The Hospital scam: collusion from day one

Around seven months ago, the Court of Appeal, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, had concluded that the hospitals’ deal appeared fraudulent. While the original court decision had blamed Vitals/Stewards for this fraudulent deal, the Court of Appeal went one step further. Confirming the cancellation of the contracts, the Court of Appeal stated that it believed there was collusion between Vitals/Stewards and senior government officials or its agencies.

Collusion signifies secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy to deceive others. This is the certification the Court of Appeal delivered after examining the government’s handling of the hospital privatisation process.

Faced with such a certification any democratic government would have immediately shouldered political responsibility and we would have had resignations on a large scale, in government and in the wider civil service. Not in Malta. Except for the government’s taking over the direct control of the hospitals, it was as if practically nothing had ever happened.

This is the background to last week’s conclusion of the magisterial inquiry into the hospitals’ privatisation deal. While the Court of Appeal had concluded that senior government officials were complicit in the privatisation fraud, the magisterial inquiry is expected to identify who did which part of the dirty job. This is presumably the reason for the long list of persons who have been identified by the magisterial inquiry to answer for their actions.

Some readers will undoubtedly remember that, way back in October 2014, the Labour government had secretly signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with potential investors who were interested in “investing” in the Maltese health system. This had been revealed in one of the Auditor General’s reports investigating the hospital scam. The information that these same investors had in hand as a result of this MoU was subsequently utilised when six months later a public call for expression of interest was issued for the privatisation of the hospitals. It gave them an unfair advantage over all others who were interested.

What followed were various manoeuvres as a result of which the Maltese government representatives were “convinced” that they had a good deal in selecting Vitals Global Health Care to take over the running of the hospitals.

As a result, we have had detailed investigations by the National Audit Office and the magisterial inquiry which was triggered by NGO Repubblika.

Subsequent to the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry the first names of those to be accused of wrongdoing have been published. We have holders of political office, senior government officials, professionals in private practice, and persons in positions of trust all of whom are being accused of having a finger in the pie through fraudulent action, corruption and money laundering. At the time of writing, the details are not yet known as the legal jargon in which the criminal charges are framed is too general and wide-embracing.

Should matters have arrived at this point?

It has taken almost ten years for this fraudulent exercise to be uncovered and brought under control. Yet, had the institutions functioned properly it should have been nipped in the bud and never even happened. What was the role of the civil service in the creation of this mess? The presence of three Permanent Secretaries (and other civil servants) among those facing criminal charges indicates that the inquiring magistrate may have possibly identified an answer to this question.

Prime Minister Robert Abela has, in the past days, shed many crocodile tears in expressing support for a number of those facing criminal charges. He has also single-handedly contributed to the creation of an atmosphere of distrust in our judiciary. He should know better than that. Robert Abela should immediately desist from further undermining confidence in the courts and, from endangering the rule of law in our country.

The judiciary should be able to carry out its work without pressure and intimidation so that justice can run its course. Having already been at the receiving end of the impacts of grey-listing, Malta cannot risk further reputational damage as a result of Robert Abela’s hysterical outbursts.

published on the Malta Independent on Sunday : 12 May 2024

Riżenja hi triq tal-irġulija

Ir-riżenja tat-Tabib Chris Fearne mill-Kabinett tfisser li fil-Partit Laburista għad baqa’ min għandu sinsla. Din ir-riżenja hi pass tajjeb. Hi pass fl-interess tas-sewwa u tal-kontabilità.

Chris Fearne għamel tajjeb li irreżenja meta huwa iffaċċjat b’akkużi kriminali anke jekk għadu ma jafx eżattament fuq xiex huma ibbażati.

Għax ir-riżenji fil-politika Maltija huma xi ħaġa rari, ir-riżenja ta’ Fearne hi ta’eżempju għal kull politiku dwar kif jista’ jerfa’r-responsabbiltà politika li jrid iġorr f’kull ħin.

Ir-riżenja ma tfissirx ammissjoni. Tfisser irġulija. Tfisser dikjarazzjoni li Fearne hu politiku responsabbli li lest bil-fatti jpoġġi l-interessi tal-pajjiż qabel dawk tiegħu u tal-partit.

Ir-riżenja hi it-triq tal-politiku ġenwin li qiegħed hemm biex iservi u mhux biex jisserva.

