L-impatti tal-Coronavirus: inħarsu l-impiegi kollha

Il-Gvern ħabbar pakkett finanzjarju ta’ €1.8 biljun biex jilqa’ għall-impatti tal-Coronavirus.

Kif ser ikun effettwat il-ħaddiem b’kuntratt bla rabta ta’ numru ta’ siegħat li jaħdem (zero-hours contract), jew dawk f’impieg temporanju, dawk tas-sengħa li jaħdmu għal rashom, inkella n-negozjanti ż-żgħar? Il-pakkett finanzjarju imħabbar, ftit li xejn jaħseb fihom. Allura, minkejja l-merti tiegħu, il-pakkett finanzjarju tal-Gvern mhux tajjeb biżżejjed.

Il-ħaddiem iż-żgħir l-ewwel li jlaqqatha f’kull kriżi. Hu l-impatt fuqhom li għandu jservi ta’ kejl biex inkunu nistgħu niffurmaw opinjoni dwar kemm dan il-pakkett finanzjarju, kif ukoll dawk li għad jistgħu jiġu, huma effettivi.

Ilkoll nieħdu pjaċir b’inizjattivi biex jassiguraw li l-ekonomija u min iħaddimha jiġi fuq saqajh, mhux biss meta tiġi fi tmiemha din il-kriżi iżda ukoll fil-mixja li jeħtieġilna ngħaddu minnha biex nirkupraw. Imma kemm hu sew li noħorġu r-riżorsi tal-pajjiż biex tkun tista’ tirkupra ekonomija li mhiex kapaċi tirrispetta l-iktar dgħajfa fostna?

Il-proposti tal-Gvern biex jilqa’ għall-impatti tal-Coronavirus ma jorbtux lill-operaturi ekonomiċi li jagħmlu użu mill-proposti differenti fil-pakkett milli jħarsu l-impiegi. Is-sensji diġa bdew. Il-ħaddiem iż-żgħir l-ewwel li jlaqqatha. Warajh ilaqqtuha oħrajn.

Il-pakkett tal-Gvern biex jilqa’ għall-effetti tal-Coronavirus jeħtieġ miżuri addizzjonali.

L-għajnuna li ser tingħata għandha tmur lil dawk li sofrew tnaqqis sostanzjali fid-dħul tagħhom meta kkomparat mas-sena li għaddiet. Il-pakkett tal-Gvern huwa iffukat biex jiffaċilita l-likwidità kif ukoll biex jgħin ħalli jkun iggarantit self bankarju. Filwaqt li dawn huma miżuri importanti, f’din il-kriżi hu essenzjali li l-għajnuna tkun iffukata fuq il-pagi tal-ħaddiema. L-għajnuna diretta lill-operaturi ekonomiċi għandha tkun marbuta mal-obbligu tagħhom li jipproteġu l-impiegi. Jekk ma jkunx imħares ix-xogħol m’għandhiex tingħata għajnuna.

Aħna l-Ħodor f’Alternattiva Demokratika mħassba dwar il-ħaddiem iż-żgħir. Hu l-ewwel ma jlaqqatha f’din il-kriżi: huma l-ewwel vittmi tal-Coronavirus. L-għajnuna li dawn jeħtieġu hi fil-forma ta’ dħul minimu garantit tul ix-xhur li ġejjin, kemm iddum il-kriżi. Huma l-iktar vulnerabbli u ħadd mhu jitkellem dwarhom.

Il-kirjiet ta’ residenzi għandhom jiġġeddu awtomatikament sakemm tintemm il-kriżi. Għandu jkun hemm provediment għall-ħarsien minn xoljiment ta’ kuntratti ta’ kera tul il-kriżi. Hemm ħtieġa ukoll li tul il-kriżi l-Gvern jimpenja ruħu iktar biex jassigura illi l-iktar vulnerabbli jkollhom saqaf fuq rashom. Dan għandu jsir dejjem imma b’mod specjali tul il-kriżi.

Aħna l-Ħodor tal-fehma li l-impatt ta’ din il-kriżi fuq l-impiegi turi difetti strutturali fil-qasam soċjali fil-pajjiż. Malta mhux l-unika pajjiż li qed jiffaċċja din il-problema. Huwa importanti li bħal numru ta’ pajjiżi oħra, fosthom l-Isveżja, in-Norveġja, il-belt ta’ Utrecht fl-Olanda, anke f’Malta nidħlu fil-fond u neżaminaw kif jistgħu jaħdmu skemi ta’ dħul minimu garantit li jirreferu għalihom bħala Universal Basic Income u Guaranteed Minimum Income schemes. Ikun għaqli li neżaminaw sewwa dawn it-tip ta’ skemi, għax dawn jistgħu joffrulna tarka tajba meta nkunu iffaċċjati b’dawn il-kriżijiet.

