Brian Decelis: aħdar ta’ veru

Brian hu persuna mimlija enerġija. Hu dedikat. Jiffoka l-enerġija tiegħu b’mod kreattiv favur dak li jemmen fih.

Għandu viżjoni ħadra. Hu aħdar ta’ veru.

Segwejtu mill-bogħod snin twal ilu waqt l-ewwel kampanja elettorali għall-Kunsilli Lokali fl-1992. Dakinnhar kien ġie elett fil-lokalità tal-Fgura għan-nom ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika.

Għaddew 32 sena, u għalkemm bħali,  b’inqas xagħar, għadu mimli bl-istess ħeġġa u determinazzjoni li fejn hu possibli jmidd għonqu għall-ħidma biex jagħmel id-differenza.

Dan hu l-impenn politiku tagħna, li bil-viżjoni ħadra tagħna nagħmlu differenza fil-ħajja tal-oħrajn, biex ħajjithom tkun aħjar.

Hemm ħafna xi jsir fuq livell ta’ lokalità. F’kull lokalità hemm ħtieġa ta’ Kunsill Lokali magħmul min-nies li kapaċi jkunu proattivi.

Tul dawn l-aħħar snin, kelli l-opportunità li naħdem mill-viċin ma’ Brian. Miegħu kelli l-opportunità li niddiskuti u nfassal il-ħidma tal-partit f’ċirkustanzi differenti.  Fi Brian dejjem sibt persuna li kienet kapaċi tittraduċi l-ftit kliem tiegħi (kultant anke espress b’mod telegrafiku) f’ħidma effettiva.

Fl-elezzjoni ġenerali li għaddiet, jekk Ralph (Segretarju Ġenerali tal-Partit) kien l-id il-leminija tiegħi, Brian, bla ebda dubju kien l-id ix-xellugija tiegħi, biex, flimkien mal-kumplament tat-tim organizzajna l-partit aħjar u bil-ftit riżorsi li kellna irnexxielna kważi nirduppjaw il-voti li ksibna minn elezzjoni ġenerali għall-oħra.

L-isfidi fil-lokalità mhumiex wisq differenti. L-issues li irridu niffaċċjaw huma kemm dawk ambjentali kif ukoll dawk ta’ governanza tajba. 

Brian għandu għarfien tajjeb ta’ dak li hemm lest għalih, meta, xahar ieħor nawguralu li jkun elett. Hu kapaċi jkun leħen taż-żgħir, tal-vulnerabbli, tar-resident abbandunat mill-awtoritajiet.

Ix-xahar id-dieħel, bi Brian elett bħala kunsillier, Marsaskala jkollha biex jirrappreżentha persuna determinata li tiddefendi liż-żgħir.  Meta nassiguraw li jkun imħares l-iċken wieħed fostna, għandna l-garanzija li nkunu qed inħarsu lil kulħadd. Brian hu l-bniedem li xahar ieħor jagħmel id-differenza.

Awguri Brian.

(diskors f’Marsaskala, Il-Ħadd 12 ta’ Mejju 2024)

Presidential theatrics and arm-twisting

(photo: presenting to President George Vella proposals for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention : 5 November 2019)

The role of the President in the governance of this Republic, on paper, is just an issue of formality. In practice, however, it can be much more than that.

Undoubtedly Myriam Spiteri Debono will be a different President from her predecessors. Spiteri Debono has a distinct advantage over all of her predecessors: she has no political baggage because she has not held any executive political office to date. Only Sir Anthony Mamo, the first President, had the same advantage!

In her inaugural speech as President, Myriam Spiteri Debono made many an important political point. Fundamentally she emphasized that she will not seek to influence the political debate (a difficult pledge which, however, she did not strictly follow herself). Although she did not name him, this was a clear dig at her predecessor, who, in addition to lobbying the executive intensively in favour of his contrasting political views, unashamedly interfered in the public debate on proposals relative to the IVF legislative changes as well as on Bill 28 which sought to clarify the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code.

