Il-futur ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika

It-tnaqqis tal-voti li Alternattiva Demokratika kisbet fl-elezzjoni ġenerali ta’ tmiem il-ġimgħa l-oħra minn 1.8% għal 0.83% tal-voti totali kienet bla dubju daqqa kbira. Imma kienet daqqa antiċipata u direttament marbut mar-rifjut ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika li tipparteċipa fil-Front Nazzjonali mmexxi mill-Partit Nazzjonalista.

Mhux l-ewwel darba li Alternattiva Demokratika qalgħet dawn id-daqqiet. Ħarsu, per eżempju, lejn l-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-2003. Dakinnhar, id-daqqa kienet ikbar, għax il-vot mixħut favur Alternattiva Demokratika kien niżel sal-livell ta’ 0.69% tal-voti totali, l-agħar riżultat fit-28 sena storja ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika. Imma fi żmien sena dan reġa’ tela għal 9.33% tal-vot popolari fl-elezzjonijiet tal-2004 għall-Parlament Ewropew.

Tul is-snin Alternattiva Demokratika qatt ma organizzat ruħha fuq livell lokali jew reġjonali. Dan minħabba nuqqas ta’ voluntiera imma ukoll minħabba allerġija tat-tmexxija għal kull xorta ta’ burokrazija (anke dik l-iktar minima) kif ukoll minħabba l-profil tal-votant tipiku ta’ AD. Dan hu difett f’Alternattiva Demokratika li ilu preżenti sa minn meta twaqqfet liema difett qatt ma ngħata l-attenzjoni mistħoqqha.

Fil-fehma tiegħi, dan hu l-kawża ewlenija għan-nuqqas ta’ kapaċitá ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika li tilqa’ għall-attakki diretti mmirati lejn il-votanti tagħha. Hi ukoll ir-raġuni għala AD ma rnexxieliex, tul is-snin, tapprofitta ruħha daqstant miċ-ċaqlieq ta’ votanti minn partit għall-ieħor.

Huwa tajjeb li jkollok prinċipji soddi, imma n-nuqqas ta’ presenza kontinwa u organizzata fil-lokalitajiet inaqqas l-interazzjoni mal-elettorat, liema interazzjoni teħtieġ li tkun waħda kontinwa biex tkun effettiva. Dan fisser li waqt li AD setgħet tieħu d-deċiżjoni politika dwar l-involviment jew le f’allejanza pre-elettorali ma kelliex il-kapaċitá organizzattiva biex tilqa’ għall-konsegwenzi.

Tajjeb li l-qarrej jiftakar li Alternattiva Demokratika kienet taqbel li titwaqqaf allejanza pre-elettorali wiesa’ kontra l-korruzzjoni u favur il-governanza tajba. Il-punt ta’ nuqqas ta’ qbil mal-proposta tal-PN kien li fil-fehma ta’ AD l-allejanza proposta kellha tkun distinta mil-partiti politiċi individwali li jiffurmawha. F’Alternattiva Demokratika konna inkwetati li l-proposta tal-PN biex AD tissieħeb mal-istess PN billi tifforma parti mill-istess lista elettorali inevitabilment kienet ser twassal għal diversi sitwazzjonijiet li ma kienux aċċettabbli: bħal posizzjonijiet dwar proposti politiċi inaċċettabbli kif ukoll il-presenza ta’ kandidati mhux aċċettabbli. Ir-riskju kien kbir wisq u ma konniex disposti li noħduh.

Sfortunatament iż-żmien tana raġun. Dan seħħ, per eżempju, meta l-PN approva li jippreżenta lill-kandidat omofobiku Josie Muscat. Seħħ ukoll bid-dikjarazzjonijiet politiċi kemm ta’ Marlene Farrugia kif ukoll ta’ Simon Busuttil favur il-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa kif ukoll favur l-insib. Seħħ ukoll bil-posizzjonijiet kontradittorji dwar iċ-ċirkwit tat-tlielaq tal-karozzi kif ukoll bl-emfasi ta’ Simon Busuttil dwar il-mina proposta li tgħaqqad Malta u Għawdex. Posizzjonijiet politiċi li huma kollha inaċċettabbli għal Alternattiva Demokratika.

