Tag: Zolabytes

Categories
Zolabytes

Anne Fenech and Zammit Lewis

fenech_akkuza

This Zolabyte is actually taken from an intervention by someone in a facebook thread discussing Anne Fenech’s reply to Minister Zammit Lewis’ allegations about her consultancy contracts with the government in the past. The discussion had veered out of point with people discussing whether Anne Fenech was right in opposing the citizenship program and law while working in a law firm where lawyers offered services under that law. Some observers claimed that Fenech had some cheek taking the “moral high ground” with Zammit Lewis. I was not impressed by this confusion of facts and opinions. The guest blogger intervened in the thread with this comment that I am reproducing with the commenter’s permission.

I find talk of moral high ground laughable in this context for a myriad of reasons:
1. It has sod all to do with the discussion at issue – I guess our dear Minister has forgotten that notwithstanding his role as a politician and his immunity in parliament, his utterances should bear some remote semblance to reality and less to slander;

2. Ann Fenech is a partner in the law firm she works in, she is in fact managing partner of that law firm. Any of you who have actually sampled life in a law firm which is made up of more than just a combo of father, son, daughter, uncle will realise that even as managing partner she is not in a position to influence unduly decisions of the firm, including the fields through which the firm generates revenue – it is a collective decision where she does not have a majority vote;

3. By her firm peddling assistance for citizenship she is assisting in relation to law … Not the subversion of a law. She fought that law before it became law. Now members of her law firm are providing services relating to that law. Now we’ll be talking about that lady in America refusing to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple … All for the sake of the moral high ground. This is a firm decision, it’s legal and its business. Grow up.

4. We now bring up the moral high ground every time Ann Fenech makes a statement. I see zero utterances about moral high ground when the current government calls the opposition “distruttiva”. The hypocrisy of that makes me gag. I recall all the constructive criticism PL indulged in while in opposition. Let’s start with the constructive criticism on EU membership shall we? And the moral high ground taken by this government with each application for EU funds or when our ministers and especially our Prime Minister smile gleefully at their own self-importance when they line up for photo ops in front of buildings they advocated against a decade ago. Oh the moral high ground there is so elevated I’m getting altitude sickness … Again … A certain amount of ageing (I’m trying to be polite here) is required.

If you don’t like the woman say so. I am not a particular fan. She is good at her profession (lawyering not politics) and she works a room in a manner most of us secretly admire but that smacks of being fake. In many ways she makes a pretty decent politician. But enough of the moral high ground bullshit. There’s plenty about her to criticise without indulging in those fallacies.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 10 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Categories
Divorce Politics Zolabytes

Dars, Pogguti u Bghula

Mark Vella (formerly of Xifer… il-blogg mit-truf) was provoked into writing this post in reaction to the “Pogguti” billboard:

Jacques talabni nikteb, imma għidtlu li mhux interessat u li kull ma rrid nitfa’ l-vot u nitħalla bil-kwiet. Forsi dan kull ma jrid min biħsiebu jivvota IVA, wara kollox: jitħalla jgħix ħajtu kif irid hu, fil-limiti tar-responsabbiltà adulta u l-legalità.

Imma l-kartellun tal-bgħula u l-poġġuti laqatni wisq. L-ewwelnett, lingwistikament. Hija kampanja kuraġġuża, forsi anki inġenwa, dik li toħroġ għonqha bi kliem iebes bħal dak. Lili darrsitni, ikolli ngħid, għax mill-ewwel laqtitni bħala kontroproduċenti, u eku ta’ dan ġa qrajnih f’diversi interventi ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Ħsibt ukoll li l-kampanja forsi clever wisq għax-xena politika Maltija, bil-ħbit tal-LE u l-IVA fl-istess stampa, u fil-kuntest ta’ pubbliku elettorali li ftit jew wisq iħobb kampanji pożittivi b’kartelluni ta’ tfal u familji hienja jiġru fuq il-ħaxix tar-rebbiegħa.

