Lil Michael Falzon qabżitlu ċ-ċinga

Wara li ħadet il-ġurament tal-ħatra, Deborah Schembri, Segretarju Parlamentari għall-Ippjanar u s-Simplifikazzjoni tal-Proċess Amministrattiv bdiet fuq nota tajba. Qalet li m’għandniex niżirgħu dubji dwar ir-rapporti tal-Awditur Ġenerali. Għandna l-obbligu li nitgħallmu minnhom. Huwa kumment f’waqtu u jpatti ftit għall-ħsara istituzzjonali bil-kummenti goffi ta’ Michael Falzon nhar l-Erbgħa hekk kif irriżenja minn Segretarju Parlamentari.

Falzon, li kien ilu jaqla’ ġo fih xhur sħaħ, żbroffa l-bieraħ meta xebbaħ partijiet mir-rapport tal-Awditur Ġenerali dwar l-esproprijazzjoni ta’ 36 Triq iz-Zekka l-Qadima l-Belt Valletta ma’ diskors tal-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni. Falzon soltu jkun meqjus fi kliemu, iżda l-bieraħ qabżitlu ċ-ċinga.

Huwa tajjeb li l-istituzzjonijiet nirrispettawhom. Meta naqblu mal-konklużjonijiet tagħhom ma hemm l-ebda diffikulta biex nuru dan ir-rispett. Ir-rispett reali nuruh meta l-konklużjonijiet ikun iebsa u jesponu d-difetti fit-tħaddim tal-amminstrazzjoni pubblika.

Huwa tajjeb li nifhmu lkoll li din hi l-funzjoni tal-Awditur Ġenerali : li jgħarbel il-ħidma u l-infieq tal-amministrazzjoni pubblika biex jassigura li flusna qed jiġu użati kif inhu xieraq. Il-ħidma tal-Awditur Ġenerali dejjem ser tkun ta’ kontroversja. Ġieli ftit u ġieli ħafna. Bil-fors irid ipoġġi subgħajh fuq il-feriti u d-dnubiet tal-amministrazzjoni pubblika. Jekk ma jagħmilx dan ikun qiegħed hemm għalxejn.

Ikun xieraq li napprezzaw il-ħidma tiegħu għax, kif ngħidu, hi dejjem ħidma għat-telgħa. Għalhekk il-kumment ta’ Deborah Schembri l-bieraħ kif floku. Huwa tajjeb li jkun hemm min jisma’ aħjar x’għandu xi jgħid l-Awditur Ġenerali. Huwa b’hekk li jista’ jkollna amministrazzjoni pubblika li tagħti servizz aħjar, lil kulħadd.

Il-periklu ta’ Marlene Farrugia

Il-ġimgħa l-oħra Marlene Farrugia ppreżentat l-ewwel emendi ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika għal-liġi l-ġdida tal-Ippjanar.

L-ewwel emenda li ppreżentat Marlene ġiet deskritta minn Michael Falzon (is-Segretarju Parlamentari) bħala emenda perikoluża.

Marlene spjegat l-iskop tal-emenda. Fisssret kif. fil-waqt li l-artiklu 3 tal-liġi jsemmi  ħafna prinċipji sbieħ, imbagħad l-artiklu 4 tal-istess liġi jgħid li ħadd ma jista’ jmur il-Qorti biex jassigura li l-Gvern ikun obbligat li jimxi mal-prinċipji fil-liġi. Għax dawk il-prinċipji għandhom iservu biss ta’ gwida għall-Gvern. Xejn iktar.

Periklu? Daz-zgur. Imma tafu x’kien il-periklu? Li l-emenda kienet torbot idejn il-Gvern b’mod li ma jkunx jista’ jagħmel li jrid.

L-emenda m’għaddietx għax il-Gvern jibża’ li jkollu idejh marbutin u b’hekk ikollu l-obbligu li jimxi sewwa!

Min imiss jirriżenja?

