Labour : ensuring a smooth transition

Franco Debono has made many a statement during the past 12 months. He abstained when a vote of no confidence was submitted against Minister Austin Gatt. He explained that he did so as he wanted to give the man and his party another chance!

He has been stating for days now, that he will not vote in favour of the budget  because he considers that Austin Gatt should have resigned months ago due to his political failures. Whether  Franco Debono will keep his word is anybody’s guess. But if he does the budget will not be approved. We will have to keep guessing what comes next for some more days.

With this in mind the budget’s relevance is limited.

But we need not panic as Labour will come to the rescue. Labour, we are told, will deliver.

Progressive Labour will deliver income tax revised rates which will ignore low wage earners and reduce tax payable to those who are already reasonably well off. No tax deductions can be guaranteed for low wage earners by Labour.

Progressive Labour, like conservative PN, does not agree with the need to revise the minimum wage. It is not in the interest of employers to do so. And it is their vote which progressive Labour is after.  The employers’ vote, that is!

Why should progressive Labour accept the GWU’s proposal to have the cost of living adjustment paid in two installments?  There is consensus between the PN and Labour that the GWU’s proposals should be ignored. It is only Alternattiva Demokratika which has offered support for a progressive incomes policy as proposed by the GWU.

Labour, the progressive party, has opted for a conservative approach: the PN’s approach. It is the only way forward as in this way it ensures a smooth transition,  continuity and stability!

…………… and they looked from pig to man and from man to pig again and could not tell which was which.  The more things change, the more they remain the same.

published at di-ve.com  on Friday 30 November 2012

The Politics of Divorce

 

Legislation in favour of divorce already exists in Malta. No one has complained about it throughout the 36 years of its existence. A yes vote on May 28 will be a vote in favour of extending its applicability.

The 1975 Marriage Act had introduced divorce in Malta through the back door by recognising divorce decrees granted in foreign jurisdictions.

Since then, 785 persons (presumably Maltese), have made use of this right, having their marriage dissolved in various foreign countries.

This was subsequently recognised in Malta through the registration of their divorce in the Public Registry.

Of these divorce decrees, 422 were issued in the UK and 112 were issued in Australia as was indicated in a recent reply to a parliamentary question.

Divorce is a civil right that is not yet fully recognised in Malta. It is only partially recognised. Only those who have been domiciled abroad or those who have access to foreign jurisdictions (while resident in Malta) have access to this civil right.

It is as yet forbidden territory to the rest. A yes vote on May 28 will render divorce a civil right accessible to all Maltese and not just to a select few.

Divorce is an issue of political controversy even though it has been avoided by the parliamentary parties. They avoided it until such time that they could not ignore the Private Member’s Bill presented by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo. These MPs took a leaf out of the Greens’ electoral manifesto which, since 1989 (when Alternattiva Demokratika was founded), has identified divorce as an attainable political objective.

In Malta, those insisting that divorce is not a political issue do so to justify the position adopted by either of the two parliamentary parties. Both the PN and the PL want to distance themselves from the divorce referendum in order to be able to immunise themselves from the political fallout of the referendum result. Both fear the impact of the result (and the campaign leading to it) on the cohesion of their political base, irrespective of whether the yes or the no wins.

It is time to stand up and be counted.

One cannot run with the hares and simultaneously hunt with the hounds. The PN is aware its no stance makes it difficult to retain the support of those among its ranks who favour divorce. Likewise, Labour is aware that some of its supporters still seek the guidance of the parish priest in resolving their dilemmas. References to fire and brimstone and eternal damnation could obviously be intended to help the PL and its supporters make up their mind!

These are considerations which are factored into the mathematics of divorce politics. This leads to the reason for shifting the decision on divorce away from its appropriate forum in Parliament onto the electorate’s lap. None of the parliamentary parties wants to be lumped with political responsibility for introducing divorce as both fear electoral retribution, which, even if marginal, could be a determining factor in the forthcoming polls.

