M’għandekx għalfejn tagħżel bejniethom

 

 

Meta tiġi biex tivvota, nhar is-Sibt, mgħandekx għalfejn tagħżel bejniethom.

Mhux importanti min hu l-iżjed jew l-inqas korrott.

Mhux importanti min hu l-iżjed jew l-inqas inkompetenti.

Mhux importanti min hu imċappas l-iktar jew l-inqas.

Mhux importanti min kellu jirreżenja, imma ma rreżenjax fuq iżżewġ naħat.

 

Il-każ tal-Panama Papers u l-kumpaniji ta Konrad Mizzi u Keith Schembri hu wieħed ta gravitá kbira. Daqskemm huma gravi l-allegazzjonijiet dwar is-sid ta Egrant Inc. u l-flus li waslu mingħand il-familja ta Aliyev fil-kontijiet fil-Bank Pilatus.

Mhux gravi ħafna ukoll il-fatt li Claudio Grech, l-Onorevoli tal-Partit Nazzjonalista nesa jekk qattx iltaqa ma George Farrugia, dak tal-iskandlu tażżejt?

Mhux gravi ukoll kif Beppe Fenech Adami spiċċa Direttur tal-Capital One Investment Limited u ma kien jaf xejn dwar it-taħwid li qed jirriżulta dwar din l-istess kumpanija?

U xi ngħidu għar-rapporti tal-Awditur Ġenerali dwar il-qaddis miexi fl-art Jason Azzopardi?

U l-villa ODZ li Toni Bezzina ried jibni fl-istess ħin li kien qed jikteb il-politika ambjentali tal-PN?

It-tnejn jgħidu kif għandhom qalbhom ġunġliena għall-ambjent.

Imma t-tnejn iridu l-mina bejn Malta u Għawdex.

It-tnejn iridu l-korsa tat-tlielaq tal-karozzi.

It-tnejn jilgħaqu l-kaċċaturi u n-nassaba.

It-tnejn jappoġġaw il-boathouses tal-Aħrax tal-Mellieħa (Armier, Little Armier u Torri l-Abjad).

Xhemm xtagħżel bejniethom?

Wara kollox mgħandekx għalfejn tagħżel bejniethom!

Pilatu fid-dawl tax-xemx

L-istorja dwar Egrant Inc. ilha sena fl-aħbarijiet. Ilha tinħema 4 snin minn ftit wara l-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-2013 meta twaqqfet flimkien ma kumpaniji oħra.

L-ewwel kellna lil Konrad Mizzi bil-kumpanija tiegħu Hearnville Inc.. Ftit wara Keith Schembri bil-Kumpanija tiegħu Tillgate Inc.. Ħin minnhom daħal fl-istorja Adrian Hillmann tat-Times of Malta ma kumpaniji oħra fil-Panama u fpostijiet oħra. Hillmann kien l-uniku wieħed sissa li irriżenja (jew ġie mġiegħel jirriżenja).

L-istorja, kif bla dubju tiftakru, saret waħda pubblika wara li nkixfu l-Panama Papers. Miljuni ta dokumenti sigrieti dwar diversi kumpaniji imwaqqfa minn persuni pubbliċi u privati madwar id-dinja kollha ma baqawx iktar sigrieti. Inkixfu u tperrċu mal-erbat irjieħ tad-dinja.

Il-qalba tal-problema mhiex il-ħolqien tal-kumpaniji imma l-iskop li għalih dawn jitwaqqfu. Kumpaniji sigrieti, kif għidt fartiklu ieħor ma jinħolqux biex fihom jitfaddlu d-domni jew is-santi. Dawn il-kumpaniji jitwaqqfu biex fihom jinħbew flejjes u assi oħra min għajnejn l-awtoritajiet. Dan il-ħabi jsir għal żewġ raġunijiet : biex ikun evitat il-ħlas tat-taxxi, u/jew biex jinħeba l-frott tal-korruzzjoni.

Iddur kif iddur, il-politiku u dawk ta madwaru qatt ma jistgħu jiġġustifikaw il-ħolqien ta dawn il-kumpaniji. Għax dawn ġeneralment  ifissru involviment fil-korruzzjoni inkella fl-evażjoni tat-taxxa. Għalhekk il-polemika.