 

Meta l-Kodiċi tal-Etika dwar il-persuni fil-ħajja pubblika f’Malta jitkellem dwar ir-rigali li dawn jirċievu, dan jagħmlu bl-iskop li jnaqqas il-possibilità li tinħoloq obbligazzjoni bejn il-politiku u min jagħtih ir-rigal. Hemm miżuri differenti fil-Kodiċi tal-Etika dwar il-Membri Parlamentari u f’dak dwar il-Ministri.

Il-Ministri, jgħidilna l-Kodiċi tal-Etika tal-Kabinett ma jistgħux jaċċettaw rigali jew servizzi li l-entità tagħhom jistgħu jpoġġuhom f’obbligazzjoni, kemm jekk din tkun reali kif ukoll jekk tidher li tista’ tkun (regolament 58). Jiġifieri l-obbligu tal-Ministru m’huwiex li jiddikjara x’rigali irċieva, iżda li ma jaċċettahomx.

Il-każ tal-ex-Ministru Joe Cassar hu dwar tlett rigali. L-ewwel rigal kien karozza li min bigħielu ma riedx flus tagħha. Qallu biex flok ma jħallas lilu, jagħti donazzjoni lill-PN.  Iż-żewġ rigali l-oħra huma  sistema tas-sigurtà  u xogħolijiet f’razzett f’Ħad-Dingli: xogħol li sar fi ħwejġu u ħallas għalih ħaddieħor skond irċevuti ppubblikati.  Cassar ikkontesta dak li ntqal dwaru, inkluż b’diskors fil-Parlament. Fl-aħħar, għalkemm baqa’ jinnega li qatt ta’ xi forma ta’ awtorizzazzjoni biex jitħallsu kontijiet f’ismu, Cassar aċċetta li seta ġieb ruħu aħjar u li għamel żball ta’ ġudizzju (error of judgement). L-ewwel skuża ruħu u irriżenja minn kelliemi tal-grupp parlamentari tal-PN għall-Kultura u sussegwentement irriżenja ukoll minn Membru Parlamentari.

Sa ftit siegħat qabel mat-Tabib Joe Cassar irriżenja minn Membru Parlamentari, il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni Simon Busuttil kien qed jgħid li ma’ hemm l-ebda raġuni għaliex għandu jirriżenja, u dan minħabba li ma kienx hemm fondi pubbliċi involuti. Il-Partit Laburista min-naħa l-oħra kien qed jinsisti għar-riżenja.

Ir-riżenja ta’ Joe Cassar ma kienet mistennija minn ħadd. Il-Partit Nazzjonalista  esprima ruħu ċar: li l-iżball ta’ Cassar ma kienx jiġġustifika la tkeċċija (jew riżenja) mill-Partit u l-anqas riżenja minn Membru Parlamentari.

L-anqas il-Partit Laburista ma emmen li Cassar kien ser jirriżenja.  Minkejja li insista fuq ir-riżenja, ma naħsibx li l-Partit Laburista qatt ried lil Joe Cassar jirriżenja. Għax issa li Cassar irriżenja, l-PL ħoloq problema kbira għalih innifsu. Għax ir-riżenja ta’ Cassar hi issa l-kejl  li jrid iqies Joseph Muscat kull meta jkollu Ministru jew Segretarju Parlamentari fil-Kabinett tiegħu li jiżbalja inkella li jkollu jġorr responsabbiltà politika għal żbalji goffi fid-dikasteru tiegħu.

Joseph Muscat diġà keċċa lil Manwel Mallia mill-Kabinett, meta dan ma kellux il-kuraġġ morali li jerfa’r-responsabbiltà politika tiegħu w jirriżenja fid-dawl tar-rapport tal-inkjesta dwar l-inċident tal-isparatura li fiha kien involut ix-xufier tiegħu. Dan iżda kien kostrett li jagħmlu wara għoxrin ġurnata ta’ tkaxkir tas-saqajn, għax ippressat mill-medja u l-opinjoni pubblika.

Ir-riżenja, meta tkun deċiżjoni politika ġenwina, għandha tkun waħda immedjata u mhux bħala riżultat ta’ pressjoni tal-medja jew tal-opinjoni pubblika. Hekk għamlu l-politiċi ta’ stoffa f’kull parti tad-dinja demokratika. Il-politiku ġenwin m’għandux bżonn suġġerituri biex jirrealizza meta l-iżball hu gravi biżżejjed li jiġġustifika r-riżenja.

Dan il-punt ser jerġa’ jqum fid-dawl tal-investigazzjoni li qed jagħmel l-Awditur Ġenerali dwar l-esproprijazzjoni tal-binja fi Triq iz-Zekka l-Belt. Diġa ġiet konkluża investigazzjoni interna fis-servizz pubbliku u dan ir-rapport ilu f’idejn il-Prim Ministru sa minn Lulju li għadda.

Il-Prim Ministru qiegħed ikaxkar saqajh biex jieħu deċiżjoni dwar il-konklużjonijiet fir-rapport li għandu f’idejh: bl-iskuża li qed jistenna lill-Awditur Ġenerali jippreżenta r-rapport tiegħu.

Waqt li l-Prim Ministru b’solennità jiddikjara li qiegħed jistenna lill-Awditur Ġenerali, dawk ta’ madwaru (bla dubju bil-kunsens tiegħu) għalfu lil sezzjoni tal-istampa b’biċċiet mir-rapport intern li s’issa għadu kunfidenzjali. Kien ikun ħafna iktar għaqli kieku l-Prim Ministru jippubblika immedjatament ir-rapport kollu (u mhux biċċiet minnu kif jaqbel) u jieħu passi immedjati dwar dak li jirriżulta mir-rapport.  Hi ipokrezija politika li l-ewwel tiddikjara li mhux ser tippubblika r-rapport biex ma tinfluwenzax lill-Awditur Ġenerali, u mbagħad tippermetti l-pubblikazzjoni ta’ partijiet minnu.

Ftit ġranet wara li dan ir-rapport kien ippreżentat lill-Gvern, lejn tmiem Lulju 2015 kumbinazzjoni, irriżenja d-Direttur Ġenerali tad-Diviżjoni tal-Propjetà tal-Gvern. Dakinnhar intqal li din ir-riżenja kienet għal raġunijiet personali. Ovvjament, emmen jekk trid. Bosta, jiena nkluż, ma tantx huma konvinti minn dawn il-kumbinazzjonijiet.

Bosta jemmnu li d-Direttur Ġenerali, li ntqal li irriżenja għal raġunijiet personali, kien il-ħaruf tas-sagrifċċju li ġarr fuq spallejh il-piż kollu. Jekk dan hu hekk, hu żbaljat li jġorr il-piż waħdu. Huwa għalhekk ukoll li qed tikber il-pressjoni pubblika biex is-Segretarju Parlamentari Michael Falzon jerfa’ r-responsabbiltà politika għall-amministrazzjoni ħażina tat-taqsima tal-Propjetà tal-Gvern u jirriżenja.  Ir-reżistenza biex dan isir la tagħmel ġid lil Falzon u l-anqas lill-Gvern.  Lil Falzon nafu bħala bniedem raġjonevoli li bla dubju jifhem id-differenza bejn responsabbiltà personali u responsabbiltà politika. Nifhem li ftit għandu eżempji tajbin fuq xiex jimxi, peró tajjeb li jifhem li dik hi l-unika triq onorevoli.

Fil-każ ta’ Manwel Mallia damu jaħsbuha għoxrin ġurnata biex jiġi mwarrab. Joe Cassar dam jaħsibha ftit ġranet biex irriżenja. Michael Falzon għandu jrabbi ftit tal-kuraġġ biex hu ukoll jerfa’ r-responsabbiltajiet politiċi tiegħu. Huwa responsabbli għal mod kif iġibu ruħhom ta’ taħtu.

Ir-riżenja ta’ Joe Cassar ma naħsibx li tħallilu wisq alternattivi. Billi jkaxkar saqajh m’hu ser isolvi xejn.

 

pubblikat f’ILLUM : il-Ħadd 8 ta’ Novembru 2015

Ignoring residents and their local councils

 

Government has published a consultation document dealing with the use of open public spaces by catering establishments, entitled Guidelines on Outdoor Catering Areas on Open Public Space : a holistic approach to creating an environment of comfort and safety.

This document was launched earlier this week at a press conference addressed by the Minister for Tourism Edward Zammit Lewis and the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for planning and simplification of administrative processes Michael Falzon.

The inter-Ministerial committee set up by government to draft the policy document was limited to representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, MEPA, Transport Malta, the Government Property Division, the Malta Tourism Authority and the Association of Hotels and Restaurants (MHRA). Representatives of the local councils were excluded from participating.

It seems that when the matter was being considered by Cabinet, the Minister for Local Councils Owen Bonnici was fast asleep as otherwise he would undoubtedly have drawn the attention of his colleagues that the Local Councils Act, in article 33, deems it a function of local councils “to advise and, where applicable, be consulted by, any authority empowered to take any decisions directly or indirectly affecting the Council and the residents it is responsible for”.

Surely the use of public open spaces by catering establishments is a matter which is of considerable interest to local councils as it affects both the councils and the residents they represent. Yet the government has a different opinion as representatives of local councils were not invited at the drawing board where the guidelines on the use of public open spaces by catering establishments were being drafted.

The guidelines introduce a one stop shop at MEPA, thereby eliminating the need to apply for around four other permits for the placing of tables and chairs in public open spaces. This would be a positive development if MEPA can take on board all the considerations which are normally an integral part of the four other application processes.

If the utilisation of public open spaces was limited to the squares in our towns and villages, I do not think that there would be any issue. There is sufficient space in such areas and using part of it for open air catering activities there would not be cause for concern.

However, problems will definitely arise in areas of mixed use, that is, areas where the ground floor is used commercially and the overlying areas are used as residences. This is a common occurrence in many of the localities where there is a high demand by the catering business for the utilisation of public open space. The guidelines, however, ignore the impacts which placing chairs and tables at street level could have on the residents in such areas, in particular those living in the floors immediately above ground level. Such impacts would primarily be the exposure of residents to secondary cigarette/tobacco smoke as well as noise and odours. The issue of noise will undoubtedly arise, in particular during siesta time, as well as late into the evenings while secondary smoke from cigarettes/tobacco as well as odours will be an ever present nuisance. Maybe if the local councils were not excluded from the inter-Ministerial Committee, these matters would have been taken into consideration.

In such instances it would be necessary to limit the placing of tables and chairs at such a distance from residences where impacts on residents from secondary smoke, noise and odours are insignificant: that is if there is sufficient space.

The guidelines establish that a passageway of 1.50 metres on pavements is to be reserved for pedestrians. In addition they establish that where a permit is requested to place chairs and tables outside third-party property, specific clearance in front of doors and windows is to be observed. Isn’t that thoughtful of the inter-Ministerial Committee? Instead of categorically excluding the placing of chairs and tables along the property of third parties it seeks to facilitate the creation of what would inevitably be a nuisance to the users of such a property. This, too, is the result of the lop-sided composition of the inter-Ministerial Committee.

Nor are parking spaces spared. The inter-Ministerial Committee makes provision in the proposed guidelines for the possibility that catering establishments can also make use of parking spaces for the placing of tables and chairs when other space is insufficient. The guidelines leave no stone unturned in ensuring that tables and chairs get priority, even though this is worded in terms that make it appear that it would be an exception.

Enforcement, as usual, will be another headache. We already have quite a number of cases in various localities where passageways are minimal or inexistent and pedestrians, excluded from walking along the pavement have to move along with the traffic, right in the middle of the road. At times this may prove quite difficult and dangerous, in particular for wheelchair users or in the case of parents with small children. Enforcement to date is practically inexistent and I do not think that matters will change much in this respect.

Unfortunately, MEPA is a repeat offender in ignoring the interests of the residential community when faced with all types of development. The guidelines on the use of public open space by catering establishments are thus more of the same.

While cars have taken over our roads, catering establishments will now be guided on how to take over our pavements and open spaces, parking included!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 13 September 2015  

Fil-BOV bil-benefiċċju tal- “early retirement”, iżda tista’ tiġi lura !

 

Il-Bank of Valletta qiegħed fl-aħbarijiet. M’humiex aħbarijiet li jagħmlu l-ġid  lill-bank.

Mhux qed nitkellem dwar il-garanzija għas-self dwar il-power station ta’ Delimara, jew il-garanzija għall-avvanzi biex l-Air Malta tixtri l-fuel, iżda dwar l-iskema ta’ irtirar kmieni.

Kif, qrajna, l-ftehim kollettiv tal-Bank jagħti dritt lill-bank li jkollu skema ta’ irtirar kmieni mix-xogħol (early retirement). Il-punt mhux jekk Michael Falzon ġiex mogħti inqas jew iktar minn Fenech Adami inkella xi ħaddieħor b’kunjomu Borg Costanzi (ismijiet li ssemmew fil-Parlament). Iżda jekk skema ta’ irtirar kmieni fil-BOV tagħmilx sens.

Hemm xi sens li tħarreġ lin-nies u fl-eta ta’ madwar ħamsin sena tħallashom biex jitilqu? Il-bank qed iberbaq il-“kapital uman” tiegħu apparti l-kapital finanzjarju.  Dan apparti li għadni ma nistax nifhem kif tieħu l-benefiċċju minn skema biex tirtira kmieni u mbagħad iżżomm id-dritt li tidħol lura. Jew irtirajt kmieni jew ma irtirajtx.

Il-BOV qed iberbaq ir-riżorsi u jista’ juża’ flus il-bank ferm aħjar minn hekk, mhux biss fl-interess tal-bank innifsu iżda anke fl-interess tal-impjegati tiegħu.

Anke l-Greċja, sa ftit ilu, kinet mimlija skemi ta’ irtirar kmieni!

 

Is the abrogative referendum under threat ?

 

Until Alternattiva Demokratika announced the abrogative referendum campaign  on spring hunting almost two years ago, few Maltese citizens were aware that they had such a right.  Now that this right has been used for the first time since it has been placed on the statute book, it is apparently under threat.

The hunters’ lobby is now aiming at curtailing the right to an abrogative referendum. The hunters maintain that when the Referenda Act was applied in trying to abrogate the regulations permitting spring hunting it was aiming at their rights – “minority rights” they said.

Hunters had presented these same arguments though their representatives for the consideration of the Constitutional Court, which shot them down last January. In fact the Constitutional Court in paragraphs 51 to 54 of its 24-page decision, considers this very point. The hunters, said the Constitutional Court, claim that their rights are minority rights. However no potential breach of a provision of the Constitution of Malta or of the European Convention of Human Rights have been indicated in their submissions. The Constitutional Court goes on to say the following :

“It is right to emphasise that in implementing majority rule the rights of the minority should be respected. However this respect is not attained, as suggested by the Federation [FKNK] by obstructing people from expressing themselves through a referendum.”  [Tassew illi d-dritt tal-maġġoranza għandu jitwettaq b’rispett lejn id-dritt tal-minoranza, iżda dan ir-rispett ma jinkisibx billi, kif trid il-Federazzjoni, il-poplu ma jitħalliex isemma’ leħnu f’referendum.]

This same argument  was also the subject of a petition to Parliament organised by the hunters’ lobby and presented in Parliament by Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon some months ago.  In recent days, comments have been made indicating that shortly we may be hearing of the government’s reactions to this petition. These reactions will most probably be in the form of proposals for amendments to the Referenda Act of 1973, in particular amendments to the provisions regulating the holding of an abrogative referendum – provisions which were originally approved by Parliament in 1996 and brought in force in 1998.

The provisions of  the Referenda Act in Malta providing for the holding of an abrogative referendum are already very restrictive.  From what has been stated, hunters want such provisions to be even more restrictive.  In this sense they have already made public a proposal that a definite time window within which signatures for an abrogative referendum have to be collected has to be established.  In Italian legislation, for example, there exists a 90-day window within which the collection of signatures has to be carried out. Such a time window may be a reasonable proposal within the Italian legal system, but then in Italy the number of voter signatures required to trigger the abrogative referendum process is proportionately much lower than that required in Malta.

