The politics of sustainable development

The politics of sustainable development is a matter for the Prime Minister’s direct consideration as it is wide-ranging and concerns all areas of policy.

It is quite interesting that once more sustainable development has taken up residence at Castille, being the responsibility of Minister Carmelo Abela, who has been appointed as a Minister within the Office of the Prime Minister. This was very rarely the case to date except in the short period during which Mario de Marco was Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism and the Environment.

Robert Abela is not the first Prime Minister who has emphasised the need to give much more importance to sustainable development. To date, however, none of them has delivered.

Sustainable development is one of the most abused and mis-used terms in the political lexicon. Political discourse continuously fails to project the politics of sustainable development as having a long-term view and continuously factoring future generations in the decision-taking process.

Governments do not give sufficient importance to sustainable development as this is not just about today. It is rather about how today’s activity should not prejudice tomorrow and future generations. This is not sufficiently on the radar of today’s politicians. Their interest, generally, does not span more than five years: that is until the next general election.

This is a point underlined by former Norwegian social democrat Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland in her seminal UN Report Our Common Future who emphasised that “We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.

The politics of sustainable development is not just a matter of environmental concern: it involves a holistic consideration of environmental, economic, social and cultural policy. It signifies that our actions must have a long-term view and be simultaneously compatible with the forces of nature, the economy, human development and our culture.

Sustainable development is about living in harmony with all that surrounds us, at all times, not just when it suits us. It requires the synchronisation of cultural, social, environmental and economic policy. Shielding human dignity, appreciating our culture and environmental protection are as essential as economic development.

Within a global and EU framework the politics of sustainable development also involves following and implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: 17 goals and the associated 169 targets. This is the global 2030 Agenda to which the European Union contributed substantially. While the whole 2030 Agenda is important, some aspects of it are relatively more important on a local level.

Consider water management, for example. It is imperative that we realise that we need to manage our water resources in a sustainable manner. To date gross incompetence has characterised water management in Malta. Access to the water table is still substantially a free for all, while storm water is mostly dumped into the sea, either directly or through the public sewer system. Rules for rainwater harvesting within the framework of land use planning are more honoured in the breach, without the authorities taking the minimum of enforcement action.

Transport policy is another area where short-term planning needs to give way to the politics of sustainable development. The National Transport Master Plan which runs until 2025 draws our attention that 50 per cent of private car journeys involve trips that are shorter than 15 minutes. This indicates that taking initiatives to reduce vehicular traffic at a local and regional level would be of considerable help in addressing road congestion and improving air quality where it matters most.

The National Transport Master Plan emphasises that the approach to transport planning and policy in Malta has, to date, generally been short-term in nature. This “has resulted in the lack of strategic direction and the inherent inability to address difficult issues such as private vehicle restraint.” On the one hand we have this “written” sustainable approach to transport policy, yet on the other hand government has embarked on an unsustainable spending spree of infrastructural development to increase the capacity of our roads, as a result ensuring that car-dependency continues unabated.

Addressing traffic congestion through expanding the road network only results in shifting the problem: either physically to another area, or else moving it in time.

The cherry on the cake is land use planning. Successive governments have been unable to restrain overdevelopment.

Sanctimoniously they describe themselves as being business friendly or market friendly to try and justify their lack of adequate action. The building industry, we are repeatedly told, creates so much jobs that it “contributes to the quality of life”.

As we are all well aware the construction industry has been a major force in ruining this country through over-development and through expecting us to foot their environmental bills. Unfortunately, they have been aided by successive governments who continuously seek ways to make it easier for the industry to plunder their way through. Land use planning is clearly unsustainable and the sooner it is restrained the better for all.

Sustainable development is conspicuous by its absence in practically all areas of policy. The politics of sustainable development still needs to be ingrained in the day-to-day policy-making structures. Assigning political responsibility for sustainable development to a Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister could be a good first step forward. However, there is still a long way to go.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 19 January 2020

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.

Il-mobile tal-Kasco u l-ingwanti tal-Pulizija

L-investigazzjoni li l-Pulizija qed tmexxi dwar l-assassinju ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia, iktar ma jgħaddi żmien iktar qed jidher li hi investgazzjoni tad-dilettanti.

Illum jidher iktar ċar għax kemm Chris Fearne kif ukoll Robert Abela diġa esprimew ruħhom negattivament kontra l-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija u t-tnejn li huma jriduh iwarrab, illum qabel għada.