Huwa l-waqt li kulħadd iżomm rasu f’lokha. Il-paroli vojt fil-Parlament tal-Ministru Silvio Schembri iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa kien barra minn postu u għamel il-ħsara, minkejja li wara skuża ruħu. Qatt mhi idea tajba li thedded bit-tkeċċija lil dawk li b’ħidmiethom taw kontribut biex il-pajjiż kiber, anke bix-xogħol tagħhom. Meta din il-kriżi tgħaddi jerġgħu jkunu huma, inkella oħrajn bħalhom, li nsibu biex jagħmlu dak ix-xogħol li għalih la hemm Maltin, inkella l-Maltin ma jridux jagħmluh għal raġunijiet diversi. Anke issa stess l-Onor Ministru jista’ jagħti titwila lejn is-servizz tas-saħħa u jara jekk hux possibli li jopera mingħajrhom, flimkien dejjem mal-kollegi Maltin. Flimkien qed jagħtu servizz impekkabbli lil pajjiż.

Ilkoll niftakru kif madwar sena ilu, l-Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat kien assoċja l-involviment tal-barranin fid-dinja tax-xogħol f’Malta mal-ġbir taż-żibel. Anke hu, dakinnhar kien għamel apoloġija. Imma sfortunatament il-preġudizzji tiegħu ħallihom warajh fil-Kabinett ta’ Robert Abela.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 22 ta’ Marzu 2020

Coronavirus fallout: the need to protect all jobs

Government has announced its financial package which it described as being a €1.8 billion stimulus package. What is in it for a zero-hours contract worker, the casual worker, the freelance tradesman, the small-scale businessman? Nothing at all. Hence notwithstanding its merits, Government’s package is not a suitable package.

Zero-hour contract workers, the casual worker, the freelance tradesmen and the small-scale businessmen are the first casualties in each and every crisis. It is in the assessment of their plight that we can arrive at a conclusion on the suitability or otherwise of this and any other Covid19 recovery package.

We all applaud initiatives to ensure that the economy and its operators can stand back on their feet not just when this crisis is over, but also along the long road to recovery. But, what purpose is there in pumping the nation’s resources to recover an economy which is not capable of respecting the most vulnerable ones amongst us?

Government’s Covid19 package proposals do not seek to bind economic operators making use of the different opportunities in the stimulus package to protect their labour force. Redundancies have already started. Casual workers and zero-hour contract workers are the first casualties. Others will soon follow.

Additional measures are called for in Government’s Covid19 package.

Assistance given to economic operators should only go to those which have suffered a drastic reduction in their income when compared to last year. Government’s package is predominantly focused on assistance in providing guarantees for bank loans as well as in facilitating and ensuring liquidity. While these are important measures, in this crisis, aid focused directed towards wages of workers is essential. Any direct assistance to economic operators should be linked to their duty of protecting jobs. No job protection should equate to no aid.

Greens are concerned about several freelance tradesman, small scale businessmen as well as casual labour and workers on zero-hours contracts. They are bearing the brunt of the very sharp decrease in work opportunities: they are the first victims of Covid19. Aid to these categories should be a guaranteed income scheme for the coming months, throughout the duration of the crisis. These are the categories which are the most vulnerable and which nobody is talking about.

The lease contracts for tenants should be automatically renewed until the crisis is overcome. There should be introduced a special protection from eviction throughout the Coronavirus crisis. There is also a need for a greater commitment by the government to offer adequate and decent housing to the most vulnerable in particular during this time of crisis.

Greens consider that the crisis’ impacts on employment is showing the structural defects the country has in the social field. Malta is not the only country to have to face this problem. It is important that like various other countries, notably Sweden, Norway, and the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands, guaranteed income schemes referred to as Universal Basic Income and Guaranteed Minimum Income are discussed in depth in Malta too. It would be wise to start considering such schemes for the future as they could offer a long-term solution.

It is time for level-headedness. Minister Silvio Schembri’s outburst in Parliament earlier this week was uncalled for and damaging, even though he eventually apologised. It is never the time to threaten with expulsion those who have contributed so much to our country and economy. When the crisis is eventually over it will be those whom the Hon Minister threatened with expulsion who will once more plug the gap. Even now, the Hon Minister should take a look at the health service and consider whether it would be possible to operate without the participation of non-Maltese medics and paramedical staff who are performing miracles through their professional service hand-in-hand with their Maltese colleagues.

We do remember that around 12 months ago then Prime Minister Joseph Muscat equated non-Maltese participation in the local labour force with refuse collectors. Though he too eventually apologised, his prejudice unfortunately lingers on in those he left behind in Robert Abela’s Cabinet.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 22 March 2020

Il-perit-żviluppatur

Il-mewt ta’ Miriam Pace midfuna taħt ir-radam li sa ftit qabel kien jifforma id-dar tagħha f’Santa Venera ħasad lill-pajjiż. Waqgħet dar oħra, imma din id-darba l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni ma kkawżatx biss ħsara imma wasslet ukoll għall-qtil ta’ persuna. Għax it-tejatrin ta’ Ian Borg, Joseph Muscat u Sandro Chetcuti, wara l-inċidenti tas-sajf li għadda kien nissel l-impressjoni falza li kollox kien taħt kontroll. Imma dan, sfortunatament mhux il-każ.