The number of signatures required to kick-start the abrogative referendum process in Malta is 10 per cent of the registered voters. This currently stands at slightly under 34,000 signatures. In Italy, by contrast, half-a-million signatures – or the consent of five regional councils – is required. The number  of signatures required in Italy amount to approximately one per cent of the electorate, meaning that the corresponding requirement in Malta is ten times as much!

I will not speculate over how the government will seek to translate the hunters’ petition into legislation. I have limited myself to one specific proposal.

It is still unclear as to what type of amendments to the Referenda Act will be submitted by government. One thing is, however, very clear:  we need to keep our eyes wide open to ensure that our rights are not reduced.

The abrogative referendum is an important tool in our democratic society, even though it has been made use of only once in its 19-year existence.  Let us hope that government will not succumb to pressures to have it diluted or removed.

published in The Malta Indpendent on Sunday : 19 April 2015

Il-marċ tal-kaċċaturi kontra d-drittijiet demokratiċi

 

Għada t-Tnejn il-kaċċaturi ser jimmarċjaw il-Belt Valletta biex jippreżentaw petizzjoni lill-Parlament.

Il-petizzjoni li ser tkun ippreżentata f’isimhom mis-Segretarju Parlamentari u kaċċatur Michael Falzon titlob li jitnaqqas id-dritt tar-referendum. Il-kaċċaturi huma tal-fehma illi għandhom isiru emendi għall-liġi tar-referendum biex ikomplu jonqsu l-possibilitajiet fejn il-votanti jkunu jistgħu jsejħu referendum abrogattiv.

Il-proposta tal-kaċċaturi hi waħda li timmira li tnaqqas id-drittijiet demokratiċi fil-pajjiż. Il-kaċċaturi jidher li ma jaqblux illi jittieħdu deċiżjonijiet b’mod demokratiku billi nivvutaw dwarhom. Minflok il-kaċċaturi jippreferu li d-deċiżjonijiet jittieħdu fi kmamar magħluqin fejn deċiżjonijiet politiċi jitpartu ma voti ta’ appoġġ lil partit politiku jew ieħor. Żmien dawn it-tip ta’ konfoffi għadda.

Fejn il-Parlament wera ruħu impotenti li jieħu deċiżjonijiet importanti bħal dik dwar il-kaċca fir-rebbiegħa ma hemm l-ebda triq oħra għajr dik tar-referendum abrogattiv.

Mhiex triq faċli. Fil-fatt sal-lum hi triq li qatt ma intuzat. L-użu tagħha huwa biss f’każi eċċezzjonali fejn il-Parlament wera, tul is-snin, illi huwa impotenti.

L-għażla ta’ Lawrence Gonzi

Lawrence Gonzi kellu għażla.

Fil-Parlament ġew ippreżentati żewġ mozzjonijiet.

L-ewwel mozzjoni kienet il-mozzjoni numru 260 imressqa minn Franco Debono u li kienet tittratta dwar diversi miżuri ta’ riforma u tibdil li l-istess Debono ħass li kien meħtieġ fil-qasam tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern. Kienet mozzjoni li ġiet ippreżentata nhar it-8 ta’ Novembru 2011. Għalkemm kritika il-mozzjoni kienet essenzjalment waħda posittiva.

It-tieni mozzjoni kienet il-mozzjoni numru 280 ipreżentata mill-kelliema tal-Opposizzjoni Michael Falzon u Jose’ Herrera nhar il-5 ta’ Diċembru 2011. Kienet mozzjoni ta’ kritika u ċensura. Mozzjoni negattiva.

Lawrence Gonzi u ta’ madwaru ippreferew illi l-ewwel ipoġġu fuq l-agenda l-mozzjoni negattiva. Ippreferew li jagħżlu azzjoni negattiva flok azzjoni posittiva.

Ir-riżultat tal-lum hu l-konsegwenza. Dak li ġara illum Lawrence Gonzi ġiebu b’idejħ mgħejjun minn l-għorrief ta’ madwaru. Bil-ħsieb u bil-għaqal seta ġie evitat.

X’ser jiġri minn issa l-quddiem hu biss tiġbid. L-elezzjoni qegħda wara l-bieb.