His Excellency George Vella would have been taken to task in any self-respecting Parliament. A motion for his removal, because of his behavior, would have been submitted for Parliament’s consideration.  Almost two years ago, given the President’s behaviour in office, I had written in these columns that there are “valid reasons to consider the impeachment of Dr. George Vella from his Presidential duties.” (TMIS: The Presidential rubberstamp: 31 July 2022)

Any person who allows his personal views to conflict with his or her Constitutional duties is, in my view, not fit for office.

Parliament, unfortunately, was not irked by George Vella’s arm-twisting of the executive. It was not bothered, as it thanked Vella for his services! Not one of the Members of Parliament stood up to remind one and all that when the holder of the office of the President interferes in the political debate, he/she is performing a grave disservice to the Republic.

One only hopes that there is no repetition of this interference in parliament’s work.

Parliament needs to reinforce the office of the President. In particular, for example, the Constitution needs some clarity as to how the President can defend the Constitution when he/she does not have the appropriate legal tools available. 

Let me clarify: It is essential to consider in some depth the role of the President of the Republic. Specifically, we should consider whether the President should continue to be just a rubberstamp or whether he or she should have limited review powers over Parliament’s legislative function.

ADPD- The Green Party, in submissions to the still pending Constitutional Convention, focused on this specific matter, among other issues. In the document submitted to the Convention, my party proposed that the President should be able to send legislation back to Parliament for its reconsideration, if, in his/her view such legislation runs counter to the provisions of the Constitution.

The President, on assuming office, declares that he/she will do all it takes to defend the Constitution. He/she is not however equipped with any (constitutional) tools with which to carry out this responsibility.

The Green proposal presented more than four years ago for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention identifies an essential tool with which His Excellency the President can act responsibly within the parameters of the law. We further proposed that should Parliament refuse to budge, the President should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final decision. 

This is how the Presidency should function. Much better than when it was subject to the George Vella theatrics, lobbying, and arm-twisting of the executive.

published in Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 April 2024

The courage to change

Good governance is central to the proper nurturing of this 50-year-old Republic. Good governance is founded on transparency and accountability. Secrecy and the withholding of information from the public domain, in contrast, generate bad governance.

Transparency is a basic characteristic of good governance whereas secrecy is the distinguishing mark of bad governance. This inevitably leads to the shielding of unethical behaviour, as well as the propagation of a culture of greed and corruption.

Transparency and accountability are inseparable twins. Accountability is, in fact, non-existent or severely diluted in the absence of transparency.

Good governance is much more than a concept. It is the essential foundation for any democratic Republic.  In the absence of good governance, greed flourishes, and national institutions are slowly transformed into personal fiefdoms. Corruption and rampant clientelism are the inevitable results of a lack of good governance.

In her inaugural speech on Thursday, President of the Republic Myriam Spiteri Debono spoke of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Daphne’s assassination was described by Her Excellency as a wound that, as a nation, we must heal the soonest.

Daphne Caruana Galizia was actively involved in journalism, investigating corruption. Notwithstanding the continuous vitriol she faced, Daphne identified many a scandal associated with the governance model championed by the Labour Party in government.

This, in reality, is the wound to be healed. We need to finalise that begun by Daphne by ensuring, as a nation, that the corrupt face the music the soonest. Then the festering wounds of corruption, made worse as a result of a culture of impunity, will start the healing process. The rule of law must prevail without any exception.

The assassination of Daphne is also a heavy blow against good governance.  The public inquiry into the circumstances that led to Daphne’s assassination concluded with identifying the Maltese state as being ultimately responsible for all that happened.

A culture of greed has been reinforced with a culture of impunity.

The change necessary to heal this wound requires considerable courage and goodwill. I am not at present convinced that the political leadership currently in government is acting in good faith. It is a leadership under siege, continuously defending those who have driven this country to the dogs.

