Panamagate: Labour’s Fell Swoop

fell swoop _ akkuza

Occam’s Laser is a long-time J’Accuse reader who works in the financial services sector. In this article Occam argues that Labour is willfully muddying the waters over Panamagate, exploiting the concerns of conscientious liberals to further its own agenda.

The Labour Party is desperate. For three months it has tried to brazen out Panamagate, but despite its survival of various protests, no confidence motions and other crises, the issue simply won’t go away. Now it is hoping that by tarring the whole Maltese professional class with the same brush, it will cause enough of a distraction for people to start talking about something, anything, but Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri’s egregious misdemeanors.

This is clear from the recent PL attacks on Tonio Fenech and the private sector companies he works for, the attacks on the law firm EMD and its consultant Richard Cachia Caruana, and its general bewildering aggression towards any PN leaning individual somehow involved in financial services. What PL is trying to do is obvious; they want to conflate public concern about the disparate issues of global tax avoidance and its own internal governance disasters in order to dissipate public outrage. This is yet another of the PL’s dirty tricks, and the public shouldn’t allow the PL to wave this red herring in its face with impunity.

To start off with, Malta’s strategic decision to become a financial services centre is one which enjoyed (and below the surface, still enjoys) broad cross-party consensus. So PL is being maliciously disingenuous when it feigns getting its knickers in a twist over this week’s various pseudo-revelations. Secondly, while there is no denying the inherent link between a world order that allows international corporate secrecy, and the exploitation of that secrecy by persons such as Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, the two problems require radically different solutions.

Regarding the problem of international tax avoidance, this is one which requires, at the international level, a global co-operation and a deep philosophical rethinking of the way the world works; and at the local level, a careful repositioning of Malta as a jurisdiction which adds value beyond its low tax base (this is already the case to some extent, but a truly well intentioned government could do much more to improve things). This is going to be a big, slow job.

The Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri situation, on the other hand, is a pressing governance catastrophe that requires urgent and immediate action. Every day they hold on to their position, they cause irreparable harm to our reputation, and indeed deprive us of the valuable time that we need to reposition and further diversify our economy.

Perhaps the most galling thing about this PL manouvre is the way it exploits the feelings and concerns of the country’s most conscientious individuals, those who genuinely worry about things like global inequality and corporate ethics, turning these noble concerns into tools to further its own ends. Worryingly, we’ve already seen PL try to exploit the concerns of the conscientious before, as with that other red herring about Joseph Muscat supporting gay marriage a few weeks ago. This is shockingly unscrupulous behaviour; the Maltese public deserves better, and PL shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 10 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Anne Fenech and Zammit Lewis

fenech_akkuza

This Zolabyte is actually taken from an intervention by someone in a facebook thread discussing Anne Fenech’s reply to Minister Zammit Lewis’ allegations about her consultancy contracts with the government in the past. The discussion had veered out of point with people discussing whether Anne Fenech was right in opposing the citizenship program and law while working in a law firm where lawyers offered services under that law. Some observers claimed that Fenech had some cheek taking the “moral high ground” with Zammit Lewis. I was not impressed by this confusion of facts and opinions. The guest blogger intervened in the thread with this comment that I am reproducing with the commenter’s permission.

I find talk of moral high ground laughable in this context for a myriad of reasons:
1. It has sod all to do with the discussion at issue – I guess our dear Minister has forgotten that notwithstanding his role as a politician and his immunity in parliame
nt, his utterances should bear some remote semblance to reality and less to slander;

2. Ann Fenech is a partner in the law firm she works in, she is in fact managing partner of that law firm. Any of you who have actually sampled life in a law firm which is made up of more than just a combo of father, son, daughter, uncle will realise that even as managing partner she is not in a position to influence unduly decisions of the firm, including the fields through which the firm generates revenue – it is a collective decision where she does not have a majority vote;

3. By her firm peddling assistance for citizenship she is assisting in relation to law … Not the subversion of a law. She fought that law before it became law. Now members of her law firm are providing services relating to that law. Now we’ll be talking about that lady in America refusing to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple … All for the sake of the moral high ground. This is a firm decision, it’s legal and its business. Grow up.