Wara l-eżempju ta’ Chris Fearne, issa jmiss iktar riżenji, fuq quddiem dik ta’ Edward Scicluna minn Gvernatur tal-Bank Ċentrali.

Isa, Edward, ftit kuraġġ.

Tourism: the industry does not care

Notwithstanding the increasing numbers of incoming tourists, the tourism industry is currently in a self-destructive mode.  After the carrying capacity study published by the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association (MHRA) in July 2022, one would have expected the Ministry of Tourism or the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA) to take the lead in initiating a public debate on the matter.

The Deloitte report published by the MHRA, in July 2022, entitled Carrying Capacity Study for Tourism in the Maltese Islands has pointed out that the total of existing and planned hotel accommodation would require approximately 5 million tourists per annum to ensure an 80 percent occupancy. This does not take into consideration non-hotel accommodation. If non-hotel accommodation is also taken into account, the problem would be much worse.

This is anything but sustainable. Yet, except for the public discussion on the skills required by foreign workers in the industry, no one is (apparently) bothered by the considerable negative impacts of tourism: impacts on both tourism itself as well as on the residential community. No wonder that studies have identified a developing tourismophobia. Tourismophobia has been described by Catalan anthropologist Manoel Delgado as a mixture of repudiation, mistrust, and contempt for tourists.

The total number of inbound tourists to Malta in 2023 was around 3 million. This accounted for 20.2 million bed nights and an estimated expenditure of €2.7 billion. The employment that this generates is considered by many as a positive contribution to the industry, and sustaining around 50,000 jobs.

The Deloitte report published by MHRA in 2022, however, explains that in 2009, 82 percent of those employed in the tourism sector were Maltese. By 2019 this statistic had decreased to 40.6 percent. The Deloitte report does not explain the reasons behind this trend. It only emphasises that this trend is not unique to the Maltese islands.

However, the Deloitte report goes on to argue that the reliance of the tourism industry on an ever-increasing cosmopolitan labour force is an important contributor to an increasing lack of authenticity of the touristic product.  Who cares?

The ever-increasing volume of incoming tourists has an impact on both the tourist experience as well as on the quality of life of the residential community.

Many years ago a substantial portion of the residential community of Paceville was squeezed out of the locality as a direct result of the impacts of the tourist industry. It seems that no lessons were learned from this experience as various residential communities around the islands are still continuously at the receiving end. No one cares.

Tables and chairs have taken over substantial public areas around our residences, in many instances obstructing access to our homes. Consider, for example, The Strand from Gżira to Sliema: from Manoel Island right to The Ferries, and beyond. Has anyone ever considered the impact of the continuous stretch of chairs and tables on the residential community along the same stretch of road?

This experience is not limited to Sliema but also exists in Marsaskala, St Paul’s Bay, St Julians, and many other areas, including Valletta. Who cares?

The tourism industry is aware of all this. Yet the issues raised are not being addressed. The situation gets worse by the minute.

The residential communities in various localities are voicing their concerns. One of the latest to so do was the Valletta residential community.

The local council elections next June are an opportunity to elect local councilors who are sensitized to the concerns of the residents. We need Local Councils that can take up the fight directly at an institutional level as it is only in this manner that the real issues faced by our communities can be addressed.

We have a tourism industry that only cares about what goes into its bank account: nothing else is of significance. We can compensate for this by having local councils that not only care about our communities but most importantly act swiftly to right the accumulated wrongs.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 21 April 2024

The courage to change

Good governance is central to the proper nurturing of this 50-year-old Republic. Good governance is founded on transparency and accountability. Secrecy and the withholding of information from the public domain, in contrast, generate bad governance.

Transparency is a basic characteristic of good governance whereas secrecy is the distinguishing mark of bad governance. This inevitably leads to the shielding of unethical behaviour, as well as the propagation of a culture of greed and corruption.

Transparency and accountability are inseparable twins. Accountability is, in fact, non-existent or severely diluted in the absence of transparency.

Good governance is much more than a concept. It is the essential foundation for any democratic Republic.  In the absence of good governance, greed flourishes, and national institutions are slowly transformed into personal fiefdoms. Corruption and rampant clientelism are the inevitable results of a lack of good governance.

In her inaugural speech on Thursday, President of the Republic Myriam Spiteri Debono spoke of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Daphne’s assassination was described by Her Excellency as a wound that, as a nation, we must heal the soonest.

Daphne Caruana Galizia was actively involved in journalism, investigating corruption. Notwithstanding the continuous vitriol she faced, Daphne identified many a scandal associated with the governance model championed by the Labour Party in government.