Land use planning and our environment are regulated by greed. Agricultural land is slowly disappearing as a result of the planning policies of the PN in government way back in 2006 through the so-called rationalisation exercise. The Labour Party opposed these plans when in Opposition but it is currently in the process of milking them dry to ensure that the greedy are fully satisfied.  Some have already licked their lips! Others are awaiting their turn.

It takes courage to act against greed, when both Parliamentary parties are fully committed to entrenching it as a way of life. They ensure the quality of life of the greedy, but in the process are ruining that of all the rest of us: both the present as well as the future generations.

The current set-up of our Parliament is part of the problem. It is no wonder, that, in this scenario, we are lumped with an electoral system that ensures that the voice of change is silenced by making it as difficult as possible for it to be heard.

Change is hindered as the national institutions are rigged against those who dare to speak up for the representation of a variety of minority views in the country.

As a result of this lack of political goodwill, ADPD-The Green Party is currently in Court contesting the discriminatory nature of this rigged electoral system. It is a constitutional court case that is hopefully approaching its conclusion.

At ADPD-The Green Party, we have long been speaking about the urgent need for electoral reform, focused on the need to ensure that every vote is valued. Until such time, no change can ensure that everybody is on board. One person, one vote, one value.

It takes courage (and political goodwill) to change.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 7 April 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

The right to know and the duty to remember

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Attributed to Spanish-American philosopher Jorge Santayana, these words signify not only the duty to remember, but more, the right to know. 

We remember that which we know. How can we remember that which we do not know: that which has been hidden from our view? 

Unfortunately, our society, most conveniently, is, at times, more interested in promoting the right to forget, or better still, the right to be forgotten! Forgetting and consequently ignoring the past always has disastrous consequences.

Transparency is a basic value in any democracy worthy of its name. Without transparency there is no possibility of having any form of accountability. Hiding information, ensuring that it is not accessible, is a common stratagem used by those who want to avoid accountability. Data protection is unfortunately continuously being used and abused in order to avoid accountability.

Data protection rights are unfortunately continuously being abused, as a result, at times, shielding criminal activity. Though well intentioned, the recent decision of the Data Protection Commissioner on the publication of online chats between Yorgen Fenech and Rosianne Cutajar is part of this (unintended) fallout of privacy rights. Though in fairness it has to be stated that it is the publication of the full chats which has irked the Data Protection Commissioner and not the information contained therein.

Reading through the Yorgen/Rosienne chats decision of the Data Protection Commissioner reveals the tightrope negotiated by the Commissioner to try and protect both privacy as well as the right to be informed. It is appreciated that it is always difficult to draw a line as to where privacy ends and public interest reigns.

But then having the full chats published instead of a synthesis, as indirectly suggested by the Commissioner, served the purpose of not quoting out of context. The full context of the chats is essential as this clearly shows the toxic development of a mix of the power of money, sex, and political power. Through what was published it is clear how money and expensive gifts was the price through which a young politician was purchased. This is definitely in the public interest to know.

The right to know is not the satisfaction of a curiosity thirst. In any democracy, the free flow of information is basic and essential. Withholding information or obstruction of access to it should only be an exceptional occurrence.

Unfortunately, rather than being exceptional, the withholding of information or access to it, is fast becoming a normality.

Our Courts are resorting too often to withholding the publication of sensitive information. The court case of the NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials will no longer be heard behind closed doors as the original decision has now been reversed. This was another instance where our right to know was being stifled by those same authorities entrusted to defend us! Fortunately, the doors are now open. We have the right to know whether it is correct to state that the Attorney General acted abusively in defending criminality instead of prosecuting it! Has the criminal world captured the state institutions? This is what is at stake in this case! We have the right to know.

