Meta l-Opposizzjoni toħroġ il-barra mill-Parlament

Li bħala protesta titlaq il-barra mill-Parlament waqt seduta parlamentari hi materja gravi għax tfisser li ma hemmx mod ieħor kif iż-żewġ naħat jikkomunikaw.

Dan mhux sinjal sabiħ u ma jagħmel l-ebda ġid lid-demokrazija parlamentari tagħna. Ovvjament il-Parlament baqa’ għaddej bix-xogħol tiegħu.

Saru ħafna żbalji li ħtija tagħhom il-pajjiż jinsab fil-qagħda attwali. Hu neċessarju li illum qabel għada jinstab mezz effettiv ta’ komunikazzjoni. Sfortunatament jidher li għadna l-bogħod.

Hemm bżonn li nikkomunikaw aktar. Forsi naslu biex nirrispettaw iktar lil xulxin, kif ukoll lill-pajjiżna. Għax pajjiżna jixraqlu ħafna aħjar.

Advertisements

Meta l-egħedewwa tal-poplu jħarsu fil-mera

 

Owen Bonnici fil-Parlament, il-bieraħ, ikkummenta fuq id-dibattitu fil-Parlament Ewropew ġewwa Strasbourg dwar is-saltna tad-dritt. Qal li segwa d-dibattitu u “ħassu dispjaċut jara Maltin bħalu jagħmlu ħsara lil pajjiżna”. Ħaddieħor qiegħed jikkwota lil Cicerun u qed jitkellem dwar “l-għadu f’nofsna”.

Għandi eta biżżejjed biex niftakar iż-żmien meta kull min jikkritika lill-Gvern kien ikun deskritt bħala “għadu tal-poplu”. Għax għal dawn in-nies li tikkritika lill-Gvern ifisser li tkun qed tagħmel il-ħsara lill-pajjiż.

Din hi l-attitudni tal-intolleranza, ta’ min ma jissaportix lil min jikkritikah. Hi l-istess attitudni li twassal għall-vjolenza u anke f’xi każi għall-qtil.

Issa jiena naħseb li l-kritika tal-Opposizzjoni hi ftit esaġerata u qed tpoġġi flimkien affarijiet li mhux prudenti li jkunu ippreżentati daqs li kieku huma marbutin. Dwar dan ktibt diversi drabi u jekk ikun hemm bżonn nerġa’ nikteb kif ktibt il-bieraħ fuq dan l-istess blog.

Il-Partit Laburista għandu bżonn jiġi ftit f’sensieh u jirrealizza li meta ħa posizzjoni favur Konrad Mizzi u Keith Schembri u fil-prattika ma ħa l-ebda passi dwar l-involviment tagħhom fil-Panama Papers kien qed jiffirma l-kundanna tiegħu innifsu. Dakinnhar kellhom ċans jieħdu posizzjoni ta’ prinċipju u minflok għażlu li jagħlqu għajnejhom it-tnejn.

Dak kollu li qed jiġri illum hu konsegwenza ta’ dik id-deċiżjoni ħażina.

Nissuggerixxi lil min qed jitgħajjar dwar “l-egħdewwa tal-poplu” biex iħares ftit fil-mera. Għax l-ikbar għadu tal-poplu Malti hu dak li hu fdat bil-poter u ma jagħmilx dmiru.

Constitutional Convention: upsetting the apple-cart

 

A Constitutional Convention is long overdue. It has been on the public agenda for years.

Over the years, Malta’s Constitution has been patched up several times in order to resolve political issues arising at that particular point in time. It is about time that the Constitution is considered in its entirety in order to ensure that it serves the needs of the nation now and in the foreseeable future. An overhaul would certainly be in order.

One major issue which, in my view, needs to be addressed is the curtailing of the executive’s power over the composition, set-up and running of authorities and institutions so that these can begin functioning properly. Rather than the executive ceding power, as Minister Owen Bonnici stated recently when piloting the debate on the Bill that seeks to introduce limited screening of public appointments, it means that Parliament should rediscover its proper functions and claim back its authority.

