Category: Mediawatch

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Cabinet Decisions & RCC’s Head

The Labour party has finally found a way to get at Richard Cachia Caruana on something based on fact rather than on the irritation at an unelected person having a purported strong influence on cabinet decisions (pace Franco Debono). The accusation is based on Wikileaks that portray an active RCC (oh the heavy acronym) lobbying with the US for the reactivation of Malta’s Partnership for Peace membership. The buzzphrase on social networks this morning is : “Allura RCC ikbar mill-parlament?”

I’ve always found this fixation with RCC quite a curious one. The man obviously has much clout and his opinions seem (or seemed) to be highly valued within the inner decision making circles of government. That he might not be directly accountable for many a blunder might raise important questions about the structure of our elected elite. On the other hand there is a bit of an emptiness in the grudges that are held against the man. The business of government is one that does not only require elected politicians in their roles of PMs and ministers but also gets done with a caravan of policy advisors (at least we hope so) who come election day risk their position as much as the rest of the ministerial entourage. Feeble as it may be – it does give you an idea of a form of accountability.

Secondly, RCC might be counted among a list of a few intelligent persons upon whom the Gonzi cabinet depended for a long time as a sounding board as well as to prepare future policy objectives. Again the main caveat here is that I do not know the man from Adam except for the rumours within the halls of civil servicery that are not too kind on him insofar as temper and perfectionist tantrums are concerned. Be that as it may I still find the accusations of “unelected mandarin” rather feeble and populistic. After all what do you expect? Governments will lend an ear to whoever they believe are competent advisors – my only grudge here is that all too often it seems that this government depends on one channel of information without really viewing alternatives – but that is another story.

Back to the PfP issue. When the participation in the PfP program was finally reactivated in 2008 it was a cabinet decision. Not parliament mind you – cabinet. Whether the groundwork for this reactivation had been prepared by extra-cabinet members such as RCC is something one would hope for rather than condemn. Switch back to 1996 and consider Sant’s de-activation of PfP membership in the name of “neutrality”. Irrespectively of whether you agree or disagree with Sant’s interpretation of neutrality there is one point that sticks out on that day.

The seat at Castille had barely gotten used to the shape of Sant’s behind yet Sant via his cabinet took a decision to withdraw from the PfP. One could also safely assume (or, again, hope) that Sant was acting on the basis of advice from specialist persons within the field – unelected technocrats who participate in the work of government in order to facilitate its operation.

Is Sant greater than parliament? No. Neither is RCC. Nor is the cabinet. The fact remains that Malta’s original decision to take part in the PfP formed part of a wider EU participation program in an early nineties nationalist government. The withdrawal by Dr Sant was accepted as a legitimate cabinet decision by his government (based on an electoral programme promise) and the re-activation by the subsequent nationalist government was the result of another cabinet decision that itself was based on the fact that the nationalist party had never changed its policy on PfP membership (which is why I believe that it is correct in claiming that it did not need to include the re-activation in subsequent electoral programmes).

Whether RCC as part of the hidden machinery of government lobbied with governments and institutions or not is a probability that is now confirmed by the Wikileaks. We see no wrong in the fact that this occurred since the decision to activate, withdraw or re-activate lies purely within the power of cabinet and in this case RCC would be acting as the humble servant of the latter.

It’s either that or else we can safely say that both the Labour government 1998 and the Nationalist government 2008 acted as though they were above parliament. Which would not be such a great surprise but we’d rather stick to facts than speculation or misinformation.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Show me the money

Dosh

Watching Chelsea replicate Internazionale’s catenaccio last night I could not help but wonder why I still harboured feelings of sympathy for the London club built to the tune of Abramovich’s millions. There is a general sense of resentment that is held against football clubs built with the money of tycoons and not with the sweat and capability of good planning – just look at the opprobrium that the City side of Manchester have attracted thanks to the millions thrown at them over the last few years.

The rules of the Premier league have evolved since Portsmouth went into administration under the watchful eyes of the management of the world’s most successful tournament. Anybody wishing to spend a few million bobs on his favourite toy will now have to bear the scrutiny of numerous tests aimed at ensuring that the provenance of the money is legit. Mr Madjesky of newly promoted Reading knows a bit about these tests as the proposed purchase of the newcomers by Russian family Zingarevic is on hold until the appropriate checks are made. The Premiership is no place for recycling money – that’s for sure and until Platini’s fiscal rules on club finances are activated the current rules will go a long way to avoid jackals spoiling the fate of historic teams.