4. We now bring up the moral high ground every time Ann Fenech makes a statement. I see zero utterances about moral high ground when the current government calls the opposition “distruttiva”. The hypocrisy of that makes me gag. I recall all the constructive criticism PL indulged in while in opposition. Let’s start with the constructive criticism on EU membership shall we? And the moral high ground taken by this government with each application for EU funds or when our ministers and especially our Prime Minister smile gleefully at their own self-importance when they line up for photo ops in front of buildings they advocated against a decade ago. Oh the moral high ground there is so elevated I’m getting altitude sickness … Again … A certain amount of ageing (I’m trying to be polite here) is required.

If you don’t like the woman say so. I am not a particular fan. She is good at her profession (lawyering not politics) and she works a room in a manner most of us secretly admire but that smacks of being fake. In many ways she makes a pretty decent politician. But enough of the moral high ground bullshit. There’s plenty about her to criticise without indulging in those fallacies.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 10 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

I dreamt a dream

fifa_akkuza

 

It’s been a long while since the last Zolabyte. When my friend put this status up on facebook with his reflections on the scandal that just hit FIFA and the possible links to global politics I could not but ask for his permission to reproduce it here as a guest post. Here is HB’s dream. Sometimes they are so close to reality that you need pinching to know if it is true.

Ho visto un film fighissimo, o forse ne ho sognato la trama. l’FBI, quelli vestiti come will smith in MIB e con il furgone dell’a-team, dopo che gli Usa vengono ingiustamente defraudati dell’assegnazione dei mondiali 2022, inizia ad indagare sulla FIFA massimo organo mondiale del calcio. La trama si infittisce gli stessi agenti devono prima fare un master in calcio, non avendo la minima idea di cosa si tratti e vanno a Boston da Mr Pallotta a chiedere di cosa si tratti, lui di tutta risposta li porta al Fenway Park a vedere una partita della ASROMA. Lì loro capiscono che si tratta di uno sport di squadra dove 2 team da 11 uomini giocano senza mazza (e senza palle alle volte) inseguendo il pallone su un diamante cercando di insaccarlo dentro ad una rete invece che di lanciarlo il più lontano possibile fuori dalla tribuna. Il tutto condito da gridolini di scherno e da gesti teatrali quali cadute in seguito a sfioramenti, sorrisi ammiccanti e competizioni di hair-style e tatuaggi.

Capite la basi continua la caccia all’imperatore del male Joao. Il brasiliano malefico non viene accusato di avere agevolato i mondiali nel suo paese, ma di averlo fatto in Russia e Qatar. Mentre per il Qatar si capisce l’astio degli USA, sconfitti nell’assegnazione proprio grazie ad un pugno di Petrodollari, per la Russia si fatica a trovare un movente che spinga l’FBI ad indagare. Sono noti i rapporti di stima reciproca e fratellanza universale che legano gli USA alla Russia. Il film si trasforma in un noir di altri tempi dove gli USA per vendicarsi dell’onta subita dal Qatar, grazie all’ausilio dei partner occulti arabi noti fan del calcio a stelle e strisce, indeboliscono l’economia Russa (in fondo gli USA sono signori non se la prendono con un popolo quello qatariota che ha già la natura contro ed il cui nome potrebbe far parte di ogni farmaco mucolitico della terra) pompando greggio come se non ci fosse un domani e portando in ginocchio l’economia Russa, nel frattempo il demone russo invade l’ucraina di cattivi propositi, concedendogli 4 miliardi di dollari di prestito e sconti a gogo sul petrolio. Per festeggiare si prendono a pallonate aerei malesiani come se piovesse.

