC Swissleaks now adds to the intrigue of the Farrugia Brothers discoveries in that it provides an easier target with the cliches straight out of conspiracy theory books – which is not to say that there is nothing underhand going on in the world of procurement, government permits and the like. The problem lies elsewhere. In Malta there is no such thing as investigation beyond politically motivated with-hunts. The politically motivated is also limited in its extent since oftentimes the investigators have a huge interest in making sure that they do not in turn become investigated.

We just have to look at what happened in Italy in the early nineties to understand what I am getting at. Our political parties have developed a system of self-preservation that became ever more evident during the last election. Rules and laws of the overall system have gradually been adapted to ensure the survival of the two political parties – not just politically but also financially. Hidden behind these rules is a system of favoritisms and expectations that link the political aspect to the economy in general on the one hand (from employment to contracts to tenders to permits) and to the social on the other (medical rights, entertainment “elites” and circles).

It would not just be limited to the parties. Institutional flaws would also surface – authorities controlling pieces of the market suddenly hold strong cards for bargaining: which is where I suspect the whole Enemalta picture fits in. From the most expensive multi-million euro tender to the smallest warden with fine giving powers there is an alternate currency of favoritism and favour. Of course if you are the party in government you and your men have a stronger bargaining power. Everybody gets their unjust desserts.

Mani pulite in Italy uncovered a clear system where bungs were paid to the pentapartito (five main parties from DC to PC) whenever anybody anywhere wanted to merely conduct business. No bung (tangente), no party (tender). Does this happen in Malta? The evidence seems to be pointing to it having happened on a regular basis – not necessarily with the blessing of politicians – and that it can still be occurring to this day.

Labour seems hell-bent on institutionalizing the system further. There is no longer a need to hide the “debts” owed to supporting lobbies. It is translated immediately to enabling laws or worse still – as the forthcoming threat of an amnesty for all MEPA violations shows – an actual conspiracy to render the illegal legal. Illegal constructions will enjoy a bonifico of huge proportions and consequences – all so as to appease the debts that got Labour into power. The network between social and business interests intertwining with government is becoming more and more dangerous. We do not have a pool of inquiring magistrates as the Italians did and in some way we can consider that a blessing of sorts given how some people here tend to interpret the laws.

Simon Busuttil was right though in turning up the heat on Muscat. The whole Enemalta investigation is misguided if it turns into a fishing expedition on Lawrence Gonzi. If, rather than speculating in the style of our tabloids, proper questions were asked as to how our whole system is beginning to stink of favoritism, cronyism and party-instigated corruption then, maybe, we could be getting somewhere.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The ghosts of politics past

ghosts_akkuzaThe French news world was rocked this morning with the news that former President Nicolas Sarkozy was placed under “garde a vue” pending investigations into possible “trading in influence” that he might have engaged in during his presidency. Those more familiar with Italian political jargon would call a garde a vue an avviso di garanzia (indictment). What it means is that the person receiving the order is deprived of his freedom pending investigation by a judiciary authority.

European politicians (at least European politicans) would do well to look closely at the events leading to this state of affairs. Investigations had originally concentrated on Sarkozy’s 2007 electoral campaign – yes, the original Flimkien kollox possibbli or as the French would have it Ensemble tout est possible.  Sarkozy and his electoral team were suspected to have received funding from – of all people – Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi in return for future favours and considerations from and for Libya’s government. While listening in into conversations related to this investigation, the investigators noticed that Sarkozy kept a secret phone registered under a false name.

It later transpired that this second phone was being used to “trade influence” with judicial authorities in order to favour Sarkozy’s situation in another hot affair – known in France as the Bettencourt Affair (another case of trading in influence and corruption). Sarkozy would allegedly use his network to get important information about investigations into the Bettencourt Affair – particularly any information that would draw him into the case. This network involved high-end magistrates and police officers, or as Le Monde puts it: “ les enquêteurs pensent avoir mis au jour un « réseau » d’informateurs, au sein de la police et de la justice, susceptible de renseigner les proches de l’ancien président de la République dans les procédures judiciaires pouvant le menacer.” (the investigators have uncovered a network of informers at the heart of the police and the justice system that might have informed persons close to the former president with regards to judicial procedures that could be threatening to him). 

Quite a network there. From electoral funds and favours linking Sarkozy to a dictatorial regime to meddling in the judicial and police system in order to protect ones own interests. This is a strong warning signal to politicians – given a functioning system of checks and balances there will always come a time when past mistakes and abuses will come back to haunt you. Such events also highlight the importance of the rule of law and of institutions of review that allow for independent monitoring of the political elite.

