Two own goals

The two main political parties in Malta seem intent on shooting themselves in the foot. The governing party (Nationalist) has, on Monday, denied putting any pressure on the Sliema councillor who stood down after admitting he had made comments about paying Labour party people within his employ less than Nationalists.

Meanwhile the Party in Opposition, (Labour), which is aiming at winning the next election, announced that it defended a councillor who successfully contested last week’s local elections. It said that it had no problem with him contesting on its behalf, since he had shouldered responsibility for his actions.

He was re-elected with 420 first count votes, the highest number won by candidates on his party’s ticket.

The councillor had been given a suspended sentence in September 2010 after pleading guilty to vandalising balustrades at the Attard parish church the previous summer. The court was told that he had acted in a fit of rage after promising constituents he would remove them.

Following his conviction he had resigned from the LP and stayed on as an independent councillor, but later rejoined the party.

Considering the uphill struggle the LP has been grappling with to make people forget about violence connected with its party in the past, I would have thought they would have given this issue more serious attention.

I was also as baffled by the Attard people who voted in a councillor who acted violently as with the Sliema voters who voted in a bigoted one. Was it, yet again, because the right-minded did not bother to vote?  Do the Attard people really want  someone who loses his rag if he does not get his way to represent them?

Read More

Let’s rid ourselves of bigotry

Forget about murders and other dramatic happenings. The most talked about subject in Malta right now is Julian Galea’s bowing out of the Sliema local council. I am not someone who enjoys rubbing it in, but reading some of the reactions to the news that Mr Galea has stood down has pushed me to it.

First of all, I was shocked that despite the allegations, of overt discrimination on the grounds of political partisanship, Sliema people voted Mr Galea back in. What does that tell me? Either that the right-minded did not bother to vote; that those who did were unaware of the implications, or are as bigoted as Mr Galea.

I was also surprised that despite the precarious position of the PN (Nationalist party), it allowed him to stand under its banner to begin with. Then again, maybe it was precisely because of its wobbly situation and it was a desperate attempt to avoid the LP (Labour Party) gaining another seat. Or, perhaps, the people the PN grandees are listening to are the bigoted ones.

From what I have seen of Simon Busuttil (who has been called in for the PN rescue operation) in action at the European Parliament and from private conversations, he is certainly not prejudiced or intolerant. I believe it was down to him that the PN belatedly realised the damage done and got Mr Galea to rethink and give up his seat.

Now I am not naive and I know what goes on in all political caucuses. However, some of us were deeply disturbed by the “business as usual” ethos when discrimination was overtly displayed. It is a trait in politics everywhere that supporters are rewarded when it comes to filling jobs, especially sensitive ones and also lucrative ones.

But when it comes to excluding people and paying people less for the same work on the grounds of political affiliation, democracies have created watchdogs like Equal Opportunity Commissions to guard against such injustice.

We cannot have someone in public office that publicly declares s/he applies discriminatory practices. The LP’s Jason Micallef had come unstuck five years ago with his,  “I tell you we will also be a government for Labourites and we will carry out justice with Labourites in the first few months".

He also had to step down from his General Secretary post later. His statement, “We will be a government for all Maltese and Gozitans, but here we are Labourites among Labourites qeghdin bejnietna,” had not done the LP any favours with regard to floaters.

Undecided voters, whose numbers are increasing daily, do not like to be left out and both parties have to consider that.

As I wrote in my Sunday Times column “Bejnietna Jason,

you screwed up”, in August 2007, “It is not that it is wrong that injustices should be addressed and rectified. What is wrong is that it is not just Labourites that have suffered injustices and would like to see them rectified.

“Besides, people who are neither Nationalist nor Labour do exist and vote. The problem with this country is that neither of the two major political parties seems to recognise this... “Austin Gatt has proclaimed the same philosophy the PN is so outraged about. Even worse, he wanted the partisanship extended to the civil service. So what is the PN bleating about?”

Five years later Julian Galea has screwed up more blatantly than Jason by admitting he pays his employees affiliated with the Labour Party less. Galea’s was not a statement saying it will redress injustice, it was perpetuating injustice.

The Employment and Industrial Relations director is investigating his comments that he paid Nationalist employees more than their Labourite colleagues. In his apology the day after his comments, which included that if a girl had to tell him she was a Labourite, he would discard her, were made public, Mr Galea said his remarks were wrong and did not reflect his or his party's beliefs.

Apologising does not erase intent. If his words did not reflect his beliefs why say them? A particular nonsensical comment on the Timesonline started off,  “Nobody is arguing what Mr Galea said was right.”

Then went on, “But surely we can all admit many of us have said similar things in a jocular manner at some point in our lives - which if taken out of context would sound equally bad... a conversation which he himself (Galea) acknowledges was inappropriate - albeit not to be taken literally by any reasonable person.”