Argumentajt ukoll ma’ sħabi li l-kliem goffi għaliex m’għadhomx jintużaw, u dan kien ukoll argument tal-kamp tal-LE. Xi ħadd qalli, iżda, li jista’ jkun is-soltu preġudizzju lingwistiku u n-nuqqas ta’ kunfidenza f’ilsienna u fil-mod kif nesprimu rwieħna, għax tgħid ma jkunx effettiv kartellun Londra b’mara msawta fuqha u bil-kliem ‘She is not your bitch’, nagħtu każ? Minnu, imma għalija poġġuti u bgħula jibgħatuni lura għal dinja agħar, dinja ta’ kattiverja u preġudizzji li bdejna noħorġu minna milux. Illum, kważi kważi, il-kunċett ta’ poġġut bilkemm jiftiehem, u ftit jafu li oriġinarjament kien aktar jintuża għan-nisa appoġġati jew mantnuti mill-maħbub tagħhom, speċi ta’ sugar daddy. Anki bgħula ħadd m’għadu jgħidha, ħlief fid-dagħdigħat privati ta’ xi familji meta jinqala’ għawġ bħal dan. Trabbejna slavaġ, imma mxejna ‘l quddiem, u għalhekk dawn iż-żewġ kelmiet idarrsu u jissugraw, forsi mhux itellfu l-voti, imma jdallmu xi ftit il-kredibbiltà ta’ moviment progressiv u magħmul minn nies ta’ rieda tajba.

Imma ġieni f’moħħi wkoll li dan il-messaġġ qawwi huwa s-sintomu ta’ kemm din il-ġlieda saret waħda emozzjonali, u kemm xi elementi tal-Knisja u tal-kamp tal-LE ppreċipitaw din is-sitwazzjoni, mhux bil-fehma leġittima tagħhom imma bl-istrataġemmi offensivi li jużaw u billi jżeffnu, fl-istil tal-interdettijiet, lil Alla fi ħwejjeġ Ċesri. Din saret ġlieda storika daqs il-kwistjoni politiko-reliġjuża tas-Sittinijiet, u għal daż-żmien essenzjalment ġlieda mhux partitika imma bejn il-konservattiżmu fanatiku u progressiżmu li jrid joqgħod attent milli jittappan u jitlef triqtu.

Ġieni wkoll f’moħħi li wara kollox, u wara kemm wieħed jipprova jistħarreġ u jirraġuna, forsi l-IVA kellhom raġun jagħtu xokk bħal dan. Għax l-ipokrezija li rajna mill-kamp tal-LE wieħed jista’ jaraha wkoll fit-tessut tas-soċjetà Maltija, għaliex anki jekk tgħallimna nkunu nies, mhux bilfors li aħna. Ma nafx jekk hux każ ta’ ħmar il-magħkus li jdur għalih id-dubbien, iżda bħal xi ħadd li għadda minn żwieġ li falla, kien hemm waqtiet fejn qlajt kummenti bla ħniena, għax hemm il-fatt li mhux biss hemm min ma jridx id-divorzju, imma hemm min jitkaża wkoll b’min tkissirlu ż-żwieġ. Ma tirbaħ qatt. Snin wara u ħajja ġdida, kien hemm ukoll min sejjaħli poġġut. Wieħed biex jitkessaħ, u qala’ xebgħa lsien bi kliem wisq eħrex minn tal-kartellun. Ieħor ħafna akbar minni, imrawwem professjonalment fil-PN (seta’ kien partit ieħor: dan biss bħal sfond), Kattoliku devot, omofobu u konservattiv tradizzjonalist. Għal darb’ oħra, deskrizzjoni ta’ sfond għax kulħadd ifassal lilu nnifsu kif irid. Madankollu, bejn b’nofs ċajta jew forsi għax beżaqhielu l-inkonxju, qalli poġġut, għax waqt li qed niċċajtaw dwar it-tfajliet sbieħ u ħelwin, għidltu li issa ma tantx nista’ nħares għax m’għadnix single. U billi għadni fil-limbu tar-relazzjonijiet skont kif jarahom hu, waħħalli t-tikketta.

X’tagħmel? Tieħu għalik? Le. Anki jien, ta’ sensittiv u bużżieqa li jien, ma tantx tatni ġewwa. Anzi, rikbitni mewġa ta’ maħfra Nisranija għax ma kienx jaf x’inhu jagħmel, u anki ta’ ħasra għal moħħ li baqa’ ċkejken. U kull m’għidtlu ‘iva, u wliedi bgħula. Rajtha qalbek’, u ħallejtu jiħmar u jistħi u jigdem ilsien li kien ħallih jaħrablu.

Mela fors l-IVA kellhom raġun, sew għax nies li ġarrbu u sew għax nies li jifhmu s-sitwazzjoni. Forsi huma wkoll, bħali, raw tassew qalb in-nies li qed jikkumbattu kontrihom. U għalhekk raw li għal kull min jippuntalek sejf, sejf daqstant jaqta’ jrid ikun biex joqtlu.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Categories
Zolabytes

On Lack of Politics at the UOM

J’accuse was shocked by a headline in the Times on the 5th of October claiming that a “Students’ body wants student’s council to be free of politics” so we decided to ask somebody from that movement – Mark Camilleri (known to most extra-uni people as the Realtà editor) to explain whether this impression of wanting to neuter the KSU was right. It turns out that Mark was just as apalled and had a few ideas of his own to express. Which is why his ideas are now here on this Zolabyte platform – for an open, mature discussion. As in every other Zolabyte J’accuse does not endorse the ideas in this article but encourages an open discussion about them – the floor is now open (Uni students are particularly encouraged to contribute).