Huwa ġustifikabbli li l-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni kollha titqiegħed taħt il-lenti, għal darba oħra kif ukoll għal kemm-il darba jkun hemm bżonn. Dan jinkludi li tkun eżaminata l-imġieba tal-periti.

Bħala riżultat tad-dibattitu pubbliku li għaddej ġie osservat li l-perit inkarigat mix-xogħol problematiku f’Santa Venera għandu interessi oħra, lil hinn minn interess professjonali fix-xogħol ippjanat. Huwa ukoll azzjonist fil-kumpanija li applikat għal permess u li f’Jannar inħarġilha mill-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar il-permess PA6459/19. Jirriżulta li dan il-perit għandu f’ismu 10% tal-ishma fil-kumpanija li f’isimha ħareġ il-permess tal-iżvilupp: MCZMC Developers Limited. Għandu interess li jara li l-investiment li għamel jirrendi.

Id-dibattitu dwar jekk huwiex etikament korrett li perit ikollu interess fi proġett ta’ żvilupp li hu inkarigat minnu li jmur lil hinn minn interess professjonali mhux wieħed ġdid. Ilu għaddej kemm f’Malta kif ukoll lil hinn minnha.

Il-Kodiċi dwar l-Imġieba għal dawk fil-pussess ta’ warrant biex jipprattikaw ta’ periti fil-gżejjer Maltin jifforma parti minn skeda annessa ma’ regolamenti intitolati Regolamenti dwar il-Kamra tal-Periti.

L-iskeda hi msejħa Kodiċi dwar l-Imġieba Professjonali. Kienet oriġinalment imfassla fl-1969 imma ġiet emendata fl-2010. Il-Kodiċi b’mod ċar ifisser li Perit f’Malta “ma għandux jokkupa, jassumi jew xjentement jaċċetta kariga li fiha l-interess tiegħu jkun kontra d-dmirijiet professjonali tiegħu.” (regolament numru 1). Iżid jipprovdi li Perit “jirċievi rimunerazzjoni biss bid-drittijiet professjonali tiegħu li jitħallsu mill-klijenti tiegħu u/jew bis-salarju tiegħu li jitħallas mill-prinċipal tiegħu. Hu ma jkunx jista’ jieħu rimunerazzjoni minn riżorsi oħra relattiva għax-xogħol u għad-dmirijiet fdati lilu.” (regolament numru 2)

Dan ifisser b’mod mill-iktar ċar li Perit ma jistax jinvolvi ruħu fl-investimenti dwar propjetà inkella bħala żviluppatur ta’ propjetà li dwarha jkollu involviment professjonali. Id-dħul tiegħu għandu jiġi unikament mix-xogħol professjonali u mhux minn qliegħ ġej minn negozju jew żvilupp ta’ propjetà. Fi kliem sempliċi u li jinftiehem id-dħul tal-perit għandu jkun mis-servizz li hu jagħti u mhux billi jieħu sehem fl-ispekulazzjoni tal-art u l-bini.

Minkejja dan, xi qarrejja bla dubju għandhom esperjenza differenti. Uħud ikunu sorpriżi meta huma u jaraw propjetà li jkunu interessati biex jixtru jiskopru li l-persuna li żviluppat din il-propjetà u li qed tfittex li tbigħilhom tkun ukoll il-perit inkarigat mix-xogħol. Filwaqt li fil-parti l-kbira tal-każi ma jinqala’ xejn straordinarju, fil-każi fejn jinqalgħu problemi n-nies tħossa skomda targumenta ma’ perit-żviluppatur. Meta jinqalgħu l-argumenti dwar il-propjetà żviluppata minn perit-żviluppatur, il-perit ma tantx issibu għax hu l-iżviluppatur li jkun fuq quddiem ifittex li jispjega u jiġġustifika dwar id-difetti fil-propjetà. Għax in-nies tirrikorri għand il-perit bħala l-ewwel arbitru tekniku bejna u l-iżviluppatur, ħafna drabi anke jekk huwa jkun il-perit ta’ l-iżviluppatur stess. Imma meta l-perit u l-iżviluppatur ikunu l-istess persuna dan ma jistax isir. Għax il-perit ma jagħtix biss servizz lill-klijent tiegħu imma b’mod indirett iservi ukoll lil kull min ikun effettwat minn dan l-istess servizz.

Uħud minn dawn il-periti żviluppaturi huma magħrufa filwaqt li oħrajn jinħbew wara kumpaniji inkella wara sħab fin-negozju.