The PN and the PL have successfully avoided mentioning divorce in all their electoral manifestos but then they proceeded to use this same avoidance in order to justify Parliament’s inability to act. While this is a disservice to the community, obviously, Malta has the MPs it deserves.

After 22 years AD is still the only political party in Malta which supports divorce legislation. The PN, true to its conservative pedigree, is unsurprisingly against while “progressive” Labour has no official position although, as a consolation prize, we have been informed its leader is “personally” in favour.

The parliamentary debate on the referendum has also spotlighted another interesting matter.

The utterances of a number of MPs are in stark contrast to the manner they speak and act in private. Well, they are very careful in order not to prejudice what’s left of their political career. It is clear that consistency is a value that is not appreciated in the House.

As matters stand, the state in Malta decided way back in 1975 that divorce is to be available only to those who have access to foreign jurisdictions. In respect of all others, the Maltese state decided there should be no access to divorce. A yes vote on May 28 will remove the Maltese state from the equation and will grant the opportunity to each and every individual to take his/her own decisions in the light of his/her beliefs and values.

The position of those who do not accept divorce is protected as no one will ram divorce down their throats. But they will also be in such a position that they will no longer be able to impose “their values” on others.

(published on Saturday, April 30, 2011)

Id-Divorzju : ħawwadni forsi nifhem (4)

(4) Il-Partit Progressiv ; fejn hu ?

Il-Partit Laburista għandu mexxej li stqarr li personalment hu favur id-divorzju imma jemmen li jrid iħalli lil kulħadd fil-liberta’ li jiddeċiedi skond il-kuxjenza.

Posizzjoni nobbli ħafna kieku, sakemm tinduna għalfejn. 

Għax Joseph Muscat qiegħed f’dilemma. Jemmen li bħala partit “progressiv” mhux biss għandu jkun favur id-divorzju imma għandu jkun fuq quddiem. Imma rrealizza li fuq din il-materja l-partit tiegħu m’hu progressiv xejn : hu konservattiv daqs il-PN.

Issa mill-PN tistenniha. Kien konsistenti ma dak li stqarr tul is-snin. Ngħiduha kif inhi: qatt ma stennejt li l-PN ikun favur id-divorzju. Forsi hemm xi żewġ membri parlamentari oħra li huma favur id-divorzju imma iddeċidew li joqgħodu lura. Imma xejn iktar mill-PN. Diġa qalu izjed milli mistenni Jeffrey Pullcino Orlando, Jesmond Mugliette u Karl Gouder.

Imma minn partit li jiddeskrivi lili nnifsu bħala “soċjalista, progressiv u moderat” kont nistenna mod ieħor. Li jkollok Membru Parlamentari wieħed jew tnejn li jaħsibha differenti wieħed jistenniha. Imma li l-parti l-kbira tal-Membri Parlamentari tal-Labour qed jaħsbuha, jistudjaw, għadhom ma qrawx il-liġi ……. tindika affarijiet oħra.

Qiegħed jirriżulta li l-Partit Laburista taħt Joseph Muscat huwa partit konservattiv.

Id-Divorzju : ħawwadni forsi nifhem (3)

(3) Bejn kalkoli u realta’  

L-issues f’dan id-dibattitu qed jiżviluppaw kontinwament. Il-posizzjonijiet huma fluwidi ħafna b’mod partikolari fiż-żewġ partiti l-kbar. L-ebda wieħed mill-partiti l-kbar m’hu kompatt. Dan hu normali f’pajjiż demokratiku u f’soċjeta’ li qed tinbidel. 

Il-PN ħa posizzjoni kontra l-introduzjoni tad-divorzju.  Huwa konxju li fil-PN innifsu hemm opinjonijiet oħra. Mhux biss ta’ dawk li esprimew ruħhom pubblikament. Iżda ukoll ta’ dawk li fissru l-fehma tagħhom wara l-bibien magħluqin. Kemm fil-laqgħat formali tal-Kumitat Eżekuttiv tal-PN kif ukoll f’laqgħat oħra informali li jsiru kontinwament.