This is the basic flaw in Malta’s Constitutional set-up. Malta is described as a Parliamentary democracy and, on paper, Parliament does have the power to decide but, over the years it has been reluctant to upset the current balance of power that favours Cabinet over Parliament. Unless and until there is a will to address this, no headway can be made and any proposed changes will necessarily be cosmetic in nature.

Currently, the focus of public debate is on the functioning of the institutions of the state. This debate has been going on for some time but has gathered steam as a result of the obvious inertia observed over many years. The principal issue is the manner in which major public appointments are made.

Unfortunately the public debate is sometimes derailed. The debate on the Attorney General’s office, for example, should rather be on the functions of the office than on Dr. Peter Grech, the current incumbent. In particular, Parliament should examine whether the multitude of responsibilities added to the office of the Attorney General over the years have diluted its Constitutional responsibilities. One detailed proposal on the hiving off of responsibility for public prosecutions was made in the Vanni Bonello-led Justice Reform Commission, many moons ago. So far, no action has been taken.

I think that by now it is clear to all that Parliament, on its own, will not deliver on the reform required because such reform, if properly carried out, will upset the manner in which political power is exercised in these islands.

The basic Constitutional set-up underpinning the 1964 Constitution, notwithstanding the multitude of changes carried out throughout the years – including the 1974 change from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic – is still substantially in place. On Independence, in 1964, most of the powers of the British sovereign, then exercised through the Governor, were handed over to the Prime Minister, subject to the theoretical oversight of Parliament. For over 50 years, Parliament has been reluctant to upset the apple-cart and no Prime Minister has ever had the courage to propose the curtailment of his own powers and handing them over completely to Parliament, which is where they belong in a Parliamentary democracy. Nor has Parliament ever taken the initiative: its composition prevents it from acting in such a manner.

The current large size of the Cabinet, coupled with the nomination of backbench MPs on the government side to various posts and sinecures, is a clear declaration of intent. Keeping backbench MPs happy and occupied reduce the likelihood of them asking too many questions. This has been going on for some time: in fact the Gonzi administration acted in a manner very similar to the current administration in this respect.

This, in my view, is the crux of the whole issue which Parliament cannot and will not resolve on its own. It needs a vibrant civil society (not a fake one represented by a couple of non-entities) which can prod and guide it until it embarks on the path where real political power is channelled back to where it really belongs. This is the real reason why electoral reform has always been left on the back burner, as it is only through fair electoral reform that results in a different Parliamentary format whereby Parliament can start to think outside the box in which it is currently restrained.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 5 November 2017

Il-Beatu Jason Azzopardi?

Waqt laqgħa tal-kumitat Parlamentari tal-kontijiet pubbliċi illum instemgħet xhieda ta’ dak li kien d-Direttur Ġenerali tad-Dipartimenti tal-Artijiet. Dan qal li Jason Azzopardi kien jaf b’kull ma kien qiegħed jiġri dwar propjetà tal-Gvern fi Spinola li dwarha jidher li hemm it-taħwid.

Naħseb li l-proċess tal-beatifikazzjoni ta’ Jason Azzopardi ser jieħu daqqa ta’ ħarta.

Id-dmugħ tal-kukkudrill u l-qtil ta’ Daphne

Inkitbu numru kbir ta’ artikli dwar il-qtil ta’ Daphne nhar it-Tnejn li għadda, meta l-karozza li kienet qed issuq ġiet sploduta f’elf biċċa. Tfasslu bosta tejoriji dwar l-identità u l-motiv ta’ dawk li ppjanaw u/jew esegwew dan il-qtil. Mhux ħa nżid mal-ispekulazzjoni.