Simon Busuttil at the helm of the PN’s storm tossed ship is surely aware of the dangers of the errors of the past committed by others coming back to haunt him. It makes his task of changing the direction of the ship and shedding that image all the more difficult. Sadly the people’s habit of thinking in terms of guilt by association – so often milked by past PN administrations and its sympathisers will not help this particular ghost vanish too quickly.

Joseph Muscat on the other hand is currently running the show of government without making too much of an effort to hide not so tenuous links with authoritarian governments. His main political moves during the first year of his legislature were obviously dictated by and dependent upon agreements with such governments or their people; three obvious cases spring to mind: (1) the Chinese influence on the power station; (2) the huge question marks hanging around the process of attribution of Malta’s passport scheme and those who would ultimately benefit from it; (3) the hopelessly short-sighted dealings with transient Libyan governments over the provision of petrol (and subsequent use of Maltese resources to provide “security” to unknown persons).

Add to all that the bumbling interventions in the army, the sorry state of affairs of the police, the current spats with the Ombudsman, the hideous conniving to postpone a judge’s impeachment – and you begin to see a ghost in the making for Muscat’s band of politicians.

En garde à vous!

Categories
Politics

They think it’s all over, it is now

match of the dayWhat better way than an historic footballing phrase to end this round of MEP elections that was characterised by a peppering of footballing jargon. I was told that I was still very pedantic in my posts (thanks markbiwwa) so I shall give you the bullet point view. Better still let’s do it pagelle style sticking to the footballing metaphor for a little while longer.

Final Result It dragged on for over 72 hours. We finally got a result. The fact of the matter is that the result was already there in the sealed ballot boxes before the counting began. Malta had voted with a significant downturn (80,000 non-voters) and the result was only waiting to be unveiled. It would be a laborious process made even more laborious by the fact that the two main parties were short of counters: the effect? Less agents to allow the skeleton crew to monitor every step. The PLPN system continues to debilitate our way of doing politics – down to making the smallest electorate’s decision the longest one to be read. Don’t get me started on ballot boxes abroad. Verdict: SLOW

Non-European I’ve tackled it elsewhere. There is nothing European about our MEP vote. The voters were dragged into another partisan sling-match and this resulted in a chain reaction of events that gave us most of the types of votes (see below). Interestingly you can compare the victorious Renzi’s approach to the result and that of Muscat. The former painted a red map of Italy – his first reaction was similar to that of our premier (we will not let this go to our heads), the second was to rush to Brussels with a clear message: this is a vote for change in Europe. The Maltese vote was absolutely not concerned about spreading representation in the European parliament for Malta’s best interests. It was all about “winning” over the eternal opponents. Verdict: ISLANDERS

Winners & Losers: There can be only one. That is the mantra that is sold time and time again when time comes for choosing representatives. This is the real winner takes all mentality that should not be translatable at a European level since we are choosing who represents us within the formations that make up the European Parliament. Instead we had the PM pouncing on polls and setting the target on an electoral “win” translatable in votes obtained while the opposition fell for the trap and accepted the challenge to a large extent. In the end, the “gain” for the Maltese is measured in how well represented they are in the European Parliament – at 3-3 it’s a draw between the Popular Parties and the Socialists. No Green representative yet again. At most if you really want a result it’s a resounding draw. Verdict: NO EXTRA TIME

Naming the votes: The ballot sheet had to be reprinted because of the Engerer debacle. More expense to the voters and a chance for more charades at partisan level leading to the infamous “suldati tal-azzar”. The alphabetical order gave us the “donkey vote” – unlike the one in Shrek this one is not funny and rather mechanical. Combined with the siege mentality born of partisan votes it meant that most times vote inheritance could be – to a certain extent – predicted. Bar the “protest vote” of course. Discounting the firmly convinced AD and Imperium voters you end up with a number of undecipherable cross-votes switching from right and left of the spectrum with an undignified nonchalance. Even the comical Zaren tal-Ajkla garnered a thousand plus votes that probably did not have the main parties laughing as much as the bored counters in the counting hall. Verdict: STICKS AND STONES

Racist Alarm: It’s a huge wart on these election results. Lowell bowed out rather late in the day having summed over 7,000 votes. You cannot see anything other than a warning sign in this. The intolerant vote is not one to be toyed with and the main parties are duty bound to tackle this head on without much ado while setting aside their partisan approach. Muscat’s final pre-electoral speech did woo the anti-immigrant lobby with much talk about standing firm – his record in this field is still not convincing when it comes to really understanding the humane approach – thankfully the warning signs were lit across the continent so there might be a renewed sense of cooperation among European leaders across the board. Verdict: SHAMEFUL