B’żieda ma dan, il-PN, naqas milli jindirizza l-kontradizzjonijiet interni fi ħadnu dwar il-governanza tajba. Dawn jinkludu n-nuqqas ta’ Claudio Grech li jiftakar x’laqgħat kellu ma George Farrugia dwar l-iskandlu taż-żejt, il-kaz ta’ Beppe Fenech Adami dwar in-nuqqas ta’ deċiżjoni għaqlija meta aċċetta li jkun direttur tal-kumpanija Capital One Investments Limited, il-kunflitt ta’ interess ta’ Mario de Marco dwar il-grupp kummerċjali db kif ukoll it-taħwida ta’ Simon Busuttil innifsu dwar l-invoices tal-grupp db u l-assoċjazzjoni tagħhom mal-iffinianzjar tal-PN innifsu.

Dan kollu, safejn hu magħruf, ma kellu l-ebda importanza għall-Partit Demokratiku imma għal Alternattiva Demokratika kien kollu ostaklu għall-formazzjoni ta’ alleanza pre-elettorali għax kien imur b’mod sfaċċat kontra l-proposti elettorali favur tmexxija tajba. Dawn il-materji semmejnihom waqt il-laqgħa esploratorja li kellna mal-PN imma id-delegazzjoni tal-PN ma wriet l-ebda interess: tbissmet u injorathom. Meta jkun meqjus dan kollu, id-deċiżjoni ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika li ma tissieħibx fil-Front Nazzjonali mmexxi mill-PN kienet waħda tajba u dan għax, kif spjegat iktar il-fuq, kienet toħloq bosta diffikultajiet u kontradizzjonijiet.

Matul ix-xhur li ġejjin nittama li jkun hemm it-tibdil meħtieg f’Alternattiva Demokratika biex din tiġġedded u tissaħħah. Huwa tibdil meħtieġ biex AD tkun iktar effettiva u tkun kapaċi tikkomunika mal-votanti aħjar is-sena kollha, u dan minkejja l-limitazzjoni li għandha ta’ riżorsi.

Ippubblikat minn Illum : il-Ħadd 11 ta’ Ġunju 2017

Advertisements

AD’s future

The reduction of Alternattiva Demokratika’s share of the national vote from 1.8 per cent  to 0.83 per cent was a heavy blow. It was, however, anticipated and was directly linked to AD not accepting to form part of the PN-led National Front.

Alternattiva Demokratika has been there before, its share of the national vote having dipped in the past – particularly during the 2003 general election. On that occasion it went down further than this year’s performance and reached 0.69 per cent, the lowest point ever in AD’s 28-year history – only to rebound with a vengeance to win a staggering 9.33 per cent of the popular vote in the 2004 European Parliament elections, just 12 months later.

Over the years, AD has refrained from extending its organisational arm at a regional and possibly local level. This was primarily dictated by the numbers of available volunteers but also by an in-built allergy to anything deemed even minimally bureaucratic, as well as by the volatile profile of the typical AD voter. This is AD’s major weakness: it has been ever-present since the party’s foundation and has never been adequately addressed.

This weakness, is in my view, the major cause of AD’s inability (to date) to successfully withstand or substantially mitigate frontal attacks on its voter base. Likewise, it is the reason why AD has not been able to tap adequately and successfully into voter dissatisfaction with other political parties over the years.

Having sound principles is fine, but not having the organisational tools to propagate your views and effectively link up with grass-roots support is damaging. This lack of organisational capability signified that while AD could take the political decision on whether to form part or not of a pre-election alliance, it could not adequately handle the consequences of this decision.

It would be pertinent to remind readers that AD was in favour of establishing a broad based pre-electoral alliance against corruption and in favour of good governance. The basic point of contention regarding the PN’s proposal for the foundation of such an alliance was the need that it be distinct from its constituent political parties. At AD, we were worried that the PN proposal to add AD and as an appendage to the PN was unacceptable on a point of principle and would inevitably lead to being lumped with undesirable situations such as unacceptable policy positions as well as undesirable candidates. We were not prepared to take such a risk.

Unfortunately, we were proven right, for example, through the selection by the PN of homophobic candidate Josie Muscat as well as through policy declarations by both Marlene Farrugia and Simon Busuttil in favour of spring hunting and bird-trapping, as well as contradictory stances on the motor racing track, or Simon Busuttil’s emphasis on the tunnel between Malta and Gozo with which AD disagrees.