Bħal bosta oħrajn, tul is-snin jiena ukoll kelli l-possibiltà li nsegwi l-kitbiet tagħha. Bosta minnhom sibthom mill-iktar informattivi. Il-kapaċitajiet investigattivi tagħha kienu fost l-aqwa fil-ġurnaliżmu Malti. L-argumenti tagħha kienu dejjem qawwija, għalkemm il-preġudizzji tagħha dejjem kienu ċari. Kienet kapaċi talterna bejn artikli investigattivi ta’ l-għola livell ma oħrajn li jivvilifikaw lil dawk fil-mira tagħha.

L-opinjonijiet politiċi tagħha kienu dejjem ċari u hi dejjem mexxiethom ‘il quddiem b’qawwa kbira. Sa’ Ġunju 2017 injorat il-parti l-kbira tad-dnubiet tal-PN u iffukat bla ħniena fuq dawk tal-PL. Wara Ġunju 2017, kif kien jixirqilhom, poġġiethom flimkien f’qoffa waħda u b’hekk tat iktar kredibilità lil min jgħid li m’hemmx x’tagħżel bejn il-PN u l-PL.

Dwar Alternattiva Demokratika kitbet bosta drabi: kritika f’mumenti delikati fejn il-posizzjoni politika ta’ AD kienet f’kuntrast ma dik tal-PN. Drabi oħra, meta dehrilha, għamlet użu mill-fehmiet ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika kif kien jaqbel biex issaħħaħ l-argumenti tagħha.

Il-qtil tagħha hu daqqa ta’ ħarta għal-libertà tal-espressjoni f’Malta.

Kien hemm bosta opportunitajiet oħra fejn kien hemm min jipprova jagħlqiha ħalqa permezz ta’ numru esaġerat ta’ kawżi ta’ libel. Reċentement sar attentat biex permezz ta’ mekkaniżmu legali eżistenti ġew iffriżati l-kontijiet bankarji tagħha bħala garanzija għad-danni li kienu qed jintalbu. Sfortunatament il-Qrati ma irrealizzawx in-natura reali ta’ din l-azzjoni intimidatorja. L-impatt ta’ din l-azzjoni kien imxejjen biss wara li irnexxiet l-inizzjattiva ta’ crowd funding organizzata minn David Thake. B’hekk l-azzjoni intimidatorja tal-Ministru Cardona u l-konsulenti legali tiegħu kważi sfatt fix-xejn.

Adrian Delia, l-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni, li ukoll kien taħt il-lenti tagħha għal dawn l-aħħar erba’ xhur, kif jidher minn l-aħħar diskors tiegħu, qed ifittex x’vantaġġ politiku jista’ jakkwista l-partit tiegħu minn dan il-qtil. Jidher li jixtieq li ninsew li hu ukoll ta kontibut biex inġemgħu t-turrun libelli fil-konfront tagħha. Li iritirhom iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa mhu xejn għajr ipokrezija grassa.

Dan hu essenzjalment dak li hemm mistoħbi wara t-tixrid tad-dmugħ tal-kukkudrilli ta’ uħud minn dawk li qed jgħidu li huma maħsudin b’dan il-qtil.

Il-Pulizija bdew l-investigazzjonijiet tagħhom. It-talba li saret għall-għajnuna ta’ esperti barranin hi utli għax tista’ tkun l-assigurazzjoni meħtieġa biex kull indikazzjoni tkun esplorata u investigata. Imma l-investigazzjoni għal ftit ma bdietx bil-banda għax il-Maġistrat Consuelo Scerri Herrera damet ma ndunat li hemm ma kienx postha. Il-fatt li damet is-siegħat biex irrealizzat dan juri li uħud mill-membri tal-ġudikatura għad għandhom ħafna x’jitgħallmu.

Il-presenza tal-Maġistrat Scerri Herrera fil-Bidnija ħasdet lil kulħadd hekk kif waslet. Ftit wara l-ħasda kibret minħabba l-kummenti fuq Facebook ta’ surgent mit-tim investigattiv tal-Pulizja li ried jiċċelebra l-avvenimenti li kien qed jara. Il-fatt li ġie sospiż u ser jgħaddi passi dixxiplinari mhux biżżejjed. Għad hemm ħtieġa ta’ spjegazzjoni mingħand il-Kummissarju tal-Pulizja dwar il-għala xi membri tal-Korp għadhom ma rrealizzawx li l-presenza tagħhom fuq il-media soċjali hi ta’ ħsara għall-kredibilità u l-imparzjalità tagħhom u tal-Korp tal-Pulizija kollu.