The reluctance of government to adhere to Freedom of Information Tribunal decisions is another disturbing matter.  For example, the Shift online news portal has won 40 cases at the Information Tribunal and 18 cases in Court relative to information requested on consultancy contracts and payments made to Saviour Balzan and his companies. Millions of euros of public funds have been used. Government is however refusing to be accountable for this use of these public funds.

What is the purpose of this secrecy? Has the state purchased the collaboration of a section of the media? This is what is at stake here. We have the right to know.

The right to know is basic in any democracy. Transparency and accountability work in tandem. Without transparency, accountability is hampered. A lack of transparency is an essential first step in order to ensure that accountability is avoided altogether.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter: devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency is entrenched as an essential element of the operation of the state and public institutions.

Whenever government, public bodies or state institutions are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

We deserve better than that.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 January 2024

Habitual bypassing of procurement regulations in the public sector

Last Monday the Auditor General published the annual audit report on the Public Accounts for the financial year 2022. He did so, as is customary, after presenting the said report to Mr Speaker for the consideration of Parliament.

The audit report, which is over 300 pages long, contains around 250 recommendations for action meant to address the shortcomings which were identified in this year’s audit report.

The National Audit Office identified five key findings as a result of this year’s audit, namely: limited internal controls, insufficient enforcement of amounts due, a lack of an audit trail, weakness in the payroll system, and, most worrying of all, the “habitual” bypassing of procurement regulations in the public sector.

Various news items in the local media, reporting on the audit report, focused on the issue of the weakness in the tax collection system and the amounts of taxation due which are contested, have not been collected or have been written off. The matter is serious enough.

However most worrying of all is the issue of the “habitual” bypassing of procurement regulations by a number of public sector entities. This denotes the effort to bypass procurement rules, throughout the public sector, and seek corners away from the glaring spotlight of internal controls thereby avoiding proper governance. As a result of this bad practice, in addition to subjecting the public purse to unnecessary expenditure, this distorts competition and locks out various potential suppliers from participating and competing in a fair manner in line with procurement regulations.

This method of operation is unfortunately becoming a common practice in the public sector through the use of direct orders, when these are not necessary, and in particular by the splitting of contracts into a number of smaller contracts to facilitate this practice with ease.

Lack of adequate planning within the various entities is also the cause of non-observance of public sector procurement regulations. At times this lack of adequate planning is the result of administrative incompetence. At other times it is just planned that way and then used as an excuse to facilitate the renewal of contracts without going out to tender. It is also used to justify the use of the negotiated procedure as a result of which a public entity negotiates a contract for services or supplies required with one or two entities.

This is resorted to under “extraordinary circumstances” but the Auditor General chastised at least one department (AACC – The Active Aging and Community Care Department ) for repeatedly avoiding going out to tender and using a negotiating procedure instead.

The Auditor General lists the contracts for the relevant services entered into by the Active Aging and Community Care Department, through the negotiated procedure, namely Cleaning Services, Nursing Services, Meals for Homes, Clerical Services and Domiciliary Services!

The Ministry for Gozo, on the other hand was taken to task by the Auditor General for “habitually” splitting services of substantial value into several contracts in order to facilitate the issue of direct orders instead of issuing a public call for tenders. This is a fragmentation of purchase requirements and is an infringement of procurement regulations. It was authorized directly by the Permanent Secretary of the Gozitan Ministry!

At times one wonders what all those appointed in managerial grades in the public sector are doing. Specifically, one can query the role of Permanent Secretaries in managing and monitoring adequately the departments under their responsibility.

Permanent Secretaries are the top civil servants in the different ministries. Are they properly equipped to manage the Ministries for which they are responsible?

Enforcing accountability and ensuring good governance in the public sector, at the end of the day is the responsibility of each of the Permanent Secretaries in the different Ministries. Through this audit report, the Auditor General is once more drawing their attention as to what needs to be done in order to follow a road map away from bad governance, towards good governance.