Fl-investigazzjonijiet tagħhom il-Pulizija riedu aċċess għall-mobile ta’ Keith Schembri, l-Kasco, ovvjament biex jaraw x’telefonati u messaġġi saru minnu u kif dawn jinkwadraw fil-bqija tal-investigazzjoni. Imma dan qallhom li kien tilfu!

Normalment meta l-Pulizija jkunu għaddejjn b’investigazzjoni ta’ kriminali “komuni” dawn il-mobiles malajr isibuhom anzi jkunu jafu ezatt fejn qegħdin għax ikunu ilhom isegwuhom!

S’issa l-mobile tal-Kasco għadu ma nstabx!

Rapporti dwar ix-xhieda tal-Pulizija fil-Qorti illum jindikaw ukoll li l-uffiċċju ta’ Keith Schembri f’Kastilja ma kienx issiġillat mill-ewwel biex ikunu ppriservati xi provi jew traċċi oħra .

Qalulna ukoll li meta l-Pulizija talbuh il-password biex jeżaminaw l-emails tiegħu Keith Schembri irrifjuta. U qiesu ma ġara xejn!

B’dawn l-iżbalji kollha fl-investigazzjoni (jekk wara kollox huma żbalji) bil-fors tistaqsi: il-Pulizija inkompetenti jew kompliċi?

Għalfejn qed jimxu bl-ingwanti ma’ Keith Schembri?

Il-Mafja fl-uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru

 

Mix-xhieda ta’ Melvin Theuma, li nstemgħet dal-għodu, joħorġu ħafna ismijiet ta’ peruni li kienu fil-Berġa ta’ Kastilja.

Mhux biss Keith imma issa ukoll Sandro Craus u “Kenneth” mis-servizz tas-sigurtà li kien assenjat ma Keith Schembri.

Il-miljuni qieshom żerriegħa tal-ħarrub.

Jidher li l-Mafja li qatlet lil Daphne għandha assoċjazzjoni mill-qrib mal-Berġa ta’ Kastilja. Ftit ftit il-provi qed iqarrbu lejn dak li ħafna ilhom jissuspettaw. Imma biex ikollna l-istampa kollha rridu nisimgħu l-provi kollha.

Il-Palazz tal-Girgenti: bejn Gvern u Partit

girgenti-palace-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph tweets a selfie from Girgenti

muscat-girgenti-tweet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 26 February 2017

Girgenti: demarcation line between party and state

indip-230217

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

published in The Malta Independent : Thursday 23 February 2017

L-Avukat Ġenerali għandu l-obbligu illi jispjega x’inhu għaddej

FIAU

 

Ir-riżenja ta’ Manfred Galdes li kien qed imexxi l-Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) bħala Direttur hi nkwetanti għax tfisser li persuna oħra indipendenti li kienet inkarigata biex tissorvelja l-governanza fiskali irriżenjat.

Alternattiva Demokratika ma taċċettax bħala veritiera l-ispjegazzjoni illi Manfred Galdes irriżenja biex jieħu impieg mas-settur privat kif ġie suġġerit mill-Ministru tal-Finanzi. Irriżenja probabbilment għax qed jara l-istituzzjonijiet nazzjonali madwaru jikkollassaw b’diversi jsiru għaġina f’idejn il-Gvern. Ovvjament jekk ser jitlaq mill-impieg mal-FIAU, dan x’imkien irid jaħdem biex jgħajjex lill-familja tiegħu. Fi ftit kliem mar fis-settur privat għax iddeċieda li jirreżenja mill-FIAU.

F’April li għadda l-Ministru tal-Finanzi kien ħabbar illi l-FIAU li tagħha Manfred Galdes kien Direttur kienet qed tivestiga l-istejjer dwar ħasil ta’ flus fil-Panama u dan b’referenza għal rapport fil-media dwar il-Kap tas-Segretarjat tal-Uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru Keith Schembri (l-Kasco) u l-Ministru Konrad Mizzi. Minkejja li hemm indikazzjonijiet li din l-investigazzjoni ġiet konkluża m’hemmx ċertezza dwar dan avolja l-aħħar riżenja tal-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija Michael Cassar hi assoċjata wkoll ma’ din il-materja.