I responded to that comment yesterday, by saying, No, many of us have not made similar comments as those made by Mr Galea and prejudice is no joking matter. The comment was obviously not taken out of context because Mr Galea admitted to his remarks and the commentator himself said it was "a conversation which he himself (Galea) acknowledges was inappropriate".

I asked this particular commentator to explain why such bigoted remarks should not be taken literally? And how one should gauge a reasonable person? 

Article published in the Malta Independent on Sunday on 18 March 2012  

Read More

AMAZON WATCH » Stop the Belo Monte Monster Dam!

AMAZON WATCH » Stop the Belo Monte Monster Dam!

Read More

Where is the buck going exactly?

 

Thanks to a maverick member of parliament who upset the apple cart (and is ever not so humble about it) we are seeing so much activity. If only Franco Debono could stop behaving like a smug, puffed up peacock and stopped telling us how good he is, he would gain more kudos.

I wonder if he breeds those birds and is copying their posing. Yes, he has instigated much needed reforms and yes, he is right that we should not tolerate oligarchies and that is why many people have supported him. "The declarations made (by the PM last Sunday) would be meaningless if the issues of political responsibility, the oligarchy and constitutional reforms dealing with the distribution of power among institutions are not urgently tackled," he told timesofmalta.com

He is right and I like the way that, similar to a terrier, he will not let go until his goal is reached. I admire the way he has stood up to be counted, unlike many of his colleagues, and for that he deserves praise. But, he does not need to keep congratulating himself and behave like a child that is not getting the attention he deserves.

Besides, he should stay focused on the serious reforms and not get into his personal hobby and be seeking the derogation on finch trapping based on bird ringing and a capture breeding programme in conjunction with FKNK (Hunters & Trappers Association).

He did not need to shout it from the treetops that “it was thanks to me that the government and the PN had been brought to their senses”. He is then upset that he has enemies within his Party. His efforts have been widely publicised and recognised, his rubbing it in is not needed and does him no favours.

He must accept that he will have enemies, especially if he intends to keep playing the political game. If he keeps on and on with ‘Look, I am such a hero. Why isn’t everybody falling at my feet in admiration’ (my quote) he will continue to attract even more flak.

I have one question for Franco Debono where does he stand on his declaration that he “was prepared to work with anyone but Dr Gonzi”?

Despite two recent meetings with the PM, neither are giving anything away. It is acknowledged that credit is due to him that Government is suddenly listening to some of the decades old complaints. And the Prime Minister has belatedly realised that listening to the people was a good idea.

He is not the only one rowing hard to gain some ground.

Several ministers are burning the midnight oil. We are seeing reform proposals all over the place and finally we are told that something is to be done about the environment and neighbourhood noise.

But hold your horses, the new Minister, Mario de Marco launching the White Paper on Noise said it should “spark a debate” about the way forward on this important issue. The public is being invited to contribute to a two-month consultation process.

So we are talking about further debate not action. For Heavens sake, it had “dominated the feedback received during the National Environment Policy process,” he told us.  So why do we need more debate?

OK, so it’s a White Paper, which means it has got to get through parliament, after the two-month public consultation, which brings us to May.

Since the worst noise polluter in the summer months – the festa petards  “should be a separate discussion” because “although (they) could be a nuisance, they were part of a cultural tradition,” it means yet another summer of disturbed sleep and rude awakenings.

Now granted that fireworks are traditional and they are very pretty, most people, would want them to stay. But the enthusiasts must be told that the blitzkrieg, aka the petard bombardments have to stop.

They are barbaric rather than cultural. My point is that “cultural” denotes sophistication and one cannot uphold a primitive tradition at the cost of uncivilised behaviour.

Dr de Marco pointed out that the Paper made mention of fireworks regulations and “if people notice a breach of these regulations they would eventually be able to call the hotline.“

“Eventually”! Ah, the proposed 24/7 hotline, which, we are told, will receive and redirect complaints with the help of a tracking system, which will ensure accountability and enable callers to follow up their complaints. Sounds really good.

But who will the complaints be redirected to? The minister is proposing an end to the pass the buck syndrome. He said that neighbourhood noise legislation was fragmented, with various institutions responsible for different aspects, forcing individuals to go from one department to the other and resulting in a “lack of ownership” from the authorities responsible.

So a Noise Control Board is to be set up. The Boards function will be to streamline and update existing guidelines and regulations according to latest developments. Fine, yet another Board. But who will be employed to take the necessary action. Where is the buck going exactly?

What we need are a group of trained inspectors linked to the 24/7 hotline who will be able to take action on the spot.

A Board cannot stop an all night party in a residential neighbourhood, nor barking dogs in the middle of the night. It needs to have an effective enforcement arm.

Read More