Simon Busuttil: The gun was jumped early in the vote count. The first result – the numerical one – was devastating for the PN. Many elements within the PN were as quick to speak of “defeat” as the elements in the PL were prepared to speak of “victory”. The after effects of the Busuttil vs Muscat bout were reaped at this moment – strike while it is hot. So on Monday and most of Tuesday the question put to Simon Busuttil was “Will you resign?” I do have the benefit of hindsight but it would have been much better for the the PN leader to wait until the sixth seat was finally decided before pronouncing himself on the matter. It’s all so different now that Comodini Cachia will be filling the last spot. Had the message been drummed earlier on about what constitutes a real victory in European terms there would not be so much of a conundrum within the PN. Sure, there is work to be done and it has to be done yesterday but given the starting point, the proximity of last years general election and the resources of the current PN the three-three draw is anything but a defeat. Verdict: SURVIVOR

The ladies: A pleasant aspect of the end result is the majority of women that will be flying up to Brussels and Strasbourg. Four out of Malta’s six MEPs are women. They deserve to be there in the same way as any other candidate deserves to be there. I am glad that this is a pleasant aspect of the outcome. It would be amiss though to not analyse this vote just like any other labelled vote. For a long time early in the counting process we heard about the Gozitan vote having an effect for example. There seems to have been some form of slight cross-voting between parties from women candidate to women candidate which cannot be ignored. Even if we grant that the last two (Mizzi and Comodini Cachia) benefited from the donkey vote in their own way there is still an acknowledgement to be made that women candidates found some special favour among the electorate (even within the labyrinth of partisan and protest voting). We cannot ignore the fact that women candidates could have been chosen over their male counterparts in an effort to provoke a different kind of change in the way politics is done. When I said it is a protest vote I meant a protest against the politics we have had until now dominated by male figures. If you like (prefer) call it a vote for change. Applaud it I will but in the end, as someone else has already commented, if they end up parroting their parties and allowing partisan politics to trump real representation then this change will not count for much. Verdict: A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

There’s much more to be said but I’ll leave these handful of points for your perusal. A plus.

 

Categories
Hunting

Getting Simon

gettingsimon_akkuzaIt looked like a shot in the foot. The Times headline was unequivocal – “Busuttil: Politicians should keep away from spring hunting controversy”. I was lost for words. Here was the leader of Malta’s opposition, still struggling in the trust ratings at the polls, coming up with a declaration that stank incredibly of fence-sitting. Could it be possible that after the disastrous management of the Civil Union issue the PN was once again falling far short in the battle of public perception?

I was mistakenly (as it turned out) provoked to putting together another Banana Republic poster that decried the fence-sitting qualities of the declaration. A facebook reader pointed out that there was much more to be read than the headline. Mea culpa, it seems, but only to a point. In fact after reading the Times article in full I began to understand where Busuttil was coming from. It all hinged on the fact that Busuttil was placing importance on the referendum – “the decision rested on the will of the people in a referendum”. What Busuttil seems to be saying (as confirmed further on in the report) is that for this particular decision “political parties have to bow their head to the will of the people”.

Could that be it? Is the PN leader telling anybody who listens that the PN will not stand in the way of a popular decision? This was reinforced by Busuttil’s reference to the party’s position – that of having a limited and controlled season. So we do know that officially the PN is not against spring hunting as such – if anything it has a position that is in favour of limited and controlled hunting in spring. What we are also being told by Busuttil is that notwithstanding this position, his party (and the politicians) should keep away from the controversy and let the referendum run its course. Presumably so the PN will not be campaigning for or against a particular position but has committed to respect the final decision in the referendum.

Is that really fence-sitting? Not really no. It falls much, much shorter than the ‘liberal’ anti-hunting sentiment that has been whipped up over the last year. The PN has definitely decided not to take up the baton of the anti-spring hunting movement and form some sort of coalition for the purposes of the referendum. Insofar as that is concerned it is a form of fence-sitting. On the other hand,  it is also not actively gathering hunters’ votes in Cyrus Engerer fashion or sending out equivocal statements that worryingly threaten the very possibility of the referendum. A positive passiveness if you will.

What has happened though is that the gist of the Times headline spread far quicker than the convoluted institutional message that Simon wanted to send out. It is far easier to jump to the conclusion that the PN is fence-sitting (I for one am guilty of doing so) than to see that there is a clear commitment from one of the two parties in parliament to respect the outcome of the referendum and give full power to a useful tool of political representation.

AD’s criticism of the PN position is not entirely correct in this respect but it is an inevitable result of a grave mishandling of communication from Busuttil’s PR team. The PN is not neutral – it has a position on spring hunting but it is choosing not to lead with it – promising to honour the outcome of the referendum instead. True, if like me you are dead set against spring hunting you would have preferred if at least one of the two political behemoths puts its full force behind getting a referendum result in favour of the abolition of spring hunting.