Many students of the University of Malta and Junior College do not feel they are being represented by their University Students Council and the outstanding majority is completely alienated to politics let alone to the Students University Council. Some are not even aware it even exists. This is why I was pissed off at the headline which the TOM put on an article about the press conference, organised by Moviment Graffitti and Independent Movement which said ” Students’ body wants students’ council to be free of politics”. I can’t understand how a journalist or an editor can make such a bad mistake when they cover a press conference by a left-leaning political group which has contested the Council’s elections last year!

So, back to basics! The Council is first of all a political institution because it manages people, the students and a space, Students House. So the groups which contest its elections are by default political groups which carry ideological baggage. If we do not want politics to be part of the Council then we would be demanding its dismantlement which isn’t a bad idea farer all, considering that it has become a trojan horse to University, students and education. However our aim is to have a council which is lead by students who would work for a progressive and secular education, to help students and defend their rights. In other words we want a left-wing Council.

The Council has been reduced into an entity which has mainly two aims: to conserve the party-line of the PN with the limits of its powers, which mainly consists of an old style, Catholic type of right-wing politics, and to accumulate capital. It has became a powerful and reactionary force which resembles more a Centre of American Republicanism rather than a University Students Council.

The Council is run by the Christian Democrat Students and yes we did indeed protest against their way of doing politics, we did indeed protest against the Christian Democrats who are more interested in towing the party line, and even pushing it further to the right rather than defending student rights but we do not want students to be free from politics and if anything should be full of it.

Our press conference was a protest against how Freshers’ Week is being organised which is a fine example where the political ideology of the Student Democrats manifests in its extreme forms. During Freshers’ Week The Campus, and its surrounding areas, is filled with companies one of which is the company (Gasan Group of Companies) of the family of Stephanie Soler, a Culture and Entertainment Coordinator of the Council. Every year, the space allocated to financial companies increases at the expense of the space which students organisations can occupy. (J’accuse: This allegation has been countered by the current KSU president in this article on theTimes – “Call for more transparency in KSU finances“) So financial companies are not only being privileged because they afford paying, but the Council is dealing with the relatives of its members. But if this seems to be a conflict of interest it doesn’t compare to the favouritism and nepotism which take place through the Student Fund Scheme as I have indicated in this article: Bummers of University Unite! You have nothing to lose but your reputation.

We also reiterated the demand for full transparency of the Council’s finances. It is extremely silly how the Council can boast of its transparency just because they have an annual financial report signed by an auditor. The fact that the auditor introduced the report by claiming that the books which were presented to him had several inconsistencies, is not something of considerable importance to them. Their answer to the problematic question of transparency is, that he had signed his own audit report. How pathetic! An auditor will audit any kind of books, even if they are not detailed or lack information because he is being paid to compile a report. The report is a result of the accounts which are presented. So if you present bad accounts, you will end up with a bad financial report and it wouldn’t be the auditor’s fault. Silly isn’t it, that I have to explain basic accounting procedures to a university students council? Yes, unfortunately University politics does not only include disputes about politics but also about how to get your stuff right. If you have any doubts don’t bury these facts with the typical PN accusations of ”mud-slinging” but go and ask for a copy of the financial report from their office. Look for revenue and expenditure break-downs, especially break-downs of revenue for advertisement and rent. They aren’t there and the Council does not seem to be the least interested in publishing them. Hurray for full transparency!

However being a leftist I am not only involved in student politics to bring radical change but also for the sake of political survival. During the last year the Council evacuated Moviment Graffitti out of their office and members of the Council reported issue 8 of Ir-Realta’ to the University Authorities, the reason being that they were offended by a fictional story. They twisted the regulations of the Council’s Statute so as to avoid PULSE’s proposal of Proportional Representation from gaining ground in the Council’s Annual General Meeting of 2010. They started a strong campaign against the lecturers, acting more like strike-breakers than students who were critical of a bad situation when the lecturers had a dispute with the government and as a result started a work to rule strike. Carl Grech, the Council’s president had the cheek to say that the dispute was resolved by the Council during a debate held prior to the 2010 elections, on Campus. They even had the nerve to make a pro-Catholic campaign against a condom machine at University as if such a proposal was something worth opposing. So when such a Council is clearly bent to pursue a hardcore right-wing ideology, small and unconnected left-wing groups will get choked. Being on a continuous political offensive while uniting with different groups to form a movement will have our political opponents removed from the Council.