Imma mid-dehra mhux is-surġent tal-Pulizija biss ħass li kellu bżonn jiċċelebra nhar it-Tnejn waranofsinnhar. X’ser jgħidulna dwar il-carcades li saru, anke jekk kienu ftit? Min ser jassumi r-responsabbiltà għalihom?

Il-Prim Ministru hu anzjuż biex il-każ jissolva malajr kemm jista’ jkun. Ilkoll għandna l-istess xewqa u iktar ma dan iseħħ malajr, aħjar għal kulħadd. Imma, meta l-każ jingħalaq ikun il-waqt li nstaqsu jekk dan kollu setax ikun evitat. Għax bla dubju seta kien evitat.

 

 

 

ippubblikat f’Illum – 22 t’Ottubru 2017

Crocodile tears and the assassination of Daphne

Countless articles and opinions have been written about Daphne’s assassination last Monday, when the car she was driving was blown to smithereens.

Many theories have been woven as to the possible identity and motivation of those who planned and/or executed her assassination. I will not add to the speculation.

Like many others, I followed her writings through the years and found most of them informative. In the Maltese journalist community, her investigative skills were second to none. Her arguments were always very forceful even though a bias was always clearly present. She could alternate between well-written, clearly thought out and investigative articles and pure invective aimed at those she despised.

Her underlying political views were always clear and she promoted them mercilessly. Until June 2017, she ignored most of the sins of the PN and focused relentlessly on those of the PL. After June 2017 she practically lumped them both together in one basket, as they deserved, lending credence to the statement that there is nothing to distinguish the PN from the PL.

As for AD, it was one of her punching bags when it suited her, in particular at those critical political junctures where AD’s views and positions contrasted sharply with those of the PN. At other times, when she found AD’s views useful, she used them to buttress her own.

Her assassination is a direct blow against freedom of expression in Malta.

Various other attempts have been made to shut her up through the countless actions in court for civil damages. An attempt was made to cripple her financially with a legal mechanism, insisting that the claimed civil damages be deposited in Court when legal action is initiated. This was an attempt at intimidation which, unfortunately, the Law Courts did not see through. The attempt was only thwarted through the initiative of David Thake who organised crowd funding of the sums requested, thus short-circuiting the bully-boy tactics of Minister Cardona and his lawyers.

The Leader of the Opposition, Adrian Delia, having been under her spotlight for the past four months is now apparently out to milk her assassination for his party’s political gain, as is evidenced by his speeches earlier this week. He seems to want us to forget that he too was a contributor to the pile of actions for libel submitted against her. Their withdrawal this week smells of crass hypocrisy.

This is essentially the background to the crocodile tears being shed by some of those who say that they are “shocked” at her assassination.

Police investigations have commenced. Requesting help from foreign experts may ensure that all leads are followed. The investigation was almost torpedoed in its first seconds when Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera failed to realise that this was a definite no-go area for her. That she took hours to realise this, is testimony to the fact that some members of the bench still need to master much more than the law.

The Magistrate’s presence shocked all as soon as she arrived on site at Bidnija. Soon after, that shock was to be compounded by the comments posted on Facebook by a Police Sergeant from the police investigating team on his being overjoyed at the day’s happenings. The fact that he was suspended pending disciplinary action is not sufficient. It still needs to be explained by the Commissioner of Police why some members of the police force have still not realised that they should stay away from the social media as it may seriously jeopardise not only their integrity and impartiality but also that of the whole Police Corps.

Apparently, it was not only the Police Sergeant who was overjoyed on Monday afternoon. What about the few carcades which were organised? Anybody cares to assume responsibility?