An obvious unwritten conclusion of the audit report is that some of the Permanent Secretaries are definitely not fit for purpose. The fact that none have resigned or been fired since the publication of the audit report speaks volumes.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 24 December 2023

Rosianne Cutajar’s phantom job: the tip of the iceberg?

Last Tuesday, the Auditor General published a report entitled A Review of the employment agreement of the Consultant to the Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Tourism Studies. It addresses my request to the Auditor General, submitted on behalf of ADPD-The Green Party, to investigate the matter, which request was submitted eight months earlier.

There have been some interesting developments over the week, subsequent to the publication of the Auditor General’s report. Robert Abela, as Prime Minister, pointed fingers at Konrad Mizzi, the disgraced former Labour Minister. Konrad Mizzi, at this point is a very convenient scapegoat! Worse than that, however, Tourism Minister Clayton Bartolo has publicly defended ITS CEO Pierre Fenech. According to Clayton Bartolo, the ITS CEO was carrying out superior orders, that is orders of the former Tourism Minister Konrad Mizzi!

Minister Bartolo should know better than that. He knows that obeying superior orders is no defence in shielding yourself or others from the consequences of criminal action which the “fraudulent” and “irregular” job “in breach of all policies and procedures” at the Institute of Tourism Studies (ITS) amounts to, in the Auditor General’s own words.

Minister Bartolo’s defence of the ITS CEO Pierre Fenech may be indicative of a damage control exercise as, possibly, the Rosianne Cutajar case is just the tip of the iceberg. There could be much more rot at ITS which can only be uncovered as a result of an in-depth investigation of its operations. The Auditor General has shown the way. It is now up to the Commissioner of Police to dig deeper: in particular ITS Chief Pierre Fenech should be held accountable for his actions. At the end of the day, it was he that made the phantom job possible. He should now carry the can.

This is not the first case of its kind. Currently pending before our criminal Courts is another case on the creation of another phantom job: that of Melvin Theuma. This particular phantom job was created within the OPM laboratory. In fact, the Police have arraigned five persons to answer criminal charges on the creation of the Theuma phantom job. Melvin Theuma was paid with this job for services rendered in brokering the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Even Melvin Thuma cashed his pay cheque and never turned up for work.

Among those arraigned by the Police was the then CEO of the state-owned company Housing Maintenance and Embellishment Co Ltd, which company issued Melvin Theuma’s pay-cheques.

Likewise, Pierre Fenech, ITS Chief Executive, should answer for his criminal action in creating Rosianne Cutajar’s phantom job, as a result defrauding the public purse of the monies disbursed. The Minister’s testimonial in this case is intended as an indirect public pressure on the Police not to take any action.

In my request to the Auditor General on 28 March 2023 I had pointed out that the duties of the post of consultant to the ITS CEO were incompatible with the known competencies of the Hon Rosianne Cutajar! She was a qualified teacher of Italian in secondary schools, yet she was expected to advise on strategic management issues of the Institute of Tourism Studies as well as on issues of its financial administration.

The Auditor General’s report confirms the widely held view on the phantom nature of Cutajar’s employment at ITS. In addition, as a result of the meticulous investigation carried out by the National Audit Office team it has also been concluded that practically all the rules regulating public sector recruitment were ignored. Rules which were developed over the years to ensure good governance in the public sector, of which the ITS forms part, were thrown overboard.

The creation of phantom jobs in the public sector is clearly a misappropriation of public funds. Those responsible should be arraigned in our criminal courts. It is for this purpose that ADPD-The Green Party is insisting that the next step after the Auditor General’s report is criminal action against all those involved in this fraudulent action.

The Police should, however, in their investigation, look beyond Rosianne Cutajar’s phantom job. It should delf deeper into the ITS operations. This could well be the proverbial tip of the iceberg. No wonder Robert Abela and Clayton Bartolo are keen to pin this on Konrad Mizzi.

published Malta Independent on Sunday: 3 December 2023

Vacant properties: an investment or a launderette?