Għad m’għandi l-ebda tweġiba għal mistoqsija bażika: għalfejn qed ninjoraw l-osservanza ta’ etika professjonali bażika b’mod li nwasslu messaġġ li wara kollox, li xejn mhu xejn, u li dan kollu hu mġieba “normali” u aċċettabbli?

Il-Kamra tal-Periti forsi tista’ tipprovdi tweġiba għal dan. Sa mit-twaqqif tagħha 100 sena ilu l-Kamra tal-Periti kellha r-responsabbiltà li tgħarbel u fejn neċessarju tieħu passi neċessarji dwar il-prattiċi professjonali tal-periti. Safejn naf jien, s’issa, ma jirriżulta minn imkien li ttieħdu xi passi dwar il-periti żviluppaturi.

Meta jirriżulta kunflitt ta’ interess jeħtieġ li nindirizzaw bla dewmien il-kawża ta’ dan il-kunflitt. Li ma nieħdu l-ebda azzjoni jfisser illi is-sitwazzjoni li tkun inħolqot qed tiġi meqjusa bħala li hi riżultat ta’ mġieba aċċettabbli.

Għax illum xejn mhux xejn.

Minħabba li tul is-snin ħadd ma għamel xejn dwar dawn il-periti żviluppaturi hemm min illum iqies li dawn huma żvilupp aċċettabli. Għax għal dawn ir-regoli dwar l-imġieba etika hu djuq żejjed, ħela ta’ żmien u burokrazija żejda. Propjament red tape!

Dan hu fejn naslu meta s-soċjetà tagħna tiżviluppa f’waħda amorali.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 8 ta’ Marzu 2020

The architect-developer

The death of Miriam Pace buried in the ruins of her collapsed Ħamrun home as a direct result of building works in hand in an adjacent property has shocked the nation. The theatrics of Ian Borg, Joseph Muscat and Sandro Chetcuti, in the aftermath of last summer’s incidents had instilled a false sense of security that matters were now under control. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The whole construction industry is justifiably once more under the spotlight, for the umpteenth time since last summer. This spotlighting justifiably includes an examination of the ethical behaviour (or otherwise) of architects and civil engineers.

In the resulting public debate, it has been pointed out that the architect and civil engineer in charge of the problematic works at Ħamrun has more than a professional interest in the works in hand. He is also a minority shareholder of the limited liability company which applied for and holds development permit PA6459/19 issued by the Planning Authority in January. It has been reported that he holds 10 per cent of the shares of the company in question: MCZMC Developers Limited. He thus also has an interest in the returns resulting from his shareholding.

The debate as to whether it is ethical for an architect and civil engineer to have other than a professional interest in any specific development under his direction is not a recent one. Nor is it limited to Malta.

The Code of Conduct for holders of a warrant to practice locally as architects and civil engineers is contained in a schedule attached to subsidiary legislation entitled Chamber of Architects Regulations.

The schedule is entitled Code of Professional Conduct. This code of conduct, was originally drafted in 1969, but it was subsequently amended in 2010. It clearly lays down that a locally warranted architect “must not hold, assume or consciously accept a position in which his interest is in conflict with his professional duty.”(rule 1) Furthermore, it is provided that a locally warranted architect “is remunerated solely by his professional fees payable by his clients and/or by his salary payable by his employer. He is debarred from any other source of remuneration in connection with the works and duties entrusted to him.” (rule 2)

This clearly signifies that a locally warranted architect is barred from being involved as a property investor or as a developer in property in respect of which he or she is professionally involved.

Notwithstanding all this, readers would however easily point at a number of cases, both recent as well as not so recent, as to their being surprised when viewing a property which they were interested in purchasing to get to know that the developer was also the architect in charge of the development in hand. While in most cases no particular problems arise, there is always a feeling of uneasiness when dealing with the architect-developer with such a blatant conflict of interest.

At times, when there are problems associated with the property being purchased it is not possible to distinguish between the architect and the developer. The developer takes over while the architect takes a back seat. A situation which fits perfectly into George Orwell’s description in his Animal Farm: looking from man to pig and from pig to man again and not being able to tell which is which!

A number of these architect-developers are known, while others hide their identity behind corporate structures and/or business partners. The question to which I have no clear answer is: why has such a blatant disregard of professional ethics been permitted as if it is the “normal” acceptable behaviour?

The Chamber of Architects, maybe, could supply an answer. Since its foundation 100 years ago, the Chamber has been responsible for enquiring into “the professional practices of architects and civil engineers”. I am not aware of any action initiated by the Chamber in respect of any architect-developer to date.

When a conflict of interest arises, the removal of the cause of the conflict or withdrawing from the situation which gives rise to the conflict is essential. Taking no action signifies accepting the situation as the normal acceptable behaviour.