M’għandix dubju li fil-grupp parlamentari tal-PN hemm min ser isibha diffiċli biex jittraduċi fehma favur id-divorzju b’vot favur fil-Parlament. Dan minħabba l-kalkoli politiċi. Dan hu riżultat tal-fatt li s-soċjeta’ tagħna qed tinbidel bil-mod. Dak li qed jgħidu u jagħmlu l-Membri Parlamentari mhux neċessarjament li jirrifletti l-valuri tal-votanti. 

Il-familja ukoll qegħda fi stat ta’ metamorfosi. Il-familja reali m’għadhiex dik tradizzjonali iżda l-istat miexi bil-mod wisq biex jirrikonoxxi l-uġiegħ ta’ nies u l-forom ġodda ta’ familja li ilhom is-snin li nibtu fostna. Mhux il-punt jekk taqbilx jew le. Iżda li tiftaħ għajnejk għar-realta. 

Il-Labour għandu nukeju immexxi minn Joseph Muscat u rappresentat prinċipalment minn Evarist Bartolo li jaċċetta d-divorzju. Pero’ għandu numru mhux żgħir ta’ Membri tal-Parlament li huma inċerti dwar x’ser jagħmlu. Ta’ l-inqas dik l-impressjoni li jagħtu ħafna minnhom ħlief Adrian Vassallo li fuq din il-materja tad-divorzju għandu ideat ċari u huwa iktar konservattiv mill-PN.  Bosta mill-Membri Parlamentari l-oħrajn qed jistudjaw, huma inċerti, għad iridu jaqraw il-liġi, qed jieħdu l-pariri …………. għadhom qed jagħmlu l-kalkoli.

Il-Labour qiegħed fi stat ta’ transizzjoni bejn il-veduti konservattivi li qed tirriġetta bil-mod s-soċjeta’ Maltija u viżjoni progressiva tas-soċjeta li tirikonoxxi l-uġiegħ tan-nies u r-realta’ ta’ forom alternattivi ta’ familja.

Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) hi l-uniku partit politiku kompatt dwar id-divorzju. Il-fatt li  hu partit żgħir u bi storja riċenti hu ta’ relevanza kbira għal dan.

AD biss għandha l-appoġġ tal-votanti tagħha favur id-divorzju. Dan għax sa mit-twaqqif ta’ AD fl-1989 iddikjarat ruħha favur id-divorzju u inkludiet proposti konkreti f’dan is-sens f’kull programm elettorali u ċjoe f’dawk għall-elezzjonijiet ġenerali tal-1992, 1996, 1998, 2003, 2008.   

 

Qegħdin f’salib it-toroq : fit-triq diffiċli bejn il-kalkoli u r-realta’. L-uġiegħ tan-nies qiegħed hemm fejn jarah kulħadd jistenna l-Parlament jiċċaqlaq.

Ir-referendum jidher li ser ikun l-għodda magħżula biex tħoll il-kobba. M’hiex l-aħjar għodda. Għax id-drittijiet ċivili naddottawhom billi nimmaturaw u nifhmu li hemm opinjonijiet differenti li jistgħu jeżistu flimkien. Opinjoni ma teskludix oħra.

M’huwiex faċli li tgħid x’ser tkun il-konkużjoni. Għalhekk l-inċertezza fost il-Membri tal-Parlament li huma imdorrijin jiddeċiedu f’termini ta’ maġġoranza u minoranza hi kbira.

Għad jonqos ir-rispett ta’ opinjonijiet differenti u r-rikonoxximent tal-fatt li forom differenti ta’ familja diġa’ jezistu.  Avolja l-istat Malti ma jirrikonoxxihomx. L-introduzzjoni tad-divorzju hu pass importanti f’din it-triq tal-għarfien tar-realta’. L-uġiegħ tan-nies qed jistenna.