This, in reality, is the wound to be healed. We need to finalise that begun by Daphne by ensuring, as a nation, that the corrupt face the music the soonest. Then the festering wounds of corruption, made worse as a result of a culture of impunity, will start the healing process. The rule of law must prevail without any exception.

The assassination of Daphne is also a heavy blow against good governance.  The public inquiry into the circumstances that led to Daphne’s assassination concluded with identifying the Maltese state as being ultimately responsible for all that happened.

A culture of greed has been reinforced with a culture of impunity.

The change necessary to heal this wound requires considerable courage and goodwill. I am not at present convinced that the political leadership currently in government is acting in good faith. It is a leadership under siege, continuously defending those who have driven this country to the dogs.

Land use planning and our environment are regulated by greed. Agricultural land is slowly disappearing as a result of the planning policies of the PN in government way back in 2006 through the so-called rationalisation exercise. The Labour Party opposed these plans when in Opposition but it is currently in the process of milking them dry to ensure that the greedy are fully satisfied.  Some have already licked their lips! Others are awaiting their turn.

It takes courage to act against greed, when both Parliamentary parties are fully committed to entrenching it as a way of life. They ensure the quality of life of the greedy, but in the process are ruining that of all the rest of us: both the present as well as the future generations.

The current set-up of our Parliament is part of the problem. It is no wonder, that, in this scenario, we are lumped with an electoral system that ensures that the voice of change is silenced by making it as difficult as possible for it to be heard.

Change is hindered as the national institutions are rigged against those who dare to speak up for the representation of a variety of minority views in the country.

As a result of this lack of political goodwill, ADPD-The Green Party is currently in Court contesting the discriminatory nature of this rigged electoral system. It is a constitutional court case that is hopefully approaching its conclusion.

At ADPD-The Green Party, we have long been speaking about the urgent need for electoral reform, focused on the need to ensure that every vote is valued. Until such time, no change can ensure that everybody is on board. One person, one vote, one value.

It takes courage (and political goodwill) to change.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 7 April 2024

Blood on their hands

When speaking on the report of the public inquiry into the circumstances which led to the death of Jean Paul Sofia, Robert Abela, the Prime Minister, emphasised that he expected that those who were singled out in the said report are to shoulder their responsibility. He also established a deadline by which he expected that they submit their resignation.

Some have been singled out by name. Others through membership of decision taking bodies whose actions were censored by the Board of Inquiry. In fact, it adds up to more than has been pinpointed by the Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, we were informed that David Xuereb has resigned his Chairmanship of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA), Peter Borg has resigned from Deputy Chairman of Malta Enterprise. In addition Victor Carachi and Paul Abela have resigned from the Malta Enterprise Investment Committee and the Committee itself has been abolished.

We were also informed that after the publication of the Inquiry’s report, Kevin Camilleri, the Head of the micro-enterprise unit of Malta Enterprise was dismissed from his post.

The report of the inquiry identified a multitude of persons, executives and institutions who in one way or another contributed to the developing mess which we call the building industry. Each one of them who turned a blind eye, or was absent from his post at crucial moments, or took decisions without a proper consideration of its implications should shoulder his/her responsibilities and resign.

I would go one further step: it is not enough to resign from the posts subject to the inquiry’s scrutiny. Each one of them should resign from all their public postings.

The report of the public inquiry, however went much further than identifying those involved and analysing in depth their operations. It did this in view of the fact that all these appointees where entrusted to ensure that the state shoulders adequately its responsibilities through a focused regulation of the industry.  

Yet we got to know that Jobs Plus has more members on its Board than it has inspectors. Also, we got confirmation that enforcement is weak everywhere, right through the building industry.

The Board of Inquiry has gone through all of the operations and identified those accountable. At the end of the day, when the dust has settled, however, the buck stops on the desk of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet of Ministers. 

The next step is to ask the members of the executive whether they ever sought to ensure that the public officers, executives and other appointees which they entrusted to regulate the building industry carried adequately their assignment. We know, not just through the inquiry’s report, that the executives in charge of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) have repeatedly requested funding to build up their inspectorate as well as their enforcement capacity. It was not forthcoming. Plans for beefing up the organisations remained a paper exercise.

Are not the respective Ministers accountable for this?