The publication of the 2021 Census Report on the characteristics of existing residential property once, more focuses the spotlight on the urban sprawl and in particular on the substantial number of vacant or under-utilised dwellings available in these islands.

On the day of the Census, the existence of 297,304 dwellings was recorded. Of these 81,613 were grouped as either vacant or else as being dwellings having a seasonal or secondary use. It works out at 27.5 per cent of the housing stock which at a national level is under-utilised. This varies regionally from a 22.1 per cent low, in the Western region, to a 45 per cent high in Gozo! From a 15.5 per cent low at Santa Luċija Malta to a 66.8 per cent high at Iż-Zebbuġ Gozo, which locality includes the seaside resort of Marsalforn.

While the Marsalforn numbers are most probably, primarily, a reflection of the predominantly seasonal accommodation in the locality, the overall numbers are still a cause for concern. The situation gets progressively worse.

The total number of vacant or under-utilised dwellings, 81,613, is equivalent to 6 times the size of residential Sliema or 8 times the size of residential B’Kara or 9 times that of residential Mosta. Given the small size of the country these numbers are substantial. They indicate the strain on both the environment as well as the public purse which is resulting from over-development.  These under-utilised dwellings are served with the required infrastructural services:  roads, electricity, public sewers and water services at a substantial public expense, which could have been more beneficially used in other areas where existing dwellings are actually in use, continuously!

The reasons for existing residential property being vacant or only being used occasionally are various. One cannot generalise. The census itself, in fact, identifies around 6,000 residential units as being in a shell state on the date of the Census.

There are several issues which should be considered and acted upon. Hopefully they will not be once more ignored.

With over 80,000 vacant or under-utilised properties, what sense does it make to continue dishing out development permits for large scale developments which keep adding to the stock of vacant properties? One of the major contributors to the creation of this mess is undoubtedly the land use planning rationalisation exercise, which in 2006 added one million square metres to the development zone. These are currently being developed.

With over 80,000 vacant or partially used properties it makes no sense to have a waiting list at the Housing Authority for those seeking alternative accommodation. The Housing Authority should tap the existing housing stock, rather than add to it, in order to address its waiting list immediately. The current projects of the Housing Authority are a waste of resources when such a large number of properties are available. This is bad governance of the worst kind.

A third consideration is to tax long-term vacant properties. It does not make any environmental sense to develop land (including agricultural land) and subsequently to keep the developed property vacant. Nor does it make economic sense to invest so much without seeking to recover economic benefits in the form of rent. Those who persist in keeping their properties unused in the long term should pay a vacant property tax which would in part compensate the public exchequer for the expenditure incurred in creating the ghost towns made up of these 81,613 vacant or under-utilised properties.

Taxing long-term vacant properties could encourage their being placed on the market, to the benefit of all. As a result, they would possibly avoid the tax altogether! The tax would have achieved its purpose in encouraging the use of all existing properties. It would have achieved its purpose of causing a behavioural change. This is the objective of most environmental taxes.

There is another issue: that of money laundering through property investment. Since Malta made it to the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) a number of years ago, some attention is being paid to the property launderette, as both Estate Agents as well as Notaries are carrying out some form of due diligence on property which is being sold. It is not unheard of for a property sale not materialising if there is doubt on the source of funds invested or being invested.  Investigating properly unexplained sources of wealth would contribute substantially not only to cleaning up the country but also in addressing the stock of vacant properties.

The use of property to launder illicit gains is not a new phenomenon. Regulatory initiatives in this respect are however still in their infancy.

The primary conclusion from this Census is a clear message to the Planning Authority to get its house in order. Why build so much to keep the resulting residential units vacant? It is a question we have been asking for years. Unfortunately, they are not bothered to answer!