Tnejn mill-kumpaniji ilna nafu ta min huma. Ta Konrad Mizzi u ta Keith Schembri. Inkixfu kmieni u kien għadu ma sar l-ebda użu minnhom, skond kif kien intqal dakinnhar. Kienet inkixfet korrispondenza dwar il-possibilitá ta ftuħ ta kontijiet ma diversi banek. Kien hemm diversi tweġibiet kompromettenti li, iżda, Konrad Mizzi u Keith Schembri dejjem ċaħdu li kellhom xjaqsmu magħhom jew inkella li kienu inħarġu fuq struzzjoniiet tagħhom. Ftit kienu twemmnu.

Il-polemika baqgħet għaddejja u l-attenzjoni ċċaqalqet lejn it-tielet kumpanija : Egrant Inc. Ta min kienet din?

Niftakru li imkien fil-Panama Papers ma kien hemm l-iċken informazzjoni dwar is-sid jew is-sidien ta Egrant Inc, għax kien intqal li din l-informazzjoni kienet ser tgħaddi bil-fomm fuq Skype. Il-messaġġ kien ċar, mill-ewwel, li l-probabbiltá kbira kienet li kien hemm xi persuna jew persuni importanti ħafna involuti. Importanti iktar minn Konrad Mizzi u Keith Schembri, jiġifieri.  Ma kienx hemm lok għall-immaġinazzjoni. L-ismijiet possibli kienu limitati ħafna u l-ismijiet probabbli kienu fuq fomm kulħadd!  In-nies ilhom jitkellmu dwarhom!

Nhar il-Ħamis infetaħ kapitlu ieħor. Fuq il-blog tagħha Daphne Caruana Galizia irreferiet għall- dokumenti li skonta qegħdin fis-safe tal-Pilatus Bank u li minnhom jirriżulta li l-kumpanija Egrant Inc hi ta Michelle Muscat u li din il-kumpanija irċeviet diversi flejjes mill-Azerbajġan, l-ikbar waħda minnhom somma ta $1.017 miljun li waslet mingħand bint Aliyev. Mil-livell ta dettall ippubblikat hu ċar li d-dokumenti interni tal-bank huma s-sors tal-istorja. Il-Ġimgħa fil-għaxija ġiet ippubblikata informazzjoni dwar ċertifikat taisħma fliema ċertifikat qed jingħad li l-kumpaniji Dubro Limited S.A. u Aliator S.A. għandhom fidejhom ishma tal-kumpanija Egrant u dan fisem is-Sinjura Michelle Muscat. Imma d-dokumenti infushom li minnhom qed ikun ikkwotat sissa għadhom mhumiex ippubblikati. Ma nafx għaliex.  Hemm bżonn li jinħarġu għad-dawl tax-xemx id-dokumenti kollha li fuqhom hi ibbażata l-istorja. Dan hu neċessarju għax dak li qed jingħad hu ikkontestat.

Għalkemm din l-istorja ilha tinħass ġejja, xorta meta ġiet tinħass iebsa ħafna. Hi ta gravitá kbira u tista tkun dak li  jispjega l-għaliex Konrad Mizzi u Keith Schembri ma tkeċċewx is-sena l-oħra meta ħarġet l-aħbar li kellkom il-kumpaniji sigrieti.

TaPilatus caħdu kollox, bħalma għamlu tan-Nexia BT u ovvjament Joseph u Michelle Muscat.

Bosta huma konvinti mill-veraċitá tal-istorja. Imma li tkun moralment konvint li l-istorja hi korretta mhux biżżejjed. Din l-istorja teħtieġ il-konferma li tiġi mill-provi tad-dokumenti u mhux mid-dimostrazzjonijiet. Għax fuq id-dokumenti hi mibnija. Allura hemm obbligu li dawn id-dokumenti tant bażiċi jaraw id-dawl tax-xemx.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : 23 t’April 2017

 

 

 

Spotlight on Pilatus Bank

 

The Egrant Inc. story has been in the news for the past year: it has been developing for over the four years since the 2013 general elections, when it was set up together with other companies.

First we had Konrad Mizzi with his company Hearnville Inc. Then we had Keith Schembri with his company, Tillgate Inc. The matter became public when the Panama Papers were disclosed. Millions of hitherto secret documents about companies set up by public and private individuals all around the globe were made public. 

The core of the issue is not the setting up of the companies but the objectives for which they were set up. Secret companies are normally set up for the concealment of financial and other assets in order to avoid the taxman or to conceal the fruits of corruption.

The owners of two of the companies are already known. One of them is Minister Konrad Mizzi while the other is the Prime Ministers Chief of Staff Keith Schembri. Their identity was disclosed over 12 months ago, when it was declared that their Panama companies had not yet been put to use. When the Panama Papers were published it became known that correspondence with several banks had been exchanged relative to the opening of bank accounts for the said companies. Requests and commitments were spotlighted but Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri disclaimed any association with this correspondence and commitments identified.  No one believed them then.

The polemic went on and the focus shifted towards the third company: Egrant Inc. Who was its ultimate beneficial owner?

We should remember that the Panama Papers did not shed any light on the identity of the owner or owners of Egrant Inc. because this information was never communicated in a written manner: it was communicated over Skype. The message conveyed was immediately clear that in all probability some big-head was involved and that he or she was more important than Konrad Mizzi or Keith Schembri.  There was no room for imagination as the possible names were limited in number with the actual names being on the tip of everyones tongue.

On Thursday, a new chapter was opened. Daphne Caruana Galizia, on her blog, referred to documents that she said were in the safe of Pilatus Bank. These documents identified Michelle Muscat as the ultimate beneficial owner of the company Egrant Inc. It was also stated that this company received money transfers from Azerbaijan, including the sum of $1.017 million on the instructions of the daughter of Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.  

The level of detail described by Daphne Caruana Galizias blogpost indicates very clearly that this was based on the contents of bank documents. On Friday evening, additional information relating to a certificate of trust was published. This information, the validity of which was contested by Joseph Muscat, states that the company Dubro Limited S.A. and Aliator S.A.  hold shares in the company Egrant Inc. on behalf of Mrs Michelle Muscat.  But the documents from which this information is being extracted are still unpublished.  I do not know why this is so. It is necessary that these documents, fundamental to the issue under consideration, see the light of day. This is essential because the information published is being contested.  

The information published is serious stuff. It may be the reason why Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri were not dismissed from office last year when the Panama Papers were published.

Pilatus Bank, Nexia BT, Joseph and Michelle Muscat have denied the published information.  Many are  convinced on the veracity of the story, but being morally convinced is not sufficient. Proof only results from authentic documentation but certainly not from demonstrations. It is for this reason that the full disclosure of all the documentation on which the published information is based is an essential  prerequisite.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 23 April 2017

Oċejan ta’ gideb.

L-ewwel qalulna li l-Egrant Inc kienet kumpanija mhux użata (shelf company).

Imbagħad intqal li kienet ta Brian Tonna.

Il-bieraħ Joseph Muscat qalilna li mhiex tiegħu u lanqas ta martu Michelle.

Issa Daphne Caruana Galizia qed tgħid li wara kollox il-Pilatus Bank għandu dokumenti fis-safe tal-kċina li fihom Brian Tonna jiddikjara li l-Egrant Inc hi tas-Sinjura Michelle Muscat.

Min hu l-giddieb?

Keith il-Kasco mhux ġemmiegħ tas-santi!

 

 

Ħadd qatt ma kellu l-illużjoni li Keith Schembri l-Kasco u Konrad Mizzi, l-Ministru bla portafoll, kienu qed jagħmlu użu mill-kumpaniji tagħhom Hearnville Inc. u  Tillgate Inc. fil-Panama biex iġemmgħu  is-santi jew id-domni.

Il-loġika u s-sens komun dejjem wasslu għal konklużjoni waħda: ħasil ta flus. Imma sissa provi qatt ma kien hemm.

Kif dejjem għidna, d-dnub ma jorqodx u jekk hemm provi xi ħin jew ieħor dawn hemm ċans tajjeb li jitfaċċaw.

Ikun ferm aħjar, jekk hemm il-provi, li dawn jagħmlu apoloġija pubblika u jmorru jistaħbew fejn ma jarahom ħadd. Illum qabel għada. Jistgħu jekk iridu jieħu magħhom ukoll lil sid l-Egrant Inc.,  it-tielet kumpanija.

Wara sena sħiħa ta ċaħdiet ilkoll nittamaw li ma ndumux ma nkunu nafu l-fatti vera.

Joseph’s  helicopter view

ey-attractiveness-survey-2016

The Chamber of Commerce is rightly concerned about the reputational damage that will inevitably result from a lack of institutional transparency as well as ever-diminishing good governance.

This was emphasised by Chamber President Anton Borg on Monday when addressing an event at which the Prime Minister was present. Mr Borg was quoted as stating: “Our business community fears that we are regressing on an important non-cost element of competitiveness. I refer to the country’s reputation in terms of the transparency and the integrity of our institutions.”

Well said, Mr Borg. It is about time that the business community says publicly what most of its members say in private. Mr Borg’s message was clear – even though he was very diplomatic in driving it home. He referred to the recent Ernst and Young attractiveness survey which reported a 15 per cent drop over 2015 in the perception of Malta’s political stability and regulatory transparency. He even referred to the 10 point drop in Malta’s placing in the International Corruption Index published by Transparency International.

The next day, Malta Employers’ Association outgoing President Arthur Muscat drove the message further home by emphasising that a 10 place fall in the corruption index is not an indicator of good governance.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who was present when Mr Borg delivered his stern warning, immediately activated an ostrich line of defence by retorting that investment was still being attracted to the country and emphasising that business does not invest in corrupt countries.

Well I am not so sure about the Honourable Prime Minister’s statement.

Anton Borg and Arthur Muscat are very decent chaps and they will do everything it takes to stay above the political fray. But they are conscious that these are not normal times. On behalf of their members, they have stood up to be counted.  It is very positive that, through Mr Borg and Mr Muscat, the business community is prepared to take a definite stand against the ever-increasing lack of transparency in public administration as well as in favour of good governance.

In an introductory note on the EY 2016 attractiveness survey entitled The future is today, EY’s Ronald A. Attard says:    “Malta remains attractive to foreign investors. Indeed, this year’s scores are the highest in the last three years. Yet, this ‘helicopter view’ hides significant shifts on the ground, that cannot be ignored. To get the full picture, we need to install a telescope on the helicopter.”

Apparently Prime Minister Joseph Muscat prefers to limit himself to the helicopter view, as a result ignoring the significant shifts on the ground. The view from the ground – as attested by the attractiveness survey – reveals that over a period of 12 months the percentage of those surveyed who consider  that the stability and transparency of the political, legal and regulatory environment  is very attractive or attractive has dipped from 85 per cent to 70 per cent.

The reality on the ground is changing, but this is not immediately obvious to those enjoying a helicopter view.

The Corruption Perceptions Index for 2016 published by Transparency International, on the other hand, sees Malta classified at 47th place, down ten places from 2015. This is certainly not a good sign and only maybe encouraging to government advisor Shiv Nair, blacklisted by the World Bank for corruption activities.

Joseph Muscat is apparently worried and wants to protect us from “abusive” journalists.  It would be much better if he ensures that the institutions established specifically to protect us are allowed to function as intended. This is apparently not so obvious from high up in the helicopter but is pretty obvious to an ever-increasing number of those on the ground.

This country has much to offer – its potential is immense; but we must weed out the parasites at the earliest opportunity.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 5 March 2017

 

Il-Palazz tal-Girgenti: bejn Gvern u Partit

girgenti-palace-2

Meta nhar it-Tlieta li għadda, jiena u Arnold Cassola iltqajna mas-Sur Joseph Church, il-Kummissarju Elettorali Ewlieni, tkellimna miegħu dwar il-Palazz tal-Girgenti u l-fatt li l-Grupp Parlamentari tal-Partit Laburista għamel użu minnu biex iltaqa hemm.

Għal uħud Alternattiva Demokratika qed tfettaq u tgħaġġibha. Jiena ma naħsibx li dan hu l-każ għax hemm prinċipju importanti ħafna fin-nofs: fejn hi l-linja li tissepara l-partit mill-gvern? Issa jiena konxju li hemm min mhuwiex interessat fil-prinċipji, għax għal uħud, dawn huma burokrazija żejda!