Isn’t Minister Stefan Zrinzo-Azzopardi, until recently politically responsible for the building industry, responsible for the current state of the BCA? In particular for changing without justification its senior executive team in a most critical of times?

Minister Silvio Schembri and Minister Miriam Dalli were at different times responsible for Malta Enterprise and its appendages. At no point in time did they indicate an interest in the manner of operation of the Malta Enterprise Investment Committee and the extent to which public funds were properly used and accounted for. The manner in which the decision relative to the Corradino site was arrived at  is indicative that possibly there could be much more. It is logical to assume that proper oversight is lacking as such blatant irresponsible decisions would not otherwise crop up out of the blue. 

The inquiry, at the end of the day is about the responsibility of the state to regulate the building industry. A responsibility which the state of Malta has failed to live up to. Robert Abela and his team at Castille Place are at the end of the day accountable for this failure. He does not need deadlines to own up to this failure.

Prime Minister Robert Abela tried to avoid all this by forcefully obstructing the commencement of the public inquiry. He knew, generally, what the conclusions would be, as the problems addressed by the inquiry have been with us for ages, ignored continuously. It is a failure in governance, a failure in management of the state of its very basic responsibilities.

Isn’t it about time that Abela and his team at least apologise to the nation for their incompetence? As a result of this, they have blood on their hands.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 3 March 2024

Institutional fragmentation obstructs good governance

Some seek to deceive themselves and others when they proclaim their conviction that there is no conflict between the economy and the environment. The current state of affairs in all areas of environmental importance is precisely the result of this conflict.

This conflict is continuously manifested through various natural phenomena: nature’s retaliatory actions to the mismanagement of the earth’s resources. Currently climate change tops the list of nature’s defensive actions in the ongoing conflicts resulting from the impacts of the economy on the environment.

The impacts of climate change effect all of us, but most of all they effect the vulnerable among us. Whether it is floods or drought, extremes of temperatures or rising sea levels, at the end of the day it is the vulnerable and the poor who shoulder most of the burden which results when the earth cries. “Cry of the earth, cry of the poor”, we were told many years ago by Brazilian Franciscan liberation theologian Leonardo Boff. Environmental degradation and social injustice are intertwined.

Emissions to air, sea or land: all of them have an impact, generally a cumulative one, which contaminate in various ways the air we breathe, the sea and its resources and all sorts of natural resources all around us. These impacts generally take time to leave their mark and as a result of this time lag, generally, they are ignored until it is almost too late to act.

Parliament is currently debating the setting up of a Climate Change Authority. Concluding the debate at second reading stage, Environment Minister Miriam Dalli emphasized that climate action requires everyone’s contribution. Yes Minister, that is correct: however, it also requires consistency on the part of the executive. One cannot advocate addressing climate change at the same time as dishing out fossil fuel subsidies, as government has been doing for quite some time.

To address climate change we require a behavioral change. Having public transport available at no cost was a courageous step which seeks to address this behavioral change through encouraging a modal shift in our mobility requirements. On its own, however, this is definitely not enough.

In order to facilitate this modal shift to take place, it is essential that, simultaneously with free public transport one should discourage the use of private transport. Removing the fossil fuel subsidies the soonest would be a step in this direction.

Likewise, the heavy investment in road infrastructure aiming to facilitate traffic management also encourages more traffic on the road. It has been proven by studies carried out in a multitude of other countries that infrastructural interventions in the road network will, in the end, increase traffic congestion because they end up generating more traffic. This is actually happening around us too!

A stronger push towards a behavioral change would address both our deficits: our fiscal deficit as well as our environmental deficit.

The electrification of transport would definitely help in reducing climate change impacts. It will not however contribute to the modal shift in addressing our mobility requirements.

The fact that in most cases travelling distances in Malta are small should facilitate the effort. As emphasized by the National Transport Masterplan we ought to realise that fifty per cent of trips with private cars in the Maltese islands are for distances having a duration of less than 15 minutes. Further, these trips cover an average distance of 5.5 kilometers. This signifies that half of the trips with private cars cover mobility needs within areas which are within easy reach of either local public transport or else can be covered by walking or cycling. Addressing adequately just this statistic could reduce substantially cars from our roads without in any way impacting our mobility needs. In addition, substantial emissions contributing to climate change would also be reduced.

This is what we call a low-lying fruit in the management and implementation of environmental policy. It is an objective which is not so difficult to attain. Yet it is unfortunately ignored.