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 10 September 2023

Without transparency, accountability is hampered

Earlier this week I was called by the Auditor General to his office in order to discuss the request for an investigation which I had submitted to his office some 15 days ago on behalf of ADPD. My request for an investigation was relative to the contract of service entered into between the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS) and the Honourable Rosianne Cutajar, then a Labour member of parliament, now turned independent after being squeezed out of Labour.

As pointed out earlier in this column (The role of members of Parliament: TMIS 2 April), the issue is not an investigation of Rosianne Cutajar. It is rather an investigation into the operation of the Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS): whether it has engaged a consultant to its CEO to carry out responsibilities in respect of which the said consultant had no knowledge or competence, as is public knowledge.

An examination of the contract entered into between the Honourable Cutajar and ITS lists the areas of responsibilities which she was expected to shoulder: primarily issues of financial management. These responsibilities fall substantially outside the competences of a qualified Italian secondary school teacher. The contract in question is one which was hidden from public view until it was released by Shift News on the 23 March after it had obtained a copy as a result of a Freedom of Information request.

The inquisitive and investigative free press is shining a light on secretive acts carried out by the public sector: this is what transparency is about. Without transparency there is no way that we can ensure a shred of accountability.

The Auditor General informed me that he had called this meeting to hear my views, prior to his taking a decision on whether to proceed with the investigation and subsequently inform the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his findings.

Good governance does not stand a chance of ever taking root if this is how decisions are taken in the wider public sector. It is about time that all decision-takers start shouldering responsibility for the decisions they take. This ITS contract is one small example of abusive behaviour which needs acting upon immediately. It is not only politicians who must be accountable.

The management of public funds is tied with a duty to act in a responsible manner. All those who manage public funds must be in a position to account minutely for their actions. At the end of the day, it is the Auditor General who is entrusted by Parliament to monitor and report on the matter. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future we will be informed exactly what happened and who is actually responsible.

Transparency and accountability work in tandem. A lack of transparency is normally the first step to try and ensure that accountability is avoided.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter; devoid of any meaning. A lack of transparency transforms our democracy into a defective process, as basic and essential information required to form an opinion on what’s going on is missing. After all, accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency reigns supreme.

Whenever government, or public bodies, are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

Transparency is a journey, not a destination. We have to work hard at ensuring transparency continuously. It is a long journey, one which never ends.

Rules and laws will not bring about transparency. It will only result whenever each one of us opts to do what is right and not what is expedient. Our actions speak much louder than words.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 16 April 2023

Il-governanza tajba tinbena fuq it-transparenza

It-transparenza hi l-pedament essenzjali għal governanza tajba. B’kuntrast ma dan, il-governanza ħażina, ġeneralment, tkun akkumpanjata mis-segretezza u dan billi jinżamm jew ikun ostakolat l-aċċess għal informazzjoni ta’ kull xorta, liema informazzjoni għandha tkun pubblika.

Il-ħmieġ assoċjat mal-Panama Papers sirna nafu bih fil-mument li nkixfet l-informazzjoni dwar dawk li fittxew l-irkejjen tad-dinja fejn hi inkoraġġita s-segretezza: irkejjen fejn jinħbew il-flus ġejjin mill-korruzzjoni u mill-evażjoni tat-taxxi. Bl-istess mod l-iskandlu tal-Vitals dwar l-isptarijiet kif ukoll it-taħwid kollu assoċjat mal-power station ma kienux iseħħu kieku l-Partit Laburista fil-gvern għażel it-trasparenza flok is-segretezza bħala għodda essenzjali għat-tmexxija. Segretezza li kultant twaħħxek.

Il-kontabilità li tant niftaħru biha, wara kollox, hi dwar ir-responsabbiltà. Tfisser l-għarfien tar-responsabbiltà għal dak li nagħmlu. Dan ma jistax iseħħ jekk ma ssaltanx it-trasparenza, dejjem, u mhux biss meta jaqbel.