Questi russi non sanno festeggiare in modo composto dirà poi “il portatore di luce” Obama. Gli USA ora si vedono minacciati. Non possono arrivare secondi anche nella gara degli aiuti Umanitari. Offrono 3 miliardi di aiuti della UE e Impongono alla UE stessa una serie di sanzioni economiche che sta mettendo in ginocchio non la Russia ma l’Italia, sanzioni che troppo non piacciono alla Germania (primi partner economici europei della Russia) ma gli interessi del pallone vanno salvaguardati e allora avanti tutta. Arrivano al gesto supremo cambiando la costituzione per permettere di vendere lo shale gas all’estero mostrando così tutto il disinteresse economico. Tale sprezzo viene notato e lodato dal mondo intero. A donetsk per festeggiare fanno saltare in aria l’aeroporto. Ahi ahi la vodka.
Nel frattempo in Italia disperati per la situazione economica venutasi a creare per colpa della Russia , lotito chiede di spostare l’ucraina perché dice che potrebbe, come bacino di utenza portare più vantaggi rispetto al frosinone, ma la ciociaria intera si solleva ed in forma di protesta solleva caci a mo di panuelada (il lancio del cacio va da se sia sport tradizionale delle terre che hanno dato i natali tra gli altri a San Gaspare del Bufalo, San Silverio e Sant’Ormisda). Lotito il moralizzatore offeso ma mai arreso medita vendetta.

Qui finisce il primo tempo, come ogni buon Action-movie americano la produzione nota di aver quasi finito il budget e tagliando di qua e di la, fa durare il secondo tempo 20 minuti. L’europa si rende conto che forse la Russia può tornare utile e la Merkel come una gattina inizia a fare le fusa, l’Isis conquista l’iraq, minaccia mezzo mondo ma gli Usa non centrano nulla e per imparzialità non intervengono. Assad resta il demonio, ma essendo i siriani troppo seghe a calcio bisogna fargli capire in altro modo che non è gradito, il verde rettangolo di gioco non fa per lui.

In ucraina i fascisti danno dei fascisti ai comunisti e viceversa.Si stanno organizzando tornei da oratorio alla memoria di Peppone e don Camillo. In Russia l’economia risale, in Italia la merda sa sempre di merda ma abbiamo l’expo (di merda mi dicono i ben informati). In finlandia si chiamano 1,5 milioni di riservisti, sperando di allearsi nuovamente ad una germania forte per distruggere la russia del pallone. Purtroppo per loro la federazione del pallone tedesca, per non farsi parlare dietro, immatricola solo oriundi da chiare origini non ariane. In svizzera paese neutrale per definizione, vengono arrestati tutti i vertici della FIFA escluso il diabolico JOAO. Il pallone è tondo, gli Usa sono il bene, il Qatar deve cambiare nome assad ha da mori.

Sono curioso di vedere il sequel…

 

HB

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 10 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Post Ranier – a zolabyte

A reader of this blog was inspired to write an essay-like comment after the post entitled “Your politics are ruining my country (and its future)“. I’ve decided to put it up as a Zolabyte in the hope that it provokes more conversation. Philip Serracino Inglott (currently pursuing a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Technology at Delft writes:

Thanks for pointing out Ranier’s article, which set my mind reeling. Here’s a brain dump of the thoughts I had after reading this and Ranier’s articles:

It’s nice to see Ranier put a wager upon PN’s technical ability. The implication of his argument is: if it should turn our that PL plan works, this would mean that Austin and Gonzi are either incompetent, or they intentionally deceived the population, or both. If the PL plan were to fail, Ranier would have to call for Muscat’s and Konrad’s heads, but equally, should it succeed he’d have to be the first to call for Austin and Gonzi’s heads.

Of course the corollary to that is that when the PL claim that they are certain that their plan will work, they are implying that they are equally certain that Austin and Gonzi are incompetent, or that they intentionally deceived the population, or both.

That much, I guess, they’d willingly do. But the implication is much more onerous than that for this case. The level of incompetence and/or deceit is variable. It finally depends on the magnitude of the project or importance of the decision in the context of which it was done, in comparison to how easy or trivial it would have been to see and/or avoid.