Through lack of action over the years we are currently on the brink of transforming the unacceptable into the “new normal”. This is the amoral society at its best.

published in The Malta Independent : 8 March 2020

Investigating Konrad’s MTA contract

It is known that Johann Buttigieg, former Chief Executive at the Planning Authority, was squeezed out of his post by Minister Ian Borg. Johann Buttigieg, however, found an ally in Konrad Mizzi, then Minister for Tourism, who facilitated his employment as the new Chief Executive of the Malta Tourism Authority.

By the time Johann Buttigieg had taken up his new post at the Malta Tourism Authority, Konrad Mizzi had already resigned as Minister. Although Konrad Mizzi had announced his resignation after a Cabinet meeting on the 26 November 2019 it is not clear if he had volunteered to step down or if he had been forced to go. He was reported as having said: “I felt it my duty – in the context of current political circumstances – to resign in loyalty to the people, the Labour Party and the Prime Minister.”

It would be reasonable to assume that Johann Buttigieg returned the favour from Konrad Mizzi when, on 9th December, he signed the contract appointing Konrad Mizzi as a consultant to the Authority – as one of his first decisions as CEO! However, this would not necessarily be a correct assumption. In fact, elsewhere in the press it has been opined that the decision to engage Konrad Mizzi as consultant was taken by Joseph Muscat himself, because after Konrad Mizzi’s resignation he was directly responsible for the Tourism Ministry.

As Chief Executive of the Malta Tourism Authority, Johann Buttigieg must shoulder substantial responsibility although it is most probable that he was acting on the instructions of Joseph Muscat. He should by now be aware that illegitimate (and unethical) superior orders can – and should be – ignored.

After Minister Julia Farrugia Portelli announced the rescinding of Konrad Mizzi’s contract she was asked to explain the reasons which justified such a revocation. She was very brief in her reply, saying that there were legal and ethical reasons that justified such a course of action. She was reluctant to state more in order to avoid prejudicing any legal action, should this result.

It is very interesting to note that the Honourable Minister has justified the revocation of the contract on ethical grounds. She is, of course, correct, although she chose not to point fingers. The point at issue then is who acted unethically?

I suggest that there are four persons who acted unethically in this specific case.

Irrespective of what they say, former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his sidekick Konrad Mizzi resigned in disgrace for a number of reasons, including being the cause of reputational damage to the country through their involvement and/or failure to act on the Panama Papers debacle, as well as a direct result of the role of the Office of the Prime Minister in Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder: a role, the details of which are still emerging.

Joseph Muscat and Konrad Mizzi are at the top of the list of those who acted unethically as they set in motion the revolving recruitment mechanism as a result of which Konrad Mizzi was parachuted straight into the organisation for which he, as Minister, was politically responsible just two weeks earlier. This is unacceptable in any country that has a minimum degree of adherence to good governance: normally there would be a cooling-off period of some two to three years before such appointments are even considered.

Muscat and Mizzi tried to cash in on the fact that, the rules governing the ethical behaviour of holders of political office are still in their infancy. Dr George Hyzler, recently appointed by Parliament as the first Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, is still in the initial phase of his term and has yet to draft some of the appropriate rules.

The same applies to Chairman of the Malta Tourism Authority and Chief Executive Johann Buttigieg, who should not have allowed Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his sidekick Konrad Mizzi to bully them into submission. The recruitment of Mizzi was kept secret as long as was possible due to the fact that, knowledge of its existence would undoubtedly have created further turmoil within the Labour Party, then in the process of electing a successor to the disgraced Joseph Muscat.

Where do we go from here? In my view those acting unethically should shoulder their responsibilities. I have thus requested the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life to investigate the role of Joseph Muscat, Konrad Mizzi, Gavin Gulia and Johann Buttigieg in the matter and consequently to recommend the necessary action required.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 2 February 2020

Pass tajjeb Julia: u issa?

Għada kif ħarġet l-aħbar li l-Ministeru tat-Turiżmu, wara li rċieva parir legali, ordna lill-Awtorità tat-Turiżmu biex il-kuntratt ta’ konsulenza ta’ Konrad Mizzi bi ħlas ta’ €80,000 fis-sena jkun annullat.

Pass tajjeb dan għal Julia Farrugia, l-Ministru ġdid tat-Turiżmu li sabet din il-ħatra ma wiċċha u ħadet passi. Ħatra li saret bil-moħbi fl-aħħar jiem tal-Gvern ta’ Joseph Muscat.

Li tħassar il-kuntratt hu pass tajjeb. Imma jeħtieġ ukoll li jittieħdu passi oħra.

Min ordna li Konrad Mizzi jkun ingaġġat bħala konsulent tal-Awtorità tat-Turiżmu? Ma naħsibx li dan sar minn wara dahar Joseph Muscat.