Il-ġimgħa l-oħra, l-Kamra tal-Kummerċ ippubblikat dokument bil-ħsibijiet tagħha dwar il-ħtieġa li tkun inkoraġġita u msaħħa l-governanza tajba. Kien f’loku li l-Kamra tal-Kummerċ emfasizzat li l-governanza tajba hi msejsa fuq it-trasparenza, l-kontabilità u s-saltna tad-dritt.

Spiss jingħad li l-informazzjoni hi poter. It-transparenza hi dwar dan il-fatt: li jkun assigurat li l-poter jinfirex. Għax hu biss meta jkollna għarfien ta’ dak li qed jiġri li nkunu nistgħu neżerċitaw id-dritt bażiku tagħna bħala ċittadini li neżiġu illi kull min jiddeċiedi, u allura jeżerċita l-poter, jagħti kont ta’ egħmilu, dejjem.

Il-politiċi mhumiex l-uniċi li jieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet. Dawn jinkludu liċ-ċivil u lil dawk li jmexxu l-awtoritajiet u l-istituzzjonijiet imwaqqfa biex jiffaċilitaw l-amministrazzjoni tal-istat fit-twettieq tal-funzjonijiet u d-dmirijiet tiegħu.

It-trasparenza teħtieġ li tinfirex anke fid-dinja tal-kummerċ. Spiss nisimgħu lil min jemfasizza li l-politika m’għandiex tindaħal fis-settur privat, fid-dinja tan-negozju. Għal uħud għadu mhuwiex ovvju li anke s-settur privat, u in-partikolari id-dinja tan-negozju, għandu joqgħod lura milli “jindaħal” fil-politika. Fost affarijiet oħra dan ifisser il-ħtieġa li jkun regolat il-lobbying. Dan ma jsirx billi il-lobbying ikun ipprojibit imma billi kull attività ta’ lobbying tkun transparenti. Għax jekk il-lobbying isir sewwa jista’ ikollu impatt posittiv fuq it-tfassil tad-deċiżjonijiet. Hi is-segretezza li tagħti fama ħażina lill-lobbying, segretezza intenzjonata biex ixxaqleb id-deċiżjonijiet lejn interessi kummerċjali u fl-istess ħin biex tostor it-taħwid.

Huwa f’dan id-dawl li l-inizjattiva tal- Ministru l-ġdid għall-Ambjent Aaron Farrugia li jżomm lista tal-laqgħat kollha tiegħu ma’ dawk li jfittxu li jiltaqgħu miegħu, inkluż mal-utenti, u li jippubblika din l-informazzjoni fil-forma ta’ reġistru ta’ trasparenza hi pass kbir ‘il quddiem. Din l-inizjattiva hi f’waqtha u hi ta’ eżempju lill-politiċi oħrajn biex huma ukoll jipprattikaw it-transparenza. Dan imma għandu jkun biss l-ewwel pass li jeħtieġ li jkun segwit bil-pubblikazzjoni ta’ proposti u dokumenti li l-Ministru jirċievi waqt dawn il-laqgħat, kif ukoll il-minuti tal-laqgħat li jkunu saru.

Hu magħruf li l-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika qed iħejji biex jippubblika abbozz ta’ proposti dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-lobbying biex eventwalment tkun tista’ issir konsultazzjoni pubblika dwarhom. Nittama li dan iwassal għal sitwazzjoni fejn f’dan il-qasam Aaron Farrugia ma jibqax l-eċċezzjoni. Il-bqija tal-membri tal-Kabinett m’għandhomx jibqagħlhom għażla. Għandhom ikunu kostretti li huma wkoll jaġixxu biex it-transparenza fil-ħidma politika tkun ir-regola u mhux l-eċċezzjoni.

Għax huwa biss meta it-transparenza jkollha egħruq fondi u b’saħħithom li nistgħu nibdew intejbu d-demokrazija tagħna billi neliminaw id-difetti li tħallew jakkumulaw tul is-snin.

 

ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 26 ta’ Jannar 2020