Għandu jkun hemm separazzjoni bejn il-Gvern u l-partit politku li jiffurmah, jew inkella dawn għandhom ikunu ħaġa waħda, jew kważi?  Din hi l-qalba tal-kwistjoni kollha li fil-fehma ta Alternattiva Demokratika teħtieġ li tkun ikkunsidrata battenzjoni kbira.

Il-liġi li tirregola l-finanzjament tal-partiti saret biex ikun hemm trasparenza. Saret ukoll biex tiġbed linja ċara dwar dak li jista jsir u dak li ma jistax isir, u dan permezz ta numru ta kontrolli.

Fost affarijiet oħra, l-Att tal-2015 dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi, fl-artiklu 34 tiegħu jgħid li partit politiku ma jistax jaċċetta donazzjoni minn sorsi tal-istat. Mhemmx kif u għaliex, iżda xejn, bla argumenti jew eċċezzjonijiet.

Issa donazzjoni għal-liġi dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi ma tfissirx biss li partit ikun irċieva għotja ta flus. Għax anke jekk jixtri jew jirċievi prodott jew servizz bi prezz ridott, partit politiku jkun qiegħed jirċievi donazzjoni, u l-valur tad-donazzjoni, fdan il-kaz tkun l-ammont li jkun tnaqqas mill-prezz jew mill-valur tal-oġġett jew servizz. Imma jekk partit politiku jirċievi prodott jew servizz bla ma jħallas xejn għalih ikun qiegħed jirċievi donazzjoni li tikkonsisti fil-valur sħiħ tal-oġġett jew servizz li jkun qed jirċievi.

Fil-kaz tal-laqgħa tal-Grupp Parlamentari tal-Partit Laburista li saret fil-Girgenti ġara preċiżament hekk. Il-Grupp Parlamentari tal-Partit Laburista ingħata servizz li kien jikkonsisti fl-użu tal-Palazz tal-Inkwiżitur fil-Girgenti biex fih jiltaqgħu, il-bogħod mill-istorbju, u allura biex il-ħidma tagħhom setgħet tagħti l-frott ippjanat. Dan is-servizz ingħata lill-Partit Laburista mill-uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru u dan ingħata bla ħlas. Minħabba li ngħata bla ħlas jitqies li huwa donazzjoni.

Il-Prim Ministru ma għandu l-ebda seta’ jagħmel donazzjonijiet ta din ix-xorta. Huwa miżmum milli jagħmel dan minn liġi li ippreżenta l-Gvern immexxi minnu stess fil-Parlament u li daħlet fis-seħħ fl-1 ta Jannar 2016 wara li ġiet approvata. Hemm min qed jargumenta li fil-passat sar l-istess. Probabbilment li dan huwa veru. Imma issa għandna liġi eżattament biex dan ma jerġax isir. Liġi li l-Gvern (ġustament) jiftaħar biha, ħalli mbagħad ikun hu stess li ma josservahiex!

Mhiex ħaġa sabiħa li l-partit u l-Gvern ikunu ħaġa waħda. Meta dan iseħħ, l-anqas ma hu sinjal tajjeb. Ikun ifisser li wasalna fsitwazzjoni li fiha dak li hu tal-pajjiż ikun ikkapparrat mill-ftit. Hekk jibdew il-problemi l-kbar. Jibdew minn affarijiet żgħar li dwarhom jgħidulek biex ma tfettaqx imma imbagħad jinfirxu għal affarijiet ikbar.

Imma jekk ma tkunx tajt kaz fl-affarijiet iżżgħar imbagħad ikun tard wisq.

II-partit fil-Gvern jifforma l-Gvern imma hu separat u distint minnu fkull ħin.

Għalhekk għandha taġixxi malajr il-Kummissjoni Elettorali għax is-separazzjoni bejn il-partit u l-istat hu prinċipju sagrosant meta demokrazija parlamentari tkun bsaħħitha.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: Il-Ħadd 26 ta’ Frar 2017

Joseph tweets a selfie from Girgenti

muscat-girgenti-tweet

A week ago, during a short break from a very “fruitful” meeting of the Labour Party Parliamentary Group, Joseph Muscat, the Prime Minister, tweeted a selfie. The selfie included a number of hangers-on who promptly re-tweeted Joseph’s selfie, announcing to one and all that the Labour Party Parliamentary Group was meeting at Girgenti, the Prime Minister’s official residence in the countryside.

In the tweeted selfie, standing in the front row, perched between Planning Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri and Civil Rights Minister Helena Dalli stands Justice Minister Owen Bonnici, the Cabinet member who around 18 months ago piloted the Financing of Political Parties Act through Parliament  Throughout the past months, the Honourable Owen Bonnici rightly proclaimed this as a milestone. How come his own government and his own political party ignored the implementation of this milestone?

It seems that Joseph, the tweeter from Girgenti, was either not properly advised of the implications of this landmark  legislation or else ignored completely the advice he received.

On Tuesday I visited the offices of the Electoral Commission and met Joseph Church, the Chief Electoral Commissioner. Together with my colleague Arnold Cassola, I drew the attention of Mr Church to the fact that the Parliamentary Labour Party was making use of government property contrary to the provisions of the Financing of Political Parties Act. On behalf of Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party in Malta, we requested that Joseph Muscat and his Labour Party be investigated for acting against the provisions of the landmark legislation: Joseph Muscat for permitting the use of the Girgenti Palace and the Labour Party for accepting to use it as a venue for one of the meetings of its Parliamentary Group.

As I have already explained during a Press Conference held after the meeting with the Chief Electoral Commissioner, as well as in the daily edition of this newspaper [Girgenti: demarcation line between party and state. TMI 23 February] the use of the Girgenti Palace is deemed to be a donation, which in terms of article 34 of the Financing of Political Parties Act is not permissible to be received by a political party from the state. Joseph Muscat the Prime Minister could not grant such a donation, and Joseph Muscat the Leader of the Labour Party could not accept it.

Unfortunately, this incident communicated by tweet sends a very clear and negative message: that Joseph Muscat and his Labour Party consider themselves to be above the law. The law which they rightly described as being a “landmark legislation” was intended to apply to one and all.  Joseph Muscat and his Labour Party seem to think otherwise. In fact, the Labour Party is not even yet registered as a political party as the Electoral Commission, some months back, considered that it does not satisfy the conditions laid down in the legislation.

Some may consider that Alternattiva Demokratika is splitting hairs when raising the matter. I beg to differ, as a very basic principle is at stake: the demarcation line separating the government from the governing political party. This is what lies at the core of the complaint submitted by the Greens to the Chief Electoral Commissioner for an investigation in terms of the provisions of the Financing of Political Parties Act.

I am informed that the Electoral Commission will be meeting next Wednesday when it is expected to consider the request to investigate Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his political party for ignoring the provisions of the Financing of Political Parties Act.  It is the moment of truth for the Electoral Commission. Eight out of nine of its members are political appointees: four nominated by the Prime Minister and another four nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. The ninth member of the Commission is the chairman, a senior civil servant.

It is time for all nine members of the Electoral Commission to stand up and be counted. As a constitutional body, it is the Commission’s duty to defend the values of a modern day parliamentary democracy. Whether it will do so is anybody’s guess. I will definitely not hold my breath.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 26 February 2017

Girgenti: demarcation line between party and state

indip-230217

Meeting the Chief Electoral Commissioner Mr Joseph Church last Tuesday, together with Arnold Cassola, I raised the issue of the use of the Inquisitor’s Palace at Girgenti by the Labour Party Parliamentary Group for one of its meetings.  Some may consider that Alternattiva Demokratika is splitting hairs when raising the matter. I beg to differ as a basic principle is at stake: the demarcation line separating government from the governing party.

To what extent should the affairs of the government be administered separately from those of the governing party? This is what lies at the core of the complaint submitted by the Greens to the Chief Electoral Commissioner for investigation in terms of the provisions of the Financing of Political Parties Act.

The Act to regulate the financing of political parties was introduced to ensure that party financing was subject to transparency rules. It also establishes no-go areas. Amongst other matters the 2015 legislation provides in its article 34  that political parties should not accept donations from the state. There are no exceptions to this rule.

In terms of the Financing of Political Parties Act, a donation is not just pecuniary in nature. Whenever a political party purchases a product or a service at a reduced price it would be in receipt of a donation. The quantum of the donation would be equivalent to the reduction in price of the product or service received.  On the other hand if a political party acquires a product or a service without paying its commercial price, then, the value of the donation received amounts to the full price of the said product or service.

This is exactly what happened when the Labour Party Parliamentary Group made use of the Prime Minister’s official residence at the Girgenti Inquisitor’s Palace. The Parliamentary Group received the service of a meeting place without payment. Hence its being considered as a donation.

The Prime Minister does not have the authority to make such donations. His actions in this respect are restricted by law which was presented and approved in Parliament by the government he leads and entered in force as on 1 January 2016.  Some have argued that this is not the first time that such meetings were so organised. This may be so. It is precisely for this purpose that the legislation was enacted in order to prevent its reoccurrence. One should not propose such legislation and then be the first to ignore it!

Government and the governing political party should be separate and distinct. When such distinction is not clear, even in the case of minor matters, this would be a very bad indication. It would signal that the resources of the state are not being managed appropriately. It would be wrong to ignore such signals indicating the existence of minor problems as these will, if ignored, subsequently spread to more substantial matters. It would then be too late to act.

The party in Government forms the Government of the day but should be separate and distinct from it at all times.

Hence the need for the Electoral Commission to act immediately. The separation between government and the governing political party is a basic principle in a healthy democracy.

published in The Malta Independent : Thursday 23 February 2017

Il-Palazz tal-Girgenti: u d-dritt li tagħmel li trid (dejjem u kullimkien)

girgenti-palace

Dal-għodu flaqgħa li Alternattiva Demokratika kellha mal-Kummissarju Elettorali Ewlieni tlabnieh jinvestiga l-fatt li nhar is-Sibt 18 ta Frar 2017 il-Palazz tal-Girgenti intuża biex fih saret laqgħa tal-Grupp Parlamentari tal-Partit Laburista. Dan, fil-fehma ta Alternattiva Demokratika jmur kontra l-liġi li tirregola l-Finanzjament tal-Partiti Politiċi u li tipprojibixxi li dan isir.

Din il-liġi daħlet fis-seħħ fl-1 ta Jannar 2016. Nisimgħu ħafna ftaħir kontinwu dwar kemm kienet pass il-quddiem, kif fil-fatt kienet. Imma l-Partit Laburista xorta ġie jaqa u jqum minnha għax uża propjetá pubblika għal attivitá ta partit u dan kontra dak li tippermetti l-liġi.

L-abbuż hu wieħed żgħir imma xorta jibqa abbuż. Huwa it-tip ta’ abbuż li tant drajnieh isir taħt imneħirna li ħafna ma jagħtux kaz. Anzi tilfu s-sens tan-normalita. Ta’ x’inhu tajjeb u x’inhu hażin.

Fost il-kummenti elettroniċi li hemm jakkumpanjaw din l-aħbar f’xi gazzetti online kien hemm min qal : din rajtu, għax ma rajtux it-tieġ taiben Lawrence Gonzi fil-Palazz tal-Girgenti f’ Lulju 2011. Probabbilment li min ifittex isib bosta każi oħra ta ulied politiċi li użaw propjetá pubblika bħalma għamel iben Lawrence Gonzi. Dwar dan jiena qatt ma qbilt. Naħseb li hi użanza ħażina għax tagħti l-messaġġ żbaljat li l-politiku fis-setgħa għandu jedd assolut dwar l-użu tal-propjetá pubblika, li ċertament mhuwiex il-każ. Imma fl-2016 il-Partit Laburista fil-gvern qata’ linja : għal kulħadd, suppost.

Hemm differenza kbira minn żmien Lawrence Gonzi: dakinnhar ma kienx hemm liġi li tirregola dawn l-affarijiet. Illum hemm! U niftaħru biha ukoll!

Il-liġi dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi saret biex jinqatgħu l-abbużi żgħar u kbar. Jagħmilhom min jagħmilhom. Imma jidher li l-Partit Laburista jidhirlu li dawn ir-regoli japplikaw għal kulħadd minbarra għalih! Għax min jaħseb li hu bsaħħtu jibqa jidhirlu li għandu dritt li jagħmel li jrid: dejjem u kullimkien.

muscat-girgenti-tweet