A positive step taken by the Robert Abela led administration is the apparent shelving of the proposed undersea tunnel between Malta and Gozo. Studies carried out have clearly shown that the economic viability of the tunnel was dependent on increasing by about three times the car movements between Malta and Gozo. As a result, additional environmental impacts would have been created!

I speak of an “apparent shelving” as the matter is not yet clear. Government has not made any statement on its intentions even though it is clear that it has had second thoughts on the whole matter, as it is no longer “a priority”.

The fragmentation of the institutions intended for environmental governance does not lead to good governance. It rather obstructs it. It would have been more appropriate if the functions assigned to the proposed Climate Change Authority had been assigned to the Environment and Resources Authority. The consolidation of environmental functions would be appropriate in view of the smallness of our territories. It would also be more effective.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 25 February 2024

Malta and the defense policy of the European Union

The issue of the development of an adequate defense policy has been on the EU agenda for some time. This is not only the inevitable result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it also necessarily follows from the Trump threats relative to NATO not only during his Presidential term but also in the current US electoral campaign.

This week, EU Parliament President, Roberta Metsola, emphasized that the EU would need to spend more of its funds on defense after the latest Trump threats. Earlier, Manfred Weber, the Bavarian leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), had spoken at length on the need for Europe to increase its defense spending and on the EPP’s proposal that the EU should invest in nuclear deterrence. Do we need this? France already has 300 nuclear warheads!

The defense industry, including that within the European Union itself, is undoubtedly lobbying intensively. An EU defense budget running into several billion euros would definitely be in their interest! In 2023 the EU’s military spending reached a record €230 billion.

Some years back Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reported that the decision-making process for the EU Preparatory Action on Defense Research was heavily dominated by corporate interests. Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) is a research and campaign group working to expose and challenge the privileged access and influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making.

A leaked draft of the EPP EU Parliamentary elections electoral manifesto indicates the proposal for the creation of a standalone defense portfolio in the next EU Commission.

Two EU Member states, Sweden and Finland, faced with the realty of Russian aggression against its neighbor Ukraine have abandoned their neutrality and sought NATO membership. Finland has already joined. When Sweden eventually joins NATO, 24 EU member states out of 28 will be NATO members, the exceptions being Malta, Austria, Ireland and Cyprus. Cyprus has in the past sought NATO membership but its application has been blocked by Türkiye.

In this context what is the significance of Malta’s neutrality? This is an essential debate, long overdue,  which should not be avoided, especially in view of the prevalent discourse in the EU at this point in time and particularly in view of developments on EU defense policy which are now inevitable.

Malta’s foreign policy has always been dependent on third countries guaranteeing its security. In the past it was an agreement with four countries, namely Italy, France, Libya and Algeria, which after the 1979 closure of the military base in Malta served this purpose. Nowadays this vacuum is filled by the provisions of the EU treaties as a result of which solidarity between EU member states signifies in practice that, in time of need, all the 28 states are there to help out each other. Even in matters of defense.

However, we know through experience that this does not necessarily work out. At the end of the day states do not have friends but interests which limit or enhance their actions or policy options. Within the European Union this is no different. The difficulties faced in addressing migration issues is a case in point: solidarity between EU member states has proven to be difficult to attain in practice notwithstanding the provisions of the EU treaties.

Security and defense issues are undoubtedly continuously on the diplomatic agenda. What results does not necessarily spill over in the public political debate.

Occasionally it is different: this happened in the recent past through discussions on the possibilities for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Malta and the United States of America around four years ago.

Particularly since the closure of the British military base, multilateral engagement has always been Malta’s preferred defense policy option.  It is hence in Malta’s interests that the European Union is in a position to adequately take care of its own defense. However, we need to participate actively in the EU defense debate, even if, as a direct consequence it may be necessary to re-visit and tweak our neutrality.

Protecting our interests signifies an active participation in the EU defense debate and applying the breaks, when necessary, to a rising militarism within the EU. At the end of the day, it is in our interest to speak up clearly.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 18 February 2024

The right to know and the duty to remember

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Attributed to Spanish-American philosopher Jorge Santayana, these words signify not only the duty to remember, but more, the right to know. 

We remember that which we know. How can we remember that which we do not know: that which has been hidden from our view? 

Unfortunately, our society, most conveniently, is, at times, more interested in promoting the right to forget, or better still, the right to be forgotten! Forgetting and consequently ignoring the past always has disastrous consequences.