When PL’s plan is compressed to its raw basic essentials its basically this: borrow a bunch of money from private investors; spend that money switching from HFO to Gas; Gas can be bought cheaply enough that we can pay off the debt for the conversion, the past debts, and still have left over to pass on to the consumer as reduced tariffs. The private investor who lends us the money gets to keep on selling us the gas/electricity for a long time after we have sorted it all out. So, sure, he/she’ll get a tidy profit too, but that is why he/she’ll invest in the first place. It’s that simple really. Just that one basic idea — switch to gas — is going to solve of high tariff problem. The rest is details that require a lot of work to sort out, but should be run of the mill really.

But, if this is actually it, then Gonzi and Austin are not merely incompetent and/or deceitful. If the crux of it all is the choice between gas and HFO, then Gonzi and Austin must be stupid idiots and/or criminally fraudulent, if not both. And that would be very serious indeed. If the PL plan is to succeed on the basis of the documentation revealed up to now; if that is all a voter needs to know to be confident that PL’s plan will succeed; I can see no way that, once elected, PL is not also morally obliged to investigate the current cabinet for fraud and criminal negligence for their approval of the use of HFO.

Of course, the much more realistic scenario is that there are many more variables. The truth is that the analysis required to know if the plan is worth voting for is way more complex. Even if in the future the current government will, with hindsight, be shown to have made a humongous mistake by going for HFO, the matter is complex enough that one cannot draw a straight line from there to the claim that the level of incompetence would have been criminal.

But then, this means that the whole ‘energy solution campaign thing’ going on is just a charade. That there is no way that a deep enough analysis can be brought to voters until March, with sufficient detail, that they can make up their mind rationally. As Michal Falzon seems to have implied (from Ranier’s wording), voters with have to vote on an act of faith. And that is not democracy at all! That is merely herding behavior!

So PL and PN have put themselves in a rather sad position, unless they are willing to admit that the current trend in the campaign is undermining democracy, they have to up the ante, and imply that the other side is consciously and malevolently trying to deceive and de-fraud the citizen!

They have to imply that the others are not just “not as good as us” but that they are “evil!”. Since both sides play the game the election becomes a “final judgment” that determines who is on “the dark side” and who “has the force with them”. If any of the big 2 parties actually mean anything of what their garbled propaganda implies about their opponent, we would have to have a court marshal of the fresh opposition after every election.

Thank goodness, the only party that actually means all of the claims that it makes is the little green fellow with the good ideas but no clout or voice. After all, if AD had a bigger role to play in our political scene many of these silly charades would be quickly exposed, and we might have to actually think and evaluate substantial proposals before voting.

And who wants to do that?

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 7 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

There’s always a first time

Lady Chatterley started blogging on The Malta Chronicle. She’s got some points to set straight about marriage and blogging… not in that particular order.

I wonder whether the same rules apply here and whether I should wait till I’m married before I start blogging.  Well, that may never happen, which would be a real waste.  So here I am.  About to consummate my relationship with the blogosphere and press send.   I didn’t wait for marriage to have sex either.  If I had, I’d be a 37 year old virgin and that’s pretty sad, even Kate Gonzi would probably agree.  I mean, imagine the spots.  Imagine how angry I’d be all the time.

Instead I have a 12 year-old, and I’m only angry some of the time. Like now, because we’re doing Maltese homework and it’s that time of the year, when the horrible word ‘revision’ comes home to roost.

But I’m here to talk about divorce.  I was having a chat with a guy last night on facebook and he gave me the ‘between you and me, I’ll be voting against divorce’ spiel.  I replied with my best ‘each to his own, different strokes for different folks’ all embracing response and tried to sound like I meant it. And yet after I logged off, I couldn’t help but wonder, how someone so bright, so young, so cool and so with it I suppose, could miss the point so ferociously.