The PN, in addition, failed to address its internal contradictions on good governance. Pending internal PN governance issues include Claudio Grech’s amnesia in relation to meetings with George Farrugia of oil-scandal fame, Beppe Fenech Adami’s error of judgement in taking-up the directorship of Capital One Investments Ltd, Mario de Marco’s db Group conflict of interest, as well as Simon Busuttil’s mishandling of the db Group invoices saga and its relevance to the financing of the PN.

From what is known, these issues, did not bother the Democratic Party, but in AD’s view they were a serious impediment to the proper functioning of a pre-election alliance, as they run directly opposite to an electoral platform based on good governance. We raised all this during the exploratory talks held with the PN, but the PN delegation dismissed these concerns outright.

Given the above, Alternattiva Demokratika took the right decision in not joining the PN-led National Front. Any Parliamentary seat that AD could have gained had it joined the pre-election alliance without the above issues having being addressed would have been tainted.

The future for AD holds great potential. In the coming months changes will be made but these will be carried out at AD’s pace. These changes are an essential prerequisite for ensuring that AD can function more effectively and efficiently in such a way that it can communicate better with its voter base.

published by The Malta Independent on Sunday, 11 June 2017

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!

Green and Clean: Parliament’s role

The general election is being over-shadowed by a web of corruption spun around the Office of the Prime Minister. It has been unravelling for months since the publication of the Panama Papers.

Months of debate has highlighted the need for Parliament to reclaim the authority which, over the years, it has ceded to government. All institutions require continuous Parliamentary oversight: even the civil service needs to be properly monitored by Parliament.

The PN are proposing labour-proof institutions. In reality the institutions need to be PN-proof as well – as both major political parties have had exclusive control of institutions over the years, bending them to their will.

The current mess is the direct result of a two-party system that spread its tentacles through the institutions creating empires with the specific aim of buttressing those in power and protecting them in their time of need. It is a two-party system which, over a 50-year period, has developed a winner takes all mentality, as a result of which only those aligned to the winner are deemed to be able to contribute to the well-being and development of the country. The rest, with few exceptions, have been repeatedly excluded, and it is Malta which, ultimately has lost the utilisation of substantial talent.

This is the background to Alternattiva Demokratika’s electoral manifesto. Entitled Vote Green – Vote clean, without ignoring other important issues, it focuses on matters of governance in addition to its core environmental proposals.

We have plenty of good laws. The problem is that, many times, the pool of talent from which those who implement such laws are selected is generally limited to those carrying the party card. Successive governments have often preferred the politically loyal to the technically and ethically competent. This has been possible due to the fact that Parliament has abdicated its responsibilities and assigned them to the government.

Parliament should reclaim the authority ceded to government to appoint authorities and it should proceed to screen those nominated through a public hearing by a Parliamentary Committee on the lines practised by the Senate of the United States of America. This screening by Parliament should  be applicable first and foremost to all constitutional authorities, as well as to all authorities set up in terms of law. Likewise, the appointment of Commissioner of Police, the Head of the Armed Forces, the Governor of the Central Bank,  the Head of the Civil Service and ambassadors, as well as all civil service grades from Director up to Permanent Secretary,   should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

In addition to ensuring a more serious selection process, this would serve as a safety valve protecting the civil service itself from abusive action on the part of an incoming government as happened in 2013, when the Head of the Civil Service and practically all Permanent Secretaries were removed in the first minutes of a new Labour government.

The recruitment of people of trust on a large scale during the past 4 years has further politicised the civil service. It is a practice that has been on the increase even before March 2013. The engagement of people of trust throughout the wider public service was used as a stratagem to avoid the scrutiny of the Public Service Commission, a constitutional body established specifically to ensure a fair recruitment process. This should cease forthwith, with the engagement of people of trust being limited to the private secretariats of holders of political office.

The Standards in Public Life Act, which ironically was supported by both the PN and the PL, was approved by Parliament shortly before dissolution. It provisions were therefore not implemented. In particular, the appointment of a Commissioner for Standards in Public Life – to be tasked with investigating the behaviour of MPs – has not yet materialised and will have to be addressed by the new Parliament elected on 3 June.

Lobbying is not yet regulated. In fact, its regulation has been postponed as no agreement was reached between the PN and the PL about possible lobbying regulations.

AD considers that the next Parliament will have to address head-on whether Members of Parliament should be full-timers, thus severing all links with profession and/or employment and, as a result, substantially reducing instances of conflict of interest faced by Members of Parliament.

Parliament can, in the next few weeks, assume a central role in re-building the country’s institutions. It is the only way forward to ensure that ethical behaviour in public life is the norm, rather than the exception.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 21 May 2017

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

Fid-dell ta’ Aliyev

Għadu kmieni biex wieħed jifforma opinjoni dwar kemm il-Bank ta Pilatus kien qed jirriċikla l-flus maħmuġin mal-erbat irjieħ tad-dinja fisem il-klijenti tiegħu. Dan minħabba li l-fatti, dejjem jekk seħħew, sissa la ġew spjegati biżżejjed u l-anqas sostanzjati fil-pubbliku.

Allegazzjonijiet isiru l-ħin kollu imma ftit ikunu sostanzjati. Meta dawn il-provi ma jkunux imperċin dan ikun ifisser jew li ma seħħux kif intqal, inkella li dawn il-provi ser jibqgħu kunfidenzjali għax ikun meħtieġ li jkun protett is-sors tal-informazzjoni.

Il-gravitá tal-allegazzjonijiet bil-fors tqajjem punt interogattiv dwar jekk dak li jkun qed jintqal hux minnu jew le. Avolja qegħdin fi żmien li ma tantx ser nistagħġbu jekk dak allegat seħħx verament.

Nafu li t-tmexxija tal-Ażerbajġan hi waħda minn l-iktar korrotti fid-dinja u għalhekk anke l-fatt biss li pajjiżna qed jidher viċin wisq ta dan il-pajjiż hu minnu innifsu ta tħassib. Bħalma hu tad-daħq, jew forsi aħjar tal-biki żżjarat spissi tal-Ispeaker tal-Parlament Malti fdan il-pajjiż fejn spiss smajnieh jgħidilna kemm hu demokratiku u trasparenti Aliyev. Ovvjament dawn iċcertifikati ta’ Anglu Farrugia ftit jikkonvinċu nies dwar Aliyev, imma bla dubju jixħtu dell konsiderevoli fuq dak li Mr Speaker jifhem b’demokrazija u trasparenza.

Huwa fdan il-kuntest li wieħed irid ipoġġi dak li qed jintqal.

Għax pajjiżna jidher li dieħel fl-industrija tar-riċiklaġġ. Mhux dik assoċjata mal-ħarisen tal-ambjent imma l-prodott tal-korruzzjoni.

Coalition building: beyond the arithmetic

It is pretty obvious that the primary – and possibly the only – objective that the Nationalist Party seeks to attain through its proposed coalition is to numerically surpass the Labour Party when the first count votes are tallied after  the forthcoming general election. Should this materialise, it could be a stepping stone on the basis of which, possibly, it could return to office on its own or in coalition.

The rest, that is to say beyond the first count vote tally, is all a necessary evil for the PN.

In contrast, Alternattiva Demokratikas objectives go beyond arithmetic. Alternattiva Demokratika favours a principle-based coalition, ethically driven,  in conscious preference to a pragmatic-based one that is driven exclusively by arithmetic considerations.

A principle-based coalition asks questions and demands answers continuously. The path to be followed to elect the first Green MPs is just as important as the objective itself. This is not simply  a minor inconsequential detail: it is a fundamental difference in approach.

Alternattiva Demokratika is continuously being tempted to discard its principled approach on the basis of a possible satisfactory result being within reach: now is the time, we are told, to join Simon Busuttils coalition in the national interest.  

Alternattiva Demokratika has always given way to the national interest. It is definitely in the national interest to discard (at the earliest possible opportunity) the two-party system that is the cause of the current political mess. In this context, at AD we do not view the PN (or the PL for that matter) as a solution. Both are an intrinsic part of the problem. Even if they are not exactly equivalent, together they are the problem. Parliament has been under the control of the two-party system  without interruption for the past 52 years. This is ultimately responsible for the current state of affairs as, due to its composition, Parliament has been repeatedly unable to hold the government of the day to account.

It is the worst kind of political dishonesty to pretend that the PN is whiter than white when criticising the Labour Partys gross excesses during the past four years. Labour has been capable of creating the current mess because the last PN-led government left behind quasi-toothless institutions, such that, when push came to shove, these institutions were incapable of biting back against abuse in defence of Maltese society: so much for the PNs commitment to good governance.

The PN is also  still haunted by its own gross excesses including:

1) Claudio Grechs incredible declaration on the witness stand in Parliaments Public Accounts Committee that he did not recollect ever meeting George Farrugia during the development of the oil sales scandal, George Farrugia being the mastermind  behind it all.   

2) Beppe Fenech Adamis role in the nominee company behind the Capital One Investment Group/Baltimore Fiduciary Services . In quasi similar circumstances, former Labour Party Treasurer Joe Cordina was forced to resign and was withdrawn as a general election candidate.

3) Mario DeMarcos error of judgement (with Simon Busuttils blessing) in accepting the brief of Silvio Debonos db Group in relation to the provision of advisory legal services on the Groups acquisition from Government of land at Pembroke, currently the site of the Institute for Tourism Studies, and this when his duty a Member of Parliament was to subject the deal to the minutest scrutiny and thereby hold government to account.

4) Toni Bezzinas application for a proposed ODZ Villa at the same time that, together with others, he was drafting an environment policy document on behalf of the PN in which document he proposed that this should henceforth  be prohibited.

5) Simon Busuttils alleged attempt to camouflage political donations as payment for fictitious services by his partys commercial arm, thereby circumventing the Financing of Political Parties Act.

How can the Nationalist Party be credible by declaring itself as the rallying point in favour of good governance and against corruption when it took no serious action to clean up its own ranks? Apologies are a good start but certainly not enough: heads must roll.

A coalition with a PN that closes more than one eye to the above is bound to fail, as the behaviour of the PN and its leadership is clearly and consistently diametrically opposed to its sanctimonious declarations.

These are very serious matters: they need to be suitably and satisfactorily addressed as a pre-condition to the commencement of any coalition talks.  Time is running out and this is being stated even before one proceeds to identify and spell out the red lines – ie the issues that are non-negotiable.

Addressing the arithmetic issues concerning the general election and then ending up with a new government with such an ambivalent attitude to good governance would mean that we are back to the point from which we started.    Nobody in his right mind would want that and Alternattiva Demokratika would certainly not support such double speak.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 16 April 2017

Mhux kulħadd bħal Salvu

Għamel tajjeb il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni li rrefera t-trasferiment tal-art fPembroke fejn hemm l-Istitut għall-Istudji Turistiċi għand l-Awditur Ġenerali għal investgazzjoni, għax dan hu trasferiment li fih bosta irregolaritajiet.

Ftit ħin wara li Simon Busuttil għamel id-dikjarazzjoni li ser imur għand l-Awditur Ġenerali huwa irċieva SMS li biha ċ-CEO tal-kumpaniji ta Silvio Debono talbu lura l-flus li kienu ngħataw bħala donazzjoni lill-PN. Hu ċar għal kulħadd li dan mgħamlux brispett lejn il-liġi, jew minħabba li jrid is-serjetá, iżda bi tpattija immedjata. Kuntrarjament għal dak li qal il-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni dan ma kienx rikatt iżda ritaljazzjoni għal dak li kien diġa intqal.

Imma bħala riżultat ta din ir-ritaljazzjoni min-naħa ta Silvio Debono, sirna nafu mingħand l-istess Debono li fl-2016 huwa kien intalab jagħmel ħlasijiet ta 70,800 għal servizzi li ma kellux bżonn imma li kienu ser iservu għall-ħtiġijiet ta Partit Nazzjonalista. Debono żied jgħid li tħejjew invoices u ħallashom.

Ħadd ma jista jeħodha kontra l-Kap tal-Opposizzjoni li mar għand l-Awditur Ġenerali biex dan jinvestiga dak li jidhru li huma irregolaritajiet kbar. Imma bla dubju dan il-pass tajjeb ta Simon Busuttil ma jikkanċellax l-abbużi li qed ikun allegat li saru dwar donazzjonijiet lill-Partit Nazzjonalista li ukoll jeħtieġu li jkunu investigati.

Huwa ovvju li Debono mhux qed jitkellem għax iħobb l-ordni, is-serjetá u l-osservanza tal-liġi. Imma jekk dak li qed jgħid Debono seħħ, u nistennew li jkunu prodotti l-provi dwar dan, dan huwa abbuz gravi u jeħtieġ li jkun investigat.  Dan mhux tfettieq kif qed jippruvaw jgħidu xuħud.

Jekk dak li qed jgħid Debono seħħ ifisser li nkisru l-iktar prinċipji bażiċi tal-liġi dwar il-Finanzjament tal-Partiti Politiċi. Nistenna li ma ndumux ma naraw kopja tal-irċevuti u l-kontijiet li nħarġu biex jiġġustifikaw il-ħlas.

L-istorja ma tieqafx hawn. Għax dan kollu għandu konsegwenzi li m’humiex żgħar.

Jekk ippruvat, dan ifisser li l-Partit Nazzjonalista jipprietka s-serjetá fil-pubbliku, imma imbagħad, fejn ma jidhirx, jagħmel mod ieħor.

Jekk ippruvat dan ifisser li hi illużjoni li naħsbu li wara dawk l-uċuħ mimlija qdusija hemm min għandu rieda tajba.

Ifisser fuq kollox li filwaqt li qatt mgħandna nagħlqu l-bibien għal ħadd, irridu noqgħodu bseba għajnejn il-ħin kollu għax bejn dak li jidher u dak li hemm fil-fatt tezisti differenza kbira.

Għax kif tista tippreżenta front wieħed u magħqud kontra l-korruzzjoni jekk min jilgħaba tal-paladin tal-imġieba tajba jgħid mod fid-deher u jagħmel ieħor meta ma jidhirx. Mhux kulħadd għandu fiduċja għamja f’Simon Busuttil bħalma għandu Salvu. Dak jaħseb li l-maħmuġ jista xi darba jirreklama l-indafa. Erħilu li sa ftit ilu kien konvintissimu li mhemmx xtagħżel bejn il-PN u l-PL. Imma issa ikkonverta u donnu nesa’ kollox.

Dak li naraw bgħajnejna u mmissu bidejna ma nistgħux ninjorawh. Il-ħmieġ jibqa’ ħmieġ, jagħmlu min jagħmlu. Imma meta jitwettaq minn min jagħmel il-ġurnata kollha jipprietka l-indafa, tajjeb ukoll li jkun ċar li mhux qed jirnexxielu jgħaddina biżżmien.

 

 

Koalizzjoni: mhux kontra Muscat imma favur il-governanza tajba

 

Muscat + Busuttil

 

Simon Busuttil qalilna li l-PN jrid imexxi koalizzjoni kontra l-korruzzjoni. Bil-passat riċenti tiegħu il-PN mhux postu fdin ix-xorta ta koalizzjoni. Koalizzjoni kontra l-korruzzjoni mhiex kredibbli bil-PN jifforma parti minnha.

Bħala riżultat tat-telfa madornali tal-2013, il-PN jippretendi li l-passat tiegħu hu maħfur. Hawn sejjer żbaljat għax għad baqa ħafna xjaqta bi snienu sakemm jikseb lura l-kredibilitá.

Għad hemm ħtieġa ta ħafna spjegazzjonijiet dwar każi li l-fatti dwarhom sissa huma mċajpra: dwar l-iskandlu tażżejt, dwar l-artijiet tal-Gvern, dwar is-self mill-Bank of Vassallo u tant affarijiet oħra. Avolja, oħroġ il-għaġeb, donnu ħadd ma jaf xejn.

Il-fatt li feġġew skandli simili kif ukoll skandli agħar (bħal tal-Panama) li għalihom hu responsabbli l-Gvern ta Joseph Muscat, u probabbilment Joseph Muscat innifsu, ma jfissirx li issa l-PN jista jqis ruħu mnaddaf u lest għat-tmexxija tal-pajjiż. Il-passat imċajpar tal-PN hu viċin wisq biex ninsewħ. L-iskandli tal-lum u l-iskandli tal-bieraħ, flimkien, ifissru li ma hemmx xtagħżel bejn il-PN u l-PL. It-tnejn li huma responsabbli għal tmexxija ħażina.

Jiena kontra l-korruzzjoni, imma ma nħossnix komdu fkoalizzjoni li fiha jkun hemm il-PN, għax fis-siegħa tal-prova l-PN baqa ċass quddiem il-ħmieġ. Faċli titkellem mill-Opposizzjoni. Imma jekk dwar dak li jiġri meta tkun fil-Gvern twaħħal fta taħtek u fta madwarek ħadd ma jista jemmnek.

Jiena kontra l-korruzzjoni imma l-koalizzjoni li rrid nara mhiex waħda kontra Joseph Muscat, imma favur il-governanza tajba. U dwar din mhemmx post għall-PN. Għad baqagħlu ħafna xjitgħallem.