The Prime Minister is very anxious to get to the bottom of all this. We all are. The sooner this is done the better. However, when this is done and dusted it would be appropriate to examine the extent to which it was avoidable. As indeed it was.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 22 October 2017

Il-PN fis-sqaq tal-fundamentaliżmu

Adrian Delia appunta lilu nnifsu l-gwardjan tal-morali tal-pajjiż. Għalhekk, qal, li l-PN fil-Parlament ser jopponi l-avviż legali li jintroduċi 100 siegħa leave bi ħlas għal dawk li jfittxu trattament tal-IVF barra minn Malta (nisa infertili u lesbjani).

Billi l-liġi tal-IVF presentment fis-seħħ dan ma tippermettieħx Delia qed tniggżu l-kuxjenza u jidhirlu li għal din ir-raġuni għandu jopponi.

Adrian Delia għadu kif ħa ġurament ta’ lealtà lejn il-Kostituzzjoni. Fl-aħħar leġislatura din il-kostituzzjoni ġiet emendat biex anke id-diskriminazzjoni a bażi tal-ġeneru u l-orientazzjoni sesswali tkun ipprojibita.

Fit-triq li qabad favur il-fundamentaliżmu Delia mhuwiex jirrealizza li qiegħed ikasbar il-Kostituzzjoni ta’ pajjiżna li tobbliga anke lilu li jitbiegħed minn kwalunkwe diskriminazzjoni: f’dan il-kuntest id-diskriminazzjoni a bażi tal-ġeneru u l-orientazzjoni sesswali.

Fil-Parlament ftit ġimgħat ilu kellna d-dmugħ tal-kukkudrilli ta’ dawk li iddispjaċihom li kienu astjenew fil-vot dwar id-drittijiet LGBTIQ fil-leġislatura l-oħra fosthom Mario de Marco u Claudette Buttigieg. Nistennew u naraw jekk bidlux il-fehma tagħhom.

S’issa fil-PN qiegħed jinstema leħen wieħed biss favur ir-raġuni : dak ta’ Norman Vella.

Sadanittant il-PN jibqa’ dieħel il-ġewwa fis-sqaq tal-fundamentaliżmu, u minn hemm ser ikunlu diffiċli li joħroġ.

Owen’s latest gimmick

Earlier this week, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici explained to the press the measures proposed by the government in order that Parliament will be in a position to examine its political appointees nominated to head various state agencies or institutions as well as those appointed to ambassadorships from outside the civil service.

Naturally, the first reaction to Owen Bonnici’s declaration is that government’s proposal is a positive small first step. However, when the detailed proposal was published, it was clear that this was another gimmick. It is proposed that a Parliamentary Standing Committee will be able to examine potential political appointees through written questions. On the basis of the answers received, and supplementary (written) questions, the Parliamentary Standing Committee will be expected to advise the government on the appointments under consideration.

This is a far cry from what is expected in a modern democracy.

Parliament, either directly or through a standing committee, should not be expected to simply advise. It should decide on the suitability or otherwise of the government nominees. This should be done after the nominees have been examined in a public hearing in the same manner as that of the US Senate Committees or the Parliamentary Committees of various other countries. This can only be done if Parliament reclaims the powers it has ceded to the government over the years.

Parliamentary scrutiny means much more than answering a set of written questions. Examining the nominees to ascertain their suitability for the post they have been nominated goes much further than the superficial examination of their professional competence. It also entails the examination of their past performance in order to ascertain whether they are capable of withstanding political pressure which seeks to sway their judgement in favour of political expediency and consequently influence their behaviour.

Such an exercise cannot be done through written questions but through a viva voce examination where it is not only what is said that matters. Interpreting body language and reactions to unexpected questions or statements is generally more relevant than deciphering boring, long-winded answers that go around in circles and generally avoid providing an answer at all.