F’dan il-kuntest is-skiet tal-Avukat Ġenerali, li huwa wkoll ic-Chairman tal-Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit hu nkwetanti. F’dan il-mument delikat l-Avukat Ġenerali għandu l-obbligu illi jispjega x’inhu għaddej.

Political calculation or environmental principle?

calculator

 

Joseph Muscat’s declaration that the Freeport Terminal will not be permitted to expand in Birżebbuġa’s direction due to its impacts on the residential community will inevitably have an effect on the Planning Authority. Viewed in the context of the recent Planning Authority decision not to approve the proposed Ħondoq ir-Rummien development, a pattern seems to be developing.

Given the fact that these two decisions are closely associated with localities that politically support the Labour Party it is still not clear whether this newly discovered sensitivity to restrict development which negatively impacts residential communities is based on political calculation or on environmental principle. This consideration is inevitable, in particular due to the report in this newspaper on 22 June that the Prime Minister had stated, in a discussion with environmental NGO Flimkien għall-Ambjent Aħjar, that he does not care about impact assessments, as residents get used to everything. As far as I am aware, the Office of the Prime Minister never corrected this report.

The Freeport Terminal debate clearly indicates that Birżebbuġa residents are determined to deliver a different message: they have had enough. During the last seven years there has been an ongoing tug-of-war between Birżebbuġa Local Council, MEPA and the Freeport Terminal Management. This has led to a number of improvements, the most important of which was the setting up of a tripartite Environmental Monitoring Committee that has served to build some bridges and to explore solutions to existing problems caused by the operation of the Freeport Terminal.

There was a time, around two years ago, when pressure was put on Birżebbuġa Local Council to drop its objections to specific operations. I distinctly remember representatives from the oil-rig repair industry  trying to convince the Council of the “benefits” that an oil-rig industry based at the Freeport Terminal could generate.

When these representatives realised that no one was convinced, an amendment to the environmental permit was forced through the then MEPA Board. To their credit, only three of the then board members understood the real issues and voted against the proposal: the two MPs (Joe Sammut and Ryan Callus) and the environmental NGO representative Alex Vella of the Ramblers Association.

The amended environmental permit would have permitted minor repairs to ships and oil-rigs berthed at the Freeport Terminal. However, after the MEPA Board meeting all hell broke loose, leading Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to disassociate himself from its decision and publicly align himself with the minority on the board opposing the changes. He then stated that he was in agreement with “his representative”, Labour MP Joe Sammut.

While the Freeport Terminal, faced with the reaction of residents, eventually relinquished the newly-acquired permit, the internal debate within the Labour Party continued, leading to the recent statement by Joseph Muscat that he is not in agreement with an expansion of the Freeport Terminal operations that would have a negative impact on the Birżebbuġa community.

Irrespective of whether it is a matter of principle or a political calculation which has led the Prime Minister to make such a statement, I submit that this is still a significant turning point that has been achieved as a direct result of Birżebbuġa Local Council’s persistent lobbying. It contrasts with the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition, who looks forward to an increase in the operations of the Freeport Terminal, without batting an eyelid over the resulting, continuously increasing, impact on the residential community.

The Prime Minister’s statement, while being a positive first step, is certainly not enough. It needs to be translated into policy as an integral part of the revised Local Plans currently under consideration. It is also important that the Prime Minister’s newly identified sensitivities are exported to other areas in Malta and Gozo. It is essential that, in a small country such as ours, third party rights opposing “development” are reinforced.

The issue at stake is far larger than Birżebbbuġa or the Freeport Terminal. It is a tug-of-war between those supporting “development” at all costs and our residential communities. The government must, through planning policy, be supportive of all our residential communities without exception.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 31st July 2016

Ċapċipa għal Konrad

Konrad Mizzi Parlament

Il-bieraħ waqt laqgħa ta’ djalogu pubbliku f’Kastilja, Konrad Mizzi Ministru bla portafol fl-uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru, ngħata ċapċipa kbira. Standing ovation qalet it-Times.

Kif tista’ tagħti ċapċipa ta’ approvazzjoni lil min ma żammx kelmtu? Lil min jiddeletta bis-segretezza u bil-ħabi? Lil min mhux biss ma jara xejn ħażin li jiftaħ kumpanija fil-Panama talli jevita ukoll li jwieġeb mistoqsijiet dwarha.

L-aqwa li Gvern li jisma’!

Fid-dawl ta’ dan kollu għalfejn noqgħodu niskantaw bil-medjokrità fil-politika Maltija?