Transparency is a basic value in any democracy worthy of its name. Without transparency there is no possibility of having any form of accountability. Hiding information, ensuring that it is not accessible, is a common stratagem used by those who want to avoid accountability. Data protection is unfortunately continuously being used and abused in order to avoid accountability.

Data protection rights are unfortunately continuously being abused, as a result, at times, shielding criminal activity. Though well intentioned, the recent decision of the Data Protection Commissioner on the publication of online chats between Yorgen Fenech and Rosianne Cutajar is part of this (unintended) fallout of privacy rights. Though in fairness it has to be stated that it is the publication of the full chats which has irked the Data Protection Commissioner and not the information contained therein.

Reading through the Yorgen/Rosienne chats decision of the Data Protection Commissioner reveals the tightrope negotiated by the Commissioner to try and protect both privacy as well as the right to be informed. It is appreciated that it is always difficult to draw a line as to where privacy ends and public interest reigns.

But then having the full chats published instead of a synthesis, as indirectly suggested by the Commissioner, served the purpose of not quoting out of context. The full context of the chats is essential as this clearly shows the toxic development of a mix of the power of money, sex, and political power. Through what was published it is clear how money and expensive gifts was the price through which a young politician was purchased. This is definitely in the public interest to know.

The right to know is not the satisfaction of a curiosity thirst. In any democracy, the free flow of information is basic and essential. Withholding information or obstruction of access to it should only be an exceptional occurrence.

Unfortunately, rather than being exceptional, the withholding of information or access to it, is fast becoming a normality.

Our Courts are resorting too often to withholding the publication of sensitive information. The court case of the NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials will no longer be heard behind closed doors as the original decision has now been reversed. This was another instance where our right to know was being stifled by those same authorities entrusted to defend us! Fortunately, the doors are now open. We have the right to know whether it is correct to state that the Attorney General acted abusively in defending criminality instead of prosecuting it! Has the criminal world captured the state institutions? This is what is at stake in this case! We have the right to know.

The reluctance of government to adhere to Freedom of Information Tribunal decisions is another disturbing matter.  For example, the Shift online news portal has won 40 cases at the Information Tribunal and 18 cases in Court relative to information requested on consultancy contracts and payments made to Saviour Balzan and his companies. Millions of euros of public funds have been used. Government is however refusing to be accountable for this use of these public funds.

What is the purpose of this secrecy? Has the state purchased the collaboration of a section of the media? This is what is at stake here. We have the right to know.

The right to know is basic in any democracy. Transparency and accountability work in tandem. Without transparency, accountability is hampered. A lack of transparency is an essential first step in order to ensure that accountability is avoided altogether.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter: devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency is entrenched as an essential element of the operation of the state and public institutions.

Whenever government, public bodies or state institutions are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

We deserve better than that.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 January 2024

Standards in Public Life: Labour’s new benchmark

Robert Abela has embarked on an exercise to exorcise his Labour Party from its recent past. His ultimate aim is (most obviously) the rehabilitation of those who have pigged out.

He has already rehabilitated Joseph Cuschieri, former CEO of the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA). Cuschieri had resigned from his post in November 2020 on the eve of the publication of a report investigating his behaviour at MFSA, which report was highly critical of his behaviour.

Cuschieri has now been appointed as CEO of Project Green. We were told that Cuschieri is a doer. As if this, in any way, absolves him of his highly errant behaviour in the public authorities with which he was entrusted over the years.

A clear pattern is now emerging, in that others will probably be absolved of the consequences of their actions. A clear message is being transmitted: accountability is now another dead letter.

Should those who resigned or were fired from their political posts or position of trust be rehabilitated? Definitely, not all misdemeanours necessitate a political death penalty. Everybody is entitled to a second chance. However, where do we draw the line?

Consider the case of Rosianne Cutajar. She is currently an independent Member of Parliament, having resigned from the Labour Party Parliamentary Group, in anticipation of her being dismissed. This came about after the publication of hundreds of chats between Rosianne Cutajar and Yorgen Fenech, currently accused with master-minding the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

On the basis of the information in these same chats, the media had reported Rosianne’s Cutajar involvement in facilitating a €3.1 million Mdina property deal and her pocketing slightly under €50,000 for her trouble, curtesy of her friend Yorgen!

The resulting investigation by the Commissioner for Standards in Public life had concluded that Rosianne Cutajar had committed a number of ethical breaches. Cutajar had earlier resigned as Junior Minister, pending the outcome of the investigation.