Whether it is for a calculated purpose or out of a purist interpretation of the institution of public referenda Busuttil has other ideas. The way his speech was reported results in a mini-disaster at PR and spin level. The leftovers at Dar Centrali in Pietà are proving rather inept at understanding the basics of communicating to the extent that even a bungling Labour party in government that rides roughshod over basic constitutional concepts manages to survive ahead at the trust polls.

As the MEP elections approach the PN remains an incoherent machine that is unable to clearly define itself and as a consequence unable to sell a clear defined message to the electorate. They should have learnt by now that voting PN by default is for many not an option – no matter how evident the ugly warts of the party in government have become.

As thing stand, even if you do “get Simon” the safest and clearest message on spring hunting comes from the candidates in green. It has always been and now it is louder and clearer than ever. It is not only about spring hunting but also about taking clear unequivocal positions on issues that are not only (as some mistakenly seem to suggest) restricted to national policy but that are also based on an open European vision.

 

 

.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The idiots among us

idiot_akkuza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blaireaux anyone?

 

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

Categories
Energy Middle East Politics

Tan-Numri

This blog never had aspirations to being a number cruncher and we always begin our budget-time assessments with a caveat the size of Manwel Mallia’s mattress. While I do not feel that the minutae of budget balancing is within my sphere of expertise (nowadays everyone seems to be an “expert” in something “f’hiex jifhem?”) I can and will assess the noise created by and around it.

It does not take much to see that as a general line the “state of the economy” bit of the affair tells us one simple message: that the economy was being safely marshalled by the previous PN government and that the PL financial gurus simply had to hold tight to the rudder and control an already steady ship. How does an ignoramus like me notice that? Simples really – there are no groundbreaking measures that would signify a sudden change in direction – little wonder that Muscat expects the Commission to approve his latest milestone in the mysterious roadmap.

When it does boil down to the nitty-gritty Muscat seems to be making much of the fact that he is putting his money where his mouth is. True, we are surprised in the sense that this is the first time that Labour seems to be actually acting in the manner it had promised before the election – and this with regard to one very particular item on the budget list i.e. the cost of water and electricity. Surprised we are because given Labour’s haphazard approach to accountability, environmental transparency, meritocracy etc we should not be blamed had we expected even the black and white promises on the utilities bill to be thrown out of the window.

In his intervention with the press, Simon Busuttil tried (rather vaguely in my opinion – could have been clearer) to explain how the money saved on electricity and water will be repaid threefold via the newly introduced or increased indirect taxes. That’s one for the number crunchers to confirm/contradict. If it is so (and quite frankly it must be so since the money must come from somewhere) then Labour’s deceptive basket of “cutting the utilities bill” will turn into a time bomb ready to explode when the voters realise that their pennies saved have actually transformed in pounds pinched.

What did jar insofar as the opposition reaction was concerned is the assertion that this budget contains no job-producing measures. Given the noise coming from other social partners this particular reaction might turn out to look like one of those that is simply “negative for the sake of being negative”.  The MEA (Employers), MDA (Developers), MHRA (hotels & restaurants), GWU (you know), and the Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise all seem to have hooked on to more positive aspects of certain measures in the budget including job-creation. Bar the angry nurses (MUMN), the FORUM seems to have had positive words for most of the budget plan, leaving Simon Busuttil and the echoes in a few blogs/columns sounding like lone negative voices.

I am (painfully) aware that the “negative” mantra is something close to Joseph Muscat and believe you me I am not using it in the same sense. Labour’s little measures (COLA, petrol prices, cigarettes, educational footballers) might have served as a little decoration around the most awaited measure of cheaper utility bills (let’s face it, it was the only thing most people were looking at this time round). Some other measures such as the incentives for first time house buyers will be warmly welcomed (for a better highlight of positives and negatives check out Mark Anthony Sammut’s early assessment).

Should Busuttil have focused so strongly on job-creation? I believe that the biggest flaw in Labour’s budget hype is the very fact that it is much ado about nothing. The bigger emphasis should remain on the citizenship for sale system that stinks from top to bottom. other than that Busuttil should have thanked Muscat for confirming that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the direction in which the PN was heading finance-wise and allowed this first Labour budget to shine by reflecting the light shone earlier in the year by its predecessors.

As for the cut in utility bills. While Muscat played his little fiddle in parliament last night, East Libya (the oil rich East Libya) declared an autonomous government and gunshots were being fired in Tripoli. Meanwhile we have obscure deals built on Chinese whispers and a not too tenuous link between the latter and our new citizenship scheme.

When it comes to surprises Muscat cannot be more of a jester than this.