You see, what he effectively told me, was that his reservations stemmed from the fact that divorce offered people an exit, which would make people leave marriages with greater alacrity.  So then I gently pointed out that separation offered people a very real and valid exit too, which was also resorted to, with reckless abandon.  So no difference there, right.

Then he said that people would shack up with other people with greater ease, and once again, I came back with more or less the same argument –   that today people are free to leave their original spouses, shack up with new partners, have children outside of wedlock.   It happens all the time.

And if they really want to seal the deal, then they usually try and wrangle an annulment, unless they’re lucky enough to create a domicile in an estranged land.  And if and when that happens, they’re laughing.  Then they can even remarry, which until that point,  was the only thing that differentiated separation from divorce.

So all we are arguing about here is one thing – that  divorce will facilitate re-marriage. Facilitate NOT bring about. That is the only novelty it will bring about.  Divorce will not be the catalyst for marriage breakdown, for children suffering, for depression, mental breakdown. It will not be the cause of anything we don’t already know.  It will just facilitate a remedy which to-date is also available, admittedly from the back, not the front door.

That is basically it.  We’re essentially arguing about exit via a back or a front door, about semantics.  Annulment is divorce by any other name (oh not legally I know that, God forbid!); separation is as heart wrenching and traumatic as it’s twin brother divorce or twin sister annulment; annulment permits remarriage; re marriage is available to the people who want it badly enough via annulment or overseas divorce.  And on and on it goes.  And we’re still talking about it.

And I’m actually blogging about it.  Yes, there’s always a first time.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***

Enhanced by Zemanta

Dars, Pogguti u Bghula

Mark Vella (formerly of Xifer… il-blogg mit-truf) was provoked into writing this post in reaction to the “Pogguti” billboard:

Jacques talabni nikteb, imma għidtlu li mhux interessat u li kull ma rrid nitfa’ l-vot u nitħalla bil-kwiet. Forsi dan kull ma jrid min biħsiebu jivvota IVA, wara kollox: jitħalla jgħix ħajtu kif irid hu, fil-limiti tar-responsabbiltà adulta u l-legalità.

Imma l-kartellun tal-bgħula u l-poġġuti laqatni wisq. L-ewwelnett, lingwistikament. Hija kampanja kuraġġuża, forsi anki inġenwa, dik li toħroġ għonqha bi kliem iebes bħal dak. Lili darrsitni, ikolli ngħid, għax mill-ewwel laqtitni bħala kontroproduċenti, u eku ta’ dan ġa qrajnih f’diversi interventi ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Ħsibt ukoll li l-kampanja forsi clever wisq għax-xena politika Maltija, bil-ħbit tal-LE u l-IVA fl-istess stampa, u fil-kuntest ta’ pubbliku elettorali li ftit jew wisq iħobb kampanji pożittivi b’kartelluni ta’ tfal u familji hienja jiġru fuq il-ħaxix tar-rebbiegħa.

Argumentajt ukoll ma’ sħabi li l-kliem goffi għaliex m’għadhomx jintużaw, u dan kien ukoll argument tal-kamp tal-LE. Xi ħadd qalli, iżda, li jista’ jkun is-soltu preġudizzju lingwistiku u n-nuqqas ta’ kunfidenza f’ilsienna u fil-mod kif nesprimu rwieħna, għax tgħid ma jkunx effettiv kartellun Londra b’mara msawta fuqha u bil-kliem ‘She is not your bitch’, nagħtu każ? Minnu, imma għalija poġġuti u bgħula jibgħatuni lura għal dinja agħar, dinja ta’ kattiverja u preġudizzji li bdejna noħorġu minna milux. Illum, kważi kważi, il-kunċett ta’ poġġut bilkemm jiftiehem, u ftit jafu li oriġinarjament kien aktar jintuża għan-nisa appoġġati jew mantnuti mill-maħbub tagħhom, speċi ta’ sugar daddy. Anki bgħula ħadd m’għadu jgħidha, ħlief fid-dagħdigħat privati ta’ xi familji meta jinqala’ għawġ bħal dan. Trabbejna slavaġ, imma mxejna ‘l quddiem, u għalhekk dawn iż-żewġ kelmiet idarrsu u jissugraw, forsi mhux itellfu l-voti, imma jdallmu xi ftit il-kredibbiltà ta’ moviment progressiv u magħmul minn nies ta’ rieda tajba.