Bla dubju huma nvoluti ukoll Gavin Gulia Chairman tal-Awtorità tat-Turiżmu u Johann Buttigieg Chief Executive li ġie ngaġġat dan l-aħħar wara li Ian Borg ra kif għamel u ħeles minnu mill-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar. Il-kuntratt fil-fatt hu iffirmat minn Johann Buttigieg.

L-istorja m’għandhiex tieqaf hawn. Diġa saret talba biex il-Kumitat tal-Kontijiet Pubbliċi tal-Parlament jinvestiga.

Imma dan il-kaz hu ukoll wieħed dwar nuqqas ta’ mġieba etika u għandu jkun eżaminat mill-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika fil-konfront kemm ta’ Joseph Muscat kif ukoll ta’ Gavin Gulia u Johann Buttigieg.

Ser nagħmel talba lil Dr George Hyzler biex jinvestiga dan.

L-avukat tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar m’għandux kredibilità dwar l-ambjent

Wara li qatta’ snin jiddefendi kull xorta ta’ ħniezrijiet imwettqa mill-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, il-Prim Ministru Robert Abela hu l-inqas persuna li jista’ jitwemmen meta jitkellem favur l-ambjent. Bir-rieda tajba kollha li jista’ jkollu, dan hu qasam li fih m’għandux kredibità.

Xi ħaġa ġdida li għamel din il-ġimgħa, qal Robert Abela f’Bormla illum, hu l-mod kif qassam il-Ministeri. Fost id-diversi affarijiet “ġodda” li għamel, qal, l-ambjent u l-ippjanar ser ikunu fl-istess Ministeru, biex jissaħħaħ l-ambjent.

Tajjeb li jiftakar li sal-2016 l-ambjent u l-ippjanar kienu flimkien fl-istess Awtorità sakemm il-Gvern tal-predeċessur tiegħu firidhom. Anke dakinnhar kienu qalu li dan kien qed isir biex jissaħħaħ l-ambjent.

L-ambjent mhux ser ikun iktar il-ħaruf tas-sagrifiċċju tal-iżvilupp, kif fl-istess waqt imma l-iżvilupp mhux ser ikun iktar il-ħaruf tas-sagrifiċċju tal-ambjent qal Robert Abela. Għax Abela jrid irid jara bilanċ billi skontu l-iżvilupp jrid isir u jista’ jsir mingħajr ma ssir ħsara lill-ambjent.

Minn meta l-hawn kellna l-żvilupp bħala l-ħaruf tas-sagrifiċċju tal-ambjent? Robert Abela li għal snin twal, sa ġimgħa ilu, kien l-avukat tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar, bla dubju jaf li qed iħarref! Mhux biss. Imma kien hu stess, direttament kif ukoll permezz tal-uffiċċju legali tiegħu li iddefenda l-ħniżrijiet kollha li wettqet l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar tul dawn l-aħħar snin! U ma kienx hemm każ wieħed jew tnejn, iżda bosta.

Ilna nisimgħu dawn il-ħrejjef bla sens minn min moħħu biss biex idawwar lira. Mingħand min moħħu biex jaġevola lill-industrija tal-kostruzzjoni. Għax din toħloq ix-xogħol, jgħidu, u in-nies kull ma trid hu l-flus fil-but.

Xejn ġdid dan Robert. Miexi fuq il-passi ta’ dawk li ġew qablek: Joseph Muscat u Lawrence Gonzi. Għax anke dawn tkellmu fuq bilanċ bejn l-ambjent u l-iżvilupp, u nisslu l-ħerba kullimkien. Iffaċilitaw l-iżvilupp bla rażan li r-riżultat tiegħu naraw madwarna.

L-iżvilupp sostenibbli hu ferm iktar minn hekk. Jirrikjedi impenn ferm ikbar fl-oqsma kollha. Impenn li s’issa ma jidhirx.

Il-Partit Laburista hu moralment u politikament fallut

Joseph Muscat u l-Partit Laburista huma moralment u politikament falluti. Ir-responsabbiltà għas-sitwazzjoni kurrenti jrid iġorrha Joseph Muscat kemm bħala Prim Ministru kif ukoll bħala Mexxej tal-Partit Laburista. Għalhekk irreżenja. Imma anke l-Kabinett u t-tmexxija tal-Partit Laburista huma kollettivament responabbli flimkien miegħu.

Ma ħadux passi meta kellhom l-obbligu li jaġixxu, jiġifieri meta kienu ppubblikat l-Panama Papers fl-2016. Dakinhar, il-Prim Ministru messu keċċa kemm lil Konrad Mizzi kif ukoll lil Keith Schembri u sussegwentement kellhom ikunu investigati mill-Pulizija, flimkien mal-merċenerji tan-Nexia BT. Iżda ma ġara xejn minn dan!

Anke l-Partit Laburista f’dak il-mument kellu l-obbligu li jiċċensura lit-tmexxija tal-Partit talli naqas mill-jaġixxi. Minflok ma għamel hekk il-Partit Laburista, b’mod irresponsabbli, ta’ appoġġ inkundizzjonat lit-tmexxija u nhar is-26 ta’ Frar 2016 eleġġa lil Konrad Mizzi b’96.6% tal-voti validi bħala Deputat Mexxej tal-Partit. Dan kollu seħħ jumejn biss wara li kienu ppubblikati l-Panama Papers. Fi ftit ġimgħat imbagħad, kellu jirreżenja bħala riżultat ta’ pressjoni pubblika.

Għaliex jaġixxu b’dan il-mod?

It-tweġiba jagħtihielna l-eks-Ministru Leo Brincat fi kliem li ma jħallix lok għal misinterpretazzjoni. Dan meta kien qed jiġi eżaminat mill-Kumitat tal-Parlament Ewropew dwar il-kontroll tal-Baġit fl-2016 f’konnessjoni man-nomina tiegħu biex ikun jifforma parti mill-Qorti Ewropeja tal-Awdituri.

Meta Leo Brincat kien qed jixhed, kif mistenni, kien mistoqsi dwar il-Panama Papers. Kien ċar meta qal illi kieku kien hu, kien jirreżenja jew tal-inqas jissospendi ruħu sakemm l-affarijiet ikunu ċċarati.

Brincat, imma, qal iktar minn hekk: huwa informa lill-Kumitat Parlamentari li kien hemm mument, li kien qed jikkunsidra jirriżenja minn Ministru minħabba l-mod kif imxew l-affarijiet dwar l-iskandlu tal-Panama Papers f’Malta. Imma, żied jgħid, reġa’ bdielu u ma rriżenjax għax ma kellu l-ebda xewqa li jkun meqjus bħala eroj f’dak il-jum li jirriżenja, imbagħad wara jispiċċa fil-baħħ politiku!

Il-Membri Parlamentari Ewropej, inbagħad iffukaw fuq l-argument ċentrali: jista’ is-Sur Leo Brincat jispjega għaliex meta l-Parlament kellu quddiemu mozzjoni ta’ sfiduċja f’Konrad Mizzi, huwa kien ivvota kontriha u ta l-fiduċja lil Konrad Mizzi? Brincat emfasizza li hu qatt ma seta’ jivvota favur il-mozzjoni ta’ sfiduċja għax kien marbut kif jivvota mil-Whip Parlamentari tal-partit tiegħu!

B’dik it-tweġiba, Leo Brincat kien qed jagħmilha ċara mal-Kumitat Parlamentari tal-Parlament Ewropew għall-Kontroll tal-Baġit li hu kien qed jagħmel għażla fundamentali.

Fil-mument li ġie biex jagħżel bejn il-lealtà lejn il-partit u l-lealtà lejn il-prinċipji tiegħu, il-prinċipji rmiehom il-baħar u għażel il-partit. Fil-mument deċiżiv is-solidarjetà ma’ Konrad Mizzi kellha prijorità fuq l-osservanza tal-prinċipji ta’ governanza tajba. Huwa dan li dejjaq lil numru sostanzjali ta’ membri tal-Parlament Ewropew u wassalhom biex ma jirrakkomandawx il-ħatra ta’ Leo Brincat bħala membru tal-Qorti Ewropeja tal-Awdituri, l-istess kif kienu għamlu ftit qabel bin-nomina ta’ Toni Abela. Id-dikjarazzjoni ta’ Leo Brincat lil Parlament Ewropew tfisser ħaġa waħda: li dak kollu li qal dwar il-governanza tajba ma jiswiex karlin, għax fil-mument tal-prova ċaħdu.

L-istess ħaġa għandu jingħad dwar Evarist Bartolo u l-prietka tiegħu ta’ kull fil-għodu fuq il-media soċjali. Fis-siegħa tal-prova, anke Varist, bħall-bqija tal-grupp Parlamentari (inkluż Chris Fearne, li qiegħed fuq quddiem fit-tellieqa għat-tmexxija tal-Partit) irmew il-prinċipji tagħhom biex jippruvaw isalvaw ġildhom.

Fl-aħħar minn l-aħħar, il-Partit Laburista, bħall-Partit Nazzjonalista qablu, mhux interessat fil-governanza tajba ħlief bħala għalf għal diskors politiku. Għax il-Partit Laburista hu moralment u politikament fallut.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 29 ta’ Diċembru 2019

Labour is morally and politically bankrupt

Joseph Muscat and his Labour Party are morally and politically bankrupt. The responsibility for the current state of affairs rests primarily on Joseph Muscat’s shoulder as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party – hence his resignation.

However, the Cabinet and the Labour Party leadership are, together with Joseph Muscat, also collectively responsible for the ensuing mess.

They failed to act when they should have acted when the Panama Papers were published in 2016. At that point in time Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri should have been fired on the spot by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and thoroughly investigated by the police, together with the mercenaries at Nexia BT. Yet they were not.