During the general election campaign a few months ago, we were told that we needed “Labour-proof institutions”. In reality, government institutions and agencies should be at arms length from the government of the day in all day to day matters. This is done by ensuring that the running of government institutions and agencies is not the prerogative of political cronies but of suitably qualified appointees.

The government proposal is one that ensures that Parliament, through it’s Standing Committees, will not be in a position to carry out any meaningful scrutiny.  Parliament needs to have the authority to block the appointments which it considers to be unsuitable and in order to be able to act in this manner, the government’s proposal needs to be heavily revisited.

It is for this reason that – in the recent general election manifesto (and even in that of the previous general election) – we Greens proposed a much more effective policy: that parliament (or its committees) should have the authority to decide, and not merely advise on, public appointments and that this should be done through a public hearing without limitations.

These are the essential building blocks of a healthy democracy.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 1st October 2017

L-għarbiel ta’ Owen Bonnici : b’toqob kbar

Il-pass li ħabbar Owen Bonnici li l-Gvern ser jitlob il-parir ta’ kumitat parlamentari qabel ma jagħmel numru ta’ ħatriet hu pass il-quddiem. Pass żgħir iva. Imma xorta l-quddiem. Dan ma nistax niċħdu, avolja hu fermi l-bogħod milli wieħed jistenna fid-dinja tal-lum.

Il-liġi proposta għadna ma rajnihiex u għalhekk dawn il-kummenti huma bbażati fuq dak li qal Owen Bonnici. Il-Gvern, qal Owen Bonnici, ser jibqa’ jkollu l-aħħar kelma, imma ser ifittex il-parir ta’ kumitat parlamentari qabel ma jagħmel ħatriet politiċi ta’ ambaxxaturi u ċ-Ċhairpersons ta’ numru ta’ entitajiet pubbliċi. Dan hu tajjeb imma imbagħad, dejjem skond ma qal Owen Bonnici l-iskrutinju li jista’ jsir mill-kumitat parlamentari hu wieħed limitat ħafna. Għax jista’ jsir biss bil-miktub u ser ikun limitat dwar kompetenza professjonali.

Din il-limitazzjoni fil-poteri ta’ skrutinju hi daħq fil-wiċċ u jfisser li fil-prattika l-iskrutinju li jista jsir hu limitat ħafna u ftit li xejn jista’ jservi ħlief fejn ikunu nominati persuni inkompetenti.

L-aħbarijiet ta’ TVM qalulna li l-ħatriet ser jgħaddu mill-għarbiel tal-Parlament. Imma ma qalux li l-għarbiel ta’ Owen għandu toqob kbar, li minnu jgħaddi kważi kollox.

Fil-Manifest Elettorali tal-aħħar elezzjoni (u anke f’dak ta’ qabilha) Alternattiva Demokratika ipproponiet miżura ferm iktar drastika u ċjoe li l-Parlament (jew il-kumitati tiegħu) jiddeċiedi u mhux sempliċiment jagħti parir. U biex jagħmel dan għandu jgħarbel sewwa permezz ta’ skrutinju pubbliku (public hearing) mingħajr limitazzjoni.

U mela mistoqsijiet bil-miktub!

Wiċċu bla żejt

 

Persuna li ma tistħix ngħidulha li jkollha wiċċ bla żejt. Taġixxi b’mod sfaċċat, qiesu ma ġara xejn. Bħall-membru parlamentari tal-PN David Agius.

David Agius, meta kien membru parlamentari fuq in-naħa tal-Gvern kien, flimkien ma oħrajn, ivvota favur li art f’diversi partijiet ta’ Malta, fil-parti l-kbira tagħha art verġni, tingħata għall-iżvilupp. Issa qasam fuq in-naħa l-oħra u qiegħed jappoġġa lir-residenti li qed jipprotestaw kontra dan l-iżvilupp li hu ivvota favur tiegħu.

F’Ħ’Attard, fl-inħawi magħrufa Tal-Idward, fil-periferija taż-żona tal-iżvilupp, David Agius jappoġġa lir-residenti li qed jipprotestaw biex art agrikola ma tkunx żviluppata. Ir-residenti huma rrabjati għax issa hemm it-tieni applikazzjoni biex ikun determinat kif tista’ tkun żviluppata l-art fl-inħawi tal-Idward.

David Agius kien hemm, kważi ċass, bla espressjoni f’wiċċu. Ħdax-il sena ilu, fil-Parlament kien ivvota favur l-istess żvilupp li issa kien qed jipprotesta kontra tiegħu!

L-istorja kollha hi dwar dak li hu magħruf bħala l-eżerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni li permezz tiegħu meded kbar ta’ art imxerrda mal-gżejjer Maltin, sa dakinnhar barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp, saru tajbin għall-bini. Bil-vot tiegħu favur dan kollu David Agius għin biex dan ikun possibli li jsir. David Agius mhux waħdu. Fuq il-bankijiet tal-Opposizzjoni għad hemm diversi kollegi tiegħu li għamlu bħalu.

L-ippjanar għall-użu tal-art hu strument li għandu jkun użat fl-interess tal-komunitá kollha, u mhux fl-interess tal-ftit. Sfortunatament, illum, ħdax-il sena wara huwa ċar iktar minn qatt qabel kemm l-eżerċzzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni injora lill-komunitajiet residenzjali tagħna madwar il-pajjiż kollu biex jaġevola lill-ispekulaturi.

Meta l-Parlament approva li meded kbar ta’ art barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp isiru żviluppabbli kien jaf li ma kien sar l-ebda studju biex ikunu mkejla l-impatti kumulattivi li rriżultaw minn din id-deċiżjoni. Bħala riżultat ta’ dan, l-impatti tat-traffiku, l-kwalitá tal-arja, l-għargħar, id-dellijiet fuq bini diġa armat b’pannelli fotovoltajċi kif ukoll in-numru dejjem jiżdied ta’ propjetá vojta kienu fatturi injorati kompletament meta l-Parlament iddeċieda li japprova l-eżerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni.

Sfortunatament, l-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar, minkejja li kienet taf b’dan in-nuqqas baqgħet għaddejja u ma ppruvatx tagħmel tajjeb għan-nuqqas tal-Parlament.

Sadanittant, fil-Parlament, il-Ministru Ian Borg huwa u jwieġeb għall-kritika ta’ din id-deċiżjoni tal-Awtoritá tal-Ippjanar ipponta subgħajh lejn l-Opposizzjoni. Imma dan mhux biżżejjed għax anke l-Partit Laburista wara 4 snin fil-Gvern ma għamel xejn dwar dan kollu.

Bosta minna niftakru li meta l-Partit Laburista kien fl-Opposizzjoni, fil-Parlament, kien ivvota kontra dan l-eserċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni. Dan iwassal għall-mistoqsija inevitabbli dwar jekk il-Partit Laburista bidilx fehmtu. Għax ħlief għal ftit kummenti waqt il-kampanja elettorali l-Partit Laburista qatt ma qal xejn dwar dan kollu. Dan x’jfisser? Għandna ninterpretaw in-nuqqas ta’ azzjoni mill-Partit Laburista fil-Gvern bħala qbil mal-ezerċizzju ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni?

Sa fejn naf jiena, Alternattiva Demokratika biss indirizzat dan kollu waqt il-kampanja elettorali li għadha kif intemmet. Dan billi pproponiet li dawn it-tip ta’ permessi m’għandhomx joħorġu f’dawk il-lokalitajiet fejn hemm numru konsiderevoli ta’ propjetajiet residenzjali vakanti.

Jidher imma li l-partiti fil-parlament issa bidlu ir-rwol tagħhom. David Agius hu l-eżempju ovvju: meta l-partit tiegħu kien fil-Gvern jappoġġa l-ispekulazzjoni, u issa li qiegħed fl-Opposizzjoni taparsi jappoġġa lir-residenti.

ippubblikat fl-Illum il-Ħadd  9 ta’ Lulju 2017