I will end my article with a plea. I greatly respect other organisations such as MOVE, PULSE and IDEAT but I still believe that they aren’t doing their best to unite in a bigger movement. The main problem is that PULSE has been demoralised by consecutive election defeats and their determination is slowing down. As usual the ego is sometimes also a problem as in a movement compromises have to be made. But this neither means that the left should compromise its ideals to defeat the Christian-Democrats. The left can be consistent and united only if those who feel to be part of it are ready to overcome difficult challenges.

J’accuse endquote: Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. (SDM Participation Campaign Slogan 1996/7 – from Plato).

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Categories
Zolabytes

Party Financing and Democracy

There’s one MP in the house who has maintained a constant position with regard party financing. In an article appearing in today’s papers Franco Debono reiterates his call for proper regulation of party financing while drawing on international reports that describe how failed regulation leads to “trading in influence”. We publish the article in its entirety here as another Zolabyte with the kind permission of the author. General Franco strikes again!

Some months ago, while being interviewed on public television (Dissett), I had described the issue of political party financing as extremely urgent and a priority. I strongly argued that the issue should be tackled immediately, considering its direct bearing on our country’s democracy. The interviewer had dismissed my claims to urgency, apparently comforted by the fact that the issue was, at the time, being tackled by a parliamentary committee.

Recent events have, since, brought work in that committee to a standstill. Moreover, about 15 years ago and we were, compared to most countries, already late, a report (the Galdes Report, 1995) had been tabled in the House of Representatives but still, to date, nothing has come out of it. Since then, no significant developments have taken place and no concrete measures have been implemented with regard to the issue under discussion.

The issue of party finance is crucial and central to any democracy in this day and age.

As the Council of Europe’s Third European Conference of Specialised Services in the Fight against Corruption, held between September 28-30, 1998, had declared: “…political parties play an essential role in democratic systems.

“Their operation requires appropriate resources while electoral campaigns have become expensive. Faced with increasing expenses, political parties are unable to live only on their members’ fees and have to solicit and accept donations. Trading in influence has, thus, developed. In order to remedy this situation, which is detrimental to the rule of law and democracy, it is necessary to ensure political parties are financed in a wholly transparent manner.”

Political parties are challenged today with complex tasks, including researching and developing relevant and updated policies as well as communicating their message in the best possible manner in order to garner maximum support and win elections. Such tasks necessitate a sound structural organisation and infrastructure, which cannot be put in place and function without adequate financial resources.

The process of securing the necessary funds could lead to abuse. Parties could potentially end up at the mercy of particular donors who may seek to exert control through undue or unlawful influence. Legislation all over the world has been enacted precisely with the aim of averting such jeopardy and limit the dangers to democracy.

Since political parties are not just voluntary organisations accountable solely to their members, but organs of a constitutional nature and relevance, the necessary legislation tackling the most urgent issue of disclosure and public auditing of parties’ finances should be enacted. Strengthening democracy means ensuring political parties are financed in an accountable and transparent manner.

Thus, the Galdes Report, tackles such issues as whether there should be a ceiling on private donations, whether donations exceeding a certain amount should be prohibited and sums exceeding which amount should import a duty of disclosure.

In the United States, disclosure of small amounts by small donors was held by the Supreme Court to potentially seriously infringe on the rights to privacy and association and belief and, thus, one must always strive to strike a balance.

Tackling the issue of eligibility for state financing, linked primarily to the number of votes obtained by a party in the previous general election, the Galdes Report again establishes the requirement of the compulsory publication of financial statements and accounts, as well as disclosure of particular donations, exceeding certain amounts. It proposes strict penalties in cases of default or non-observance, enforced by a regulatory and supervising authority to be established under the same proposed legislation.

The report had, for instance, also tackled the issue of candidates’ expenses during election campaigns, which amount, just under €1,400, 15 years and four elections ago was deemed too low and unrealistic. It was suggested that it should be increased, in addition to proposing a more realistic definition of the relevant period preceding an election. We are still debating this today and nothing concrete has as yet materialised.

This aspect of transparency is important too.

It is time to rethink the structure and internal organisation and set-up of political parties as constitutional vehicles. It is time to think about the relevance of political party stations today. It is a time of great challenges where we must continue to revise and upgrade the constitutional architecture for the future.

As has always happened under successive Nationalist Administrations, we must continue strengthening democracy and this is the next step.

It is time to pass from reports and committees to action and legislation. And we must continue on the good work being done in public broadcasting , upgrading it too.

Dr Debono wrote his doctoral thesis for the law degree on The Constitutional Implications Of Party Organisation And Party Finance (1999).

Website: www.francodebono.info

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta