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

Dawk it-78 boxfile

Robert Abela qiegħed jipprova jkeskes lin-nies kontra l-Qrati. Spiċċa issa dak li kien jgħid biex “inħallu lill-istituzzjonijiet jaħdmu.”

L-inkjesti dejjem idumu. Dawk ta’ importanza u serjetà kbira jdumu iktar. Li kien ikun ħażin kien kieku l-inkjesta tagħmel żmien wieqfa. Sakemm iż-żmien intuża biex tinġabar l-informazzjoni neċessarja biex tkun ippreservata ix-xhieda dwar dak kollu li ġara in konnessjoni mat-trasferiment tat-tlett sptarijiet lil Vitals, ikun hemm spjegazzzjoni raġjonevoli għad-dewmien.

L-ispjegazzjoni ikun possibli li nkunu nafuha meta dak li ikkonkludiet l-inkjesta jkun magħruf. S’issa, kif jiġri dejjem, xejn għadu mhu magħruf. Tal-inqas jiena u (probabbilment) inti li qed taqra ma nafu xejn!

Inutli nispekulaw, għax fiċ-ċirkustanzi l-ispekulazzjoni ħażin tagħmel. Ħażin lil kulħadd, peró l-ikbar ħsara issir lill-pajjiż. Dan Robert Abela jafu: imma minkejja dan jibqa’ jkeskes.

Ma tistax tkun kredibbli meta b’nifs wieħed tappella biex ħadd ma jirreaġixxi għall-provokazzjoni, imma immedjatament wara issaħħan l-irjus.

Robert Abela għamel tajjeb li talab biex l-Avukat Ġenerali (l-AG) tippubblika r-rapport tal-inkjesta. Kull miżura li tista’ tnaqqas l-ispekukazzjoni hi miżura tajba. Id-deċiżjoni, imma, tiddependi mill-AG biss, li nifhem li tiddeċiedi skond kif inhu l-aħjar biex issir ġustizzja, imma, anke b’mod li ma tippreġudikax l-istess ġustizzja.

Għalhekk xejn ma neħodha bi kbira jekk ir-riżultat tal-inkjesta jdum ma jkun ippubblikat.

Bħalissa, avukati fl-uffiċċju tal-AG ikunu qed jeżaminaw il-konklużjonijiet li waslet għalihom il-Maġistrat Gabriella Vella fir-rapport tal-inkjesta, u dan flimkien max-xhieda u l-provi li ġabret u li qegħdin merfugħha f’dawk it-78 boxfile.

Jekk l-inkjesta, biex ġiet konkluża, ħadet 4 snin u nofs, ħadd m’għandu jistenna li l-AG u l-Pulizija jieħdu deċiżjonijiet ta’ malajr.

L-unika ħaġa li nafu s’issa hu li l-AG talbet lill-Qorti biex ikunu iffrizati l-assi ta’ numru ta’ persuni u kumpaniji: hemm 84 (erbgħa u tmenin) isem. Il-Qorti ippreseduta mill-Imħallef Edwina Grima laqgħet it-talba. Dan ifisser li l-AG pass pass bdiet taġixxi.

Il-bieraħ waqt konferenza stampa l-ex Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat qalilna li hu dejjem mexa tajjeb. Jaf, qal, x’għamel u x’ magħmilx! Ovvjament jiena ma nafx x’għamel u x’magħmilx Joseph Muscat. Biex il-maġistrat saret taf x’għamel hu u x’għamlu l-oħrajn li ser jissemmew damet 4 snin u nofs tfittex u issaqsi.

Kulħadd jieħu pjaċir kieku t-tmexxija tal-pajjiż hi nadifa tazza. Biex ikun ivverifikat jekk dan hux minnu hemm il-Pulizija u l-Qrati. Għalhekk l-inkjesta, għalhekk it-78 boxfile.

Imma naħseb li lkoll saqajna mal-art u nafu li mhux kollox hu sewwa. Hemm min donnu diġa nesa’li diġa’ hemm sentenza tal-Qorti, ikkonfermata fl-appell, li fil-kaz tal-isptarijiet hemm ħafna x’ixxomm.

Min hu responsabbli għal dak li ġara? Joseph jgħid li mhux hu. It-83 l-oħra huma siekta s’issa.

Issa naraw jekk hux il-ħajbu.