Imma ġieni f’moħħi wkoll li dan il-messaġġ qawwi huwa s-sintomu ta’ kemm din il-ġlieda saret waħda emozzjonali, u kemm xi elementi tal-Knisja u tal-kamp tal-LE ppreċipitaw din is-sitwazzjoni, mhux bil-fehma leġittima tagħhom imma bl-istrataġemmi offensivi li jużaw u billi jżeffnu, fl-istil tal-interdettijiet, lil Alla fi ħwejjeġ Ċesri. Din saret ġlieda storika daqs il-kwistjoni politiko-reliġjuża tas-Sittinijiet, u għal daż-żmien essenzjalment ġlieda mhux partitika imma bejn il-konservattiżmu fanatiku u progressiżmu li jrid joqgħod attent milli jittappan u jitlef triqtu.

Ġieni wkoll f’moħħi li wara kollox, u wara kemm wieħed jipprova jistħarreġ u jirraġuna, forsi l-IVA kellhom raġun jagħtu xokk bħal dan. Għax l-ipokrezija li rajna mill-kamp tal-LE wieħed jista’ jaraha wkoll fit-tessut tas-soċjetà Maltija, għaliex anki jekk tgħallimna nkunu nies, mhux bilfors li aħna. Ma nafx jekk hux każ ta’ ħmar il-magħkus li jdur għalih id-dubbien, iżda bħal xi ħadd li għadda minn żwieġ li falla, kien hemm waqtiet fejn qlajt kummenti bla ħniena, għax hemm il-fatt li mhux biss hemm min ma jridx id-divorzju, imma hemm min jitkaża wkoll b’min tkissirlu ż-żwieġ. Ma tirbaħ qatt. Snin wara u ħajja ġdida, kien hemm ukoll min sejjaħli poġġut. Wieħed biex jitkessaħ, u qala’ xebgħa lsien bi kliem wisq eħrex minn tal-kartellun. Ieħor ħafna akbar minni, imrawwem professjonalment fil-PN (seta’ kien partit ieħor: dan biss bħal sfond), Kattoliku devot, omofobu u konservattiv tradizzjonalist. Għal darb’ oħra, deskrizzjoni ta’ sfond għax kulħadd ifassal lilu nnifsu kif irid. Madankollu, bejn b’nofs ċajta jew forsi għax beżaqhielu l-inkonxju, qalli poġġut, għax waqt li qed niċċajtaw dwar it-tfajliet sbieħ u ħelwin, għidltu li issa ma tantx nista’ nħares għax m’għadnix single. U billi għadni fil-limbu tar-relazzjonijiet skont kif jarahom hu, waħħalli t-tikketta.

X’tagħmel? Tieħu għalik? Le. Anki jien, ta’ sensittiv u bużżieqa li jien, ma tantx tatni ġewwa. Anzi, rikbitni mewġa ta’ maħfra Nisranija għax ma kienx jaf x’inhu jagħmel, u anki ta’ ħasra għal moħħ li baqa’ ċkejken. U kull m’għidtlu ‘iva, u wliedi bgħula. Rajtha qalbek’, u ħallejtu jiħmar u jistħi u jigdem ilsien li kien ħallih jaħrablu.

Mela fors l-IVA kellhom raġun, sew għax nies li ġarrbu u sew għax nies li jifhmu s-sitwazzjoni. Forsi huma wkoll, bħali, raw tassew qalb in-nies li qed jikkumbattu kontrihom. U għalhekk raw li għal kull min jippuntalek sejf, sejf daqstant jaqta’ jrid ikun biex joqtlu.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***