At that point in time, the Labour Party was duty bound to censor its leadership for failing to act. Instead of doing so, it irresponsibly shored up the leadership and elected Konrad Mizzi with 96.6 per cent of available votes, endorsing him as Deputy Leader on the 26 February 2016, two days after the Panama Papers saw the light of day. He resigned some weeks later as a result of public pressure.

Why do they act in this way?

The answer was given in crystal clear language by former Labour Minister Leo Brincat when he was being vetted by the European Parliamentary Committee on Budgetary Control in 2016 with reference to his nomination to form part of the European Court of Auditors. I have already written about the matter in my article entitled: Leo Brincat: loyalties and lip service (TMIS 18 September 2016).

When Leo Brincat gave evidence, he was, as anticipated, quizzed regarding the Panama Papers. He made himself crystal clear by saying that he would have submitted his resignation – or else suspended himself from office until such time as matters had been clarified – had he himself been involved.

Brincat further volunteered the information that there had been a point at which he had considered resigning from Ministerial office due to the manner in which the Panama Papers scandal was handled in Malta. He added that eventually, however, his considerations did not materialise and he did not resign as he had no desire to be a “hero for a day and end up in the (political) wilderness” thereafter.

MEPs then focused on the fundamental issue: what about his vote against the motion of No Confidence in Minister Konrad Mizzi which was discussed by Malta’s House of Representatives? Brincat emphasised that he could not vote in favour of the No Confidence motion as he was bound by his Party’s Parliamentary Whip! He emphasised the fact that this was a basic standard of local politics, based on the Westminster model.

As a result of this exchange, Leo Brincat made it clear to the EU Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee that he had made a very important and fundamental choice: he preferred loyalty to the Party whip to loyalty to his principles: those same principles about which he has been harping on for ages. When push came to shove, solidarity with Konrad Mizzi took priority over adherence to the principles of good governance. This is what irked a substantial number of MEPs and prompted them not to recommend the approval of Leo Brincat as a member of the European Court of Auditors as they had done previously when faced with the nomination of Toni Abela. Leo’s declaration means only one thing: that his voluminous statements on good governance are only lip service to which there is no real commitment.

The same goes for Evarist Bartolo’s daily sermon on social media in respect of good governance. When push came to shove even Evarist and the rest of the Labour Party Parliamentary group (including Chris Fearne, current front-runner in the leadership elections), dumped their principles overboard to save their skin.

At the end of the day, the Labour Party – like the Nationalist Party before it – is not interested in good governance except as material for political speeches. Labour is morally and political bankrupt.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 29th December 2019

L-arloġġ ta’ Joseph: tgħid falz, bħaċ-ċertifikat dwar Egrant?

Il-bieraħ is-sit elettroniku lovinmalta.com ippubblika l-istorja esklussiva li Yorgen Fenech ta rigal lil Joseph Muscat konsistenti f’arloġġ tad-deheb abjad Bvlgari li jifforma parti minn edizzjoni limitata li inħadmet bħala kommemorazzjoni tas-sħubija ta’ Malta fl-Unjoni Ewropeja.

Hemm ħamsa u għoxrin arloġġ li huma kollha numerati. Ta’ Joseph, tgħidilna Lovinmalta għandu n-numru 17: bħas-17 Black.

Jekk din l-istorja hi minnha hi gravi ħafna.

L-ewwel nett hi bi ksur tal-Kodiċi tal-Etika tal-Ministri għax hu ipprojibit għall-Ministri tal-Kabinett li jaċċettaw dawn ir-rigali. Meta inħadem, l-arloġġ, kien stmat li jiswa’ €20,000 (għoxrin elf euro). Illum jiswa’ ħafna iktar.

It-tieni, jekk ir-rigal fil-fatt ingħata, jfisser li hemm rabta viċina bejn Joseph u Yorgen. Kemm hi viċina ma nafx. Forsi l-Ispettur Keith Arnaud jkun jista’ jeżamina l-laptop u l-mobile ta’ Joseph u (forsi) jkun jista’ jgħidilna iktar dwar kemm il-kriminalità daħlet il-ġewwa, fil-fond, fil-Berġa ta’ Kastilja.

Is-suspetti ilhom għaddejjin. Sfortunatament il-Pulizija lebsin ingwanti fini u qed jagħlqu għajnejhom.

Il-bieraħ stess tlabt lill-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika Dr George Hyzler biex b’referenza għal dan ir-rigal jiftaħ investigazzjoni fuq il-Prim Ministru Joseph Muscat u l-osservanza minnu tal-Kodiċi tal-Etika applikabbli.

Ħaġa waħda għad mhiex ċara: jekk l-arloġġ li rċieva Joseph hux falz bħaċ-ċertifikat ta’ Egrant “iffirmat” minn Jacqueline Alexander.