In addition to all this, at the Council of Europe it was queried whether Rosianne Cutajar’s critical interventions in the Parliamentary Assembly were motivated by undeclared financial interests associated with Yorgen Fenech. This was emphasised by Peter Omtzigt, the Assembly’s Dutch Special Rapporteur into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

If this was not enough, the Auditor General, some weeks ago, concluded an investigation into an employment agreement as a result of which the CEO of the Institute of Tourism Studies had engaged Rosianne Cutajar as his consultant. She was engaged as a management consultant in matters in which she had no known competence. It was therefore not surprising for the Auditor General to conclude that her engagement as a consultant was actually a phantom job.

This was consistent with her aim to pig out, as she confidentially declared to her friend Yorgen in their now public chats.

This behaviour does not merit the consideration of a second chance for Rosianne Cutajar, as Robert Abela is suggesting.

Considering the above behaviour, a political death penalty for Rosianne Cutajar is more than adequate if we are to have the most basic standards in public life.

In contrast, the new benchmark which Robert Abela is suggesting, would transform Parliament’s Code of Ethics into one fit for Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 21 January 2024

Personalising the welfare state

The Malta Community Chest Fund Foundation (MCCF) “………. is vital for us as oncologists in Malta. Without its assistance, many treatments would be off limits and the help we would be able to offer in some instances would therefore be seriously restricted.” This is a comment found on the last available MCCF annual report for the year 2020. It is attributed to Prof Nick Refalo, a consultant oncologist.

Generous help in cancer treatment has for a long time been at the forefront of the sterling work done by the MCCF. This help, generally, supplements the Health Ministry’s work. Over the years charity and voluntary work has been plugging in the gaps left wide open by the welfare state as a direct result of its one-size-fits-all approach.

The welfare state, as most other state initiatives, is generally a one-size-fits-all exercise, supplemented in specific circumstances. It is designed for the average person, for whom it may be just enough. But it is not sufficient, as practically no one fits the average person!  

On television, on the morrow of Christmas, we are shown one case after the other which had to rely on the funds collected in previous years in order to supplement the help from the health authorities or worse to fill in the gaps in the national health service. “Kif tista’ ma ċċempilx?”

The objective is laudable. The way to go about it, however, leaves much to be desired. At times, unethically parading on prime-time television the pain of those who, having suffered the failures of the welfare state had to revert to MCCF, is not on. Their pain is being unethically used to cash the generated pity through the collection of more funds. The methods used to generate funds should not undermine the basic objective of restoring human dignity through personalized care and attention. Even when consent is forthcoming, the methods used by l-Istrina are downright debasing.

Later, during the year, various other worthy initiatives will be spot-lighted. Millions of euro will be collected to support these other initiatives. They are no less deserving.

Perusal of the audited accounts of the MCCF for the year 2021, at the time of writing the latest data available on the MCCF website, reveals, that for the 2021 financial year, Government contributed an additional €13 million directly towards financing the commitments made. A substantial input without which the operations of the foundation would not be possible.

The politics of social solidarity is clearly an area where the state cannot do it alone. Beyond the indispensable financial contributions collected throughout the year, however, at the end of the day it is the personalization of welfare which makes the substantial difference.

The MCCF, throughout the year also distributes food vouchers to the tune of €20,000 monthly. Food banks and the Franciscan soup kitchen in Valletta tackle the same social issue most probably reaching out to areas which the formal social service network fails to link with.

The politics of social solidarity aims to restore human dignity by reaching out individually to each and every one of the downtrodden. This is done through supplementing the one-size-fits-all social services provided by the state though the personalized attention which the various NGO initiatives in hand make possible.

The need for social solidarity is not a seasonal one. It can be much helped through a judicious use of public resources. Adequately addressing the squandering of public resources throughout the rest of the year as pointed out by the Auditor General, could help considerably.

It is right to supplement the welfare state in the short term. However, in the longer term, the welfare state should be tweaked in order that its reach is extended to the neglected corners which are identified from time to time. The personalization of welfare, where this is possible, can also be taken up directly by the state in the services it provides. It will make a difference and is more effective than distributing cheques on the eve of elections or the so-called tax refunds.

The Christmas spirit of solidarity should not be limited to the day after Christmas. It should reign 365 days a year. 366 days in a leap year!

published in The Independent on Sunday : 31 December 2023