Regulating the building industry

Regulating the building industry requires the political will to act in an industry that has repeatedly opposed and defied regulation. Last week’s fatal accident at St Ignatius Junction Sliema is the latest incident in an industry in which regulation is still opposed. The political will to regulate is lacking, notwithstanding all the government theatrics, day in day out.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has submitted his resignation on Tuesday. This will lead to the appointment of a third CEO in as many years. This is a resignation that has been submitted out of frustration, even though the resignation letter has not been published.

This resignation followed the comments of Robert Abela, Prime Minister, who on Sunday, a few hours after the incident acknowledged that the authorities regulating the building industry do not have sufficient resources to carry out their responsibilities and regulate the industry. However, he failed to state or acknowledge that those whom his government appointed to lead the BCA have time and again requested these resources. The government has, so far, repeatedly ignored these requests.

When giving evidence at the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry, the former CEO of the BCA, Karl Azzopardi, stated that he had repeatedly requested funds for a staff complement of 300 to regulate the industry through inspections and enforcement. The recruitment process was slow and the funds allocated rarely matched what he considered necessary.

From Azzopardi’s evidence at the public inquiry, it results that there were only 11 inspectors at the BCA against a projected requirement of between 40 and 50. In addition to recruitment, he explained that there was also the requirement to train those selected meticulously, as otherwise, they would not be in any way effective.

Karl Azzopardi was squeezed out of his CEO post by the incoming Minister Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, who preferred his own man, Jesmond Muscat, who, however, resigned earlier this week. The BCA, in the meantime, is still without adequate resources as the Prime Minister’s words have so far not been matched with the allocation of the required resources.

The lack of resources allocated to the BCA is a major contributor leading to the frequent construction incidents which are becoming a too frequent occurrence. Without funds for the BCA to hire and train staff to carry out its regulatory duties, we may have more incidents in the weeks and months to come. There is a political responsibility to be shouldered for this lack of funding of the BCA. Prime Minister Robert Abela tried to transmit the subtle message that Minister Zrinzo Azzopardi was shouldering this by removing the building industry portfolio from his Ministerial responsibilities in the last Cabinet reshuffle.

This is however not enough.

The BCA is once more without a CEO, who is quite obviously fed up with being treated as a political football by those appointing him. His letter of resignation was not published, but its timing gives a clear message which cannot be ignored.

As results from the Sofia inquiry report,  the BCA inspectorate was made up of eleven persons! An identical number of persons make up the BCA Board of Directors!  Those are the government’s BCA priorities at this point.

When the government starts adequately funding the BCA, then maybe we can have an inspectorate that acts proactively to identify the abusers in the industry before they lead to more deaths.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 April 2024

Pelting with eggs

The debate on defense policy requires to be dealt with much more seriously than through pelting Prime Minister Robert Abela with eggs, as happened last Tuesday during a political activity at Vittoriosa.     

Whether we like it or not, 23 out of the 27 EU member states are members of NATO. Malta, Ireland, Austria and Cyprus are the exceptions. (Cyprus had its NATO membership application vetoed by Turkey.) It is a politically difficult situation which requires a tightrope walking skill. It is never going to be easy with the European defense industry leaders breathing down the neck of the EU leadership.

The defense industry, including that within the European Union itself, is undoubtedly lobbying intensively on a continuous basis. 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.

It is inevitable that in view of the Russian aggression in Ukraine the defense debate intensifies during the current EU Parliament electoral campaign.

One of the points raised by the outgoing President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen is on whether it is appropriate to have an EU Commissioner entrusted exclusively with defense policy in the next Commission later this year. The European People’s Party (EPP) wants to substitute the top EU diplomatic job with a defense Commissioner post.

Defense, in all its aspects, is a matter reserved for the individual European Member states in terms of the EU treaties. I would have expected government spokespersons to be clear on this point. Unfortunately, they have been completely silent, at least on a public level. This is not on. It is not acceptable. The sooner it is rectified the better.

This is not a matter which can be relegated to the diplomatic level. It has to be taken up forcefully: positions taken must be clear publicly.  The warmongering on a European level must be brought to order the soonest.

On a local level, the debate on defense policy is completely absent, except for the partisan bickering from time to time. This has intensified in the past weeks.

Unfortunately, we have already had proposals by the Bavarian Christan Democrat leader of EPP, Manfred Weber, that the EU should invest in nuclear deterrence.  Last January, Politico reported that this Bavarian political outburst was delivered in the context of the perceived consequences of Donald Trump’s threats on the weakening of NATO, if he is re-elected to the Presidency of the United States of America later this year. Irrespective of the motivation it should be clear even at this stage that such proposals are unacceptable. A neutral Malta should have made her voice heard ages ago! Yet silence prevails.

Notwithstanding all the bickering on the EU Council’s final statement last week, this matter has been ignored. The Prime Minister then felt the need to seek the advice of the State Advocate in order to ensure that Malta’s neutral status is respected in the commitments made in the final statement. Yet we are not yet aware as to whether the proposal to create a standalone defense portfolio in the next Commission has yet been sent to the State Advocate for his advice.

The silence of the Opposition PN on the matter is also deafening, considering that the defense proposals on EU defense Commissioner as well as the proposal on an EU nuclear deterrence are being made by the European People’s Party of which it forms part.

Pelting with eggs is no substitute for the national political debate on defense matters. It is in our interest to wake up and smell the coffee.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 31 March 2024

The President of the Republic: a flicker of hope

The term of office of current President of the Republic George Vella will expire in the first days of April. His successor, the new President, will, for the first time require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives in order to be elected. This, in practice, means that both Government and Opposition must be in agreement for such an appointment to be approved.

Talks between government and opposition are known to have commenced. They are confidential in nature and as such little is known as to how they have proceeded to date. All that is known is that the Opposition Parliamentary group has drawn a significant red line: it will not support any candidate for the Presidency of the Republic if such candidate was a member of the Cabinet of Ministers led by Joseph Muscat and censored by the public inquiry into the circumstances leading to the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

The red line drawn by the Opposition is significant. It is not known how government ranks have reacted to it, as, so far, no public statement has been made on the manner in which the talks between the Labour led government and the PN Opposition are progressing. 

The veil of confidentiality is reasonable, but at some point, it must and will inevitably be lifted in order to enable the public debate on the Presidency to proceed.

At the time of writing Prime Minister Robert Abela is being quoted as emphasizing that he is “hopeful” that an agreement will be arrived at, even at this late hour. It is being stated that ongoing talks are constructive, this giving rise to a possibly positive outcome by the early April deadline. The first indication of the name of a possible agreed nominee is also available at the time of writing.

The two-thirds hurdle which must be overcome in order to elect a President of the Republic, once every five years, has a specific aim: that of ensuring that the selected person has as wide an acceptance as possible. He or she must be able to bridge the political divide. This must be done on a continuous basis.

There have been a countless number of instances in the past when the political parties in Parliament have succeeded in overcoming partisan squabbling and reached agreement on many a sensitive matter. Including the appointment of a Head of State. Then it was good politics to do so. Now it is also a must!

The art of compromise is good politics which, unfortunately, is not sufficiently mastered by many in the political world. It does not mean giving up any of your views, values or beliefs. It rather signifies that you also see the good in what others do and factor it in what you do or say. It is a point that is often sadly missed in this polarized society which we call home!

I still fail to understand why, for example, the Opposition in Parliament failed to accept former Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. I had then stated that the Opposition had the right to block the proposed appointment, but it also had the duty to give reasonable explanations for doing so. It failed to give reasonable explanations, because none, in my view, existed. Playing party politics with our institutions is not on.

The rest is now history, except, that, in my opinion, Joseph Azzopardi has proven himself to be a good choice as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. Both PN and Labour, unfortunately, acted irrationally in this matter. The PN was intransigent while Labour over-reacted.

It is appropriate that both Government and Opposition learn lessons from their past mistakes. It is in the interest of the country that they do this the soonest possible.

The fact that talks are proceeding constructively, maybe, is an indicator that, possibly, there is still some flickering hope for this country. We can only wait and hold our breath: possibly for not too long!

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 24 March 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

Does the building construction industry care?

We had another serious accident in the building construction industry this week at Gżira. The retained  façade of a number of buildings currently in the process of being redeveloped into a hotel, collapsed into the street: Belvedere Street in Gżira.

These accidents don’t just happen. They are inevitably the result of someone’s error, big or small.

Without waiting for the building construction industry reform, currently in hand, there are already enough rules and institutions in place, which, had they functioned properly, could possibly have avoided this accident altogether.

Fortunately, no one was physically injured: no one however has any merit in this. It is just pure luck that a pedestrian in Belvedere Street Gżira, just avoided being hit by the flying stonework, as was reported in some sections of the media.

The building operations in hand were subject to two development permits: PA 01866/20 and PA 08659/21. The site has an area of 384 square metres.

The media has informed us as to the name of the architect and the developer entrusted with this project. There are however other actors who should be spotlighted. The documentation available on the Planning Authority website indicates the names of a site technical officer, a project supervisor as well as a site manager who were appointed in line with the requirements of legislation currently in force. This is the supervisory team which was ultimately responsible for managing the site at Belvedere Street in Gżira. They had to ensure that the method statement drawn up by the architect responsible for the project was followed.

It would thus be interesting to know how the works carried out on this site at Gżira were actually supervised. The Magisterial inquiry will possibly shed some light on the matter.

Perusal of the demolition method statements in the files of the two development permits indicate the various planned precautions to avoid accidents. The crux of the whole issue is now to establish whether the planned precautions were sufficient and equally important, if they were followed. The actual supervision carried out on site is crucial.

The Magisterial inquiry will undoubtedly examine all this to understand the site dynamics and possibly arrive at a clear conclusion as to what has exactly happened.

Too many accidents are taking place on building construction sites. At times sections of the building construction industry are conveying the message that the industry does not really care. This attitude is grossly unfair as many do in fact care. It is the minority which at times act haphazardly and cause accidents.

The present situation is, in my humble opinion, the inevitable result of having successive governments handling the building construction industry with kids’ gloves.  

The problem is also one of attitude right through the industry and the institutions which regulate and operate it. Does the building industry care?

The deaths of Miriam Pace (Santa Venera: March 2020) and Jean Paul Sofia (Kordin Industrial Estate: December 2022) were momentarily shocking. Unfortunately, however they were quickly forgotten, just as the earlier death of the 27-year-old Latvian construction worker Maksims Artamonovs (Mellieħa: March 2012) was forgotten too. Nothing seems to have changed in the operational attitudes of sections of the building construction industry as a result of these deaths or other cases of serious injury.

Do you remember the dumping on a pavement of a migrant worker injured on a building construction site in Mellieħa in 2021? Apparently, most have forgotten all about this incident too!

Do we care? A majority of spineless specimens of Members of Parliament was even coerced into declaring that there was no need for a public inquiry into the building construction industry, even though Prime Minister Robert Abela reversed this decision unceremoniously shortly afterwards when faced with a massive public protest. This resistance is indicative that deep down the state and its institutions are downright insensitive to the human suffering caused by the building construction industry.

Only time will tell whether there will be anything beyond the usual cosmetic changes. How many more lives must be sacrificed on the altar of building construction greed? At the end of the day, the building industry only cares about its turnover.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 11 February 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

F’Kastilja : l-Kabinett u dawk li jiffurmawh

Uħud mill-kummenti dwar it-tibdil imħabbar nhar is-Sibt fil-Kabinett juru nuqqas ta’ għarfien tar-realtà politika.

Il-kompetenza qatt ma kienet il-kriterju ewlieni għall-għażla mill-Prim Ministru tal-membri tal-Kabinett.

L-għażla ta’ min hu ġewwa jew barra mill-Kabinett dejjem saret dwar x’jaqbel. X’jaqbel għall-partit fil-Gvern u x’jaqbel għall-allejanzi politiċi madwar il-Prim Ministru tal-mument.

Dejjem hekk ġara, u taħt Robert Abela l-affarijiet mhumiex differenti.

Il-post fil-Kabinett l-anqas ma hu biss premju lill-ħbieb. Kultant huwa ukoll mod kif ikunu ikkontrollati l-egħdewwwa ukoll. Ċerti nies, kultant aħjar iżżommhom viċin, taħt għajnejk!

Dik fil-qosor hi l-istorja kollha. Fil-Kabinett hemm min ta’ palata lil Robert Abela fil-ġlieda għat-tmexxija. Dawn, jagħmlu x’jagħmlu jidhru sbieh anke jekk mhumiex kapaċi.

L-aqwa li qalulna li dak li tneħħa, kien kapaċi. Anzi: kapaċissimu!

U d-daqs tal-Kabinett sadanittant jibqa’ jikber. X’jimporta? Tħallas il-kaxxa ta’ Malta.