Another man reported to have eyed investment in the Premier League was Emir Al Thani of Qatar. He was supposedly prepared to part with over a billion dollars to get his hands on Manchester United. The Red Devils are still owned by some US Emir Glazer but Al Thani has meanwhile been reported to have set his eye on investing his (country’s) billions elsewhere. Maltatoday reported that Qatar was eyeing up a €1 billion investment in Enemalta. Now it may be a far cry from dealing with Alex Ferguson but Al Thani and Qatar might have their reasons to be attracted to investing in the tiny island’s power grid.

The Maltese government is going to great pains to whet the Qataris appetite and has apparently got plans to set up an embassy in Doha. Which is good to a certain extent. There is nothing wrong with building good relations with some of the countries that seem to still have money in a world of begging bowls and bailout plans. There is a big but however – and not of the Sir Mix-a-Lot kind.

Friends United

While the Qatari government might have an impressive CV on its lap with regard to investment, future planning and whatnot (last night Chelsea faced a Barcelona team that featured the Qatar Foundation sponsor on its shirts) it does remain a country that, democratically speaking, is in the throes of early development. Babysteps. We are talking of an absolute monarchy and although elections are planned for 2013 the consultative council remains just that – consultative. As for the human rights track record, though we are not talking North Korea you may see more from this Amnesty International Report:

Women continued to face discrimination and violence. Migrant workers were exploited and abused, and inadequately protected under the law. Around 100 people remained arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. Sentences of flogging were passed. Death sentences continued to be upheld, although no executions were carried out.

Forget free expression or press freedom too. Which is a bit worrying. While the behemoth parties in Malta are currently engaged in a “Your Friends are Worse than Mine” battle regarding past and present relationships with illustrious leaders of the Libyan Jamahiriya or North Korea we have this kind of proposed agreement in progress. Our question is: How far does the “beggars cannot be choosers” principle apply? Just like Mintoff took the begging bowl to North Korea and China and shut his eyes to the desperate cries of oppressed workers in those countries (so long as il-Haddiema got their dishout of SAG weaponry) are we not committing the same error today?

I am not convinced that Emir Al Thani can become another Gaddafi but does this kind of international agreement not merit a better form of scrutiny? What policy should Malta have in this sense? If we were talking about a multimillion investment by a private company do we dive in blindly thanking whatever Madonna is currently in vogue for the windfall? In the case of companies there is a due diligence process that is (hopefully) conducted.

White Rocks

On a final note I notice that the ghost of the White Rocks multimillion sport investment has resurfaced conveniently in the run up to another election. We had not heard about the White Elephant for quite some time now – just as the trombones and trumpets surrounding SmartCity also went deafeningly quiet. Clyde Puli (another not too ubiquitous politician) has told us that “substantial progress” had been made in talks with investors. The figure of 800 new jobs was obviously mentioned but there seemed to be no more information forthcoming about what stalled the talks in the first place and why over a year after the initial brouhaha we are just able to talk about “substantial progress”…

Show me the money? And at what cost?

 
***

Categories
Mediawatch

Deconstructing Malta’s Architecture

Or rather its architects. An article on last Sunday’s Times “Property slowdown driving architects out of business” focused on the employment problems faced by architects today “with large architectural firms laying off staff due to lack of work”. It is not clear whether the article was prompted by a press conference or press release or indeed whether it is the result of a sudden decision to educate the employability of budding Renzo Pianos. The clips taken from the Malta Developers Association president (ex-Minister and MEPA pioneer Michael Falzon) combined with a similar article on Maltatoday (Property developers on warpath…) would lead one to believe that the Times’ effort is a failed attempt at transforming a drab lobby release into a news item.

What does jar however is the quality of the complaints by the “architects” who apparently are going out of business because of “exorbitant fees” being charged by the planning authority. The logic underlying the developers’ lobby is mind-bending. They cannot really complain about the construction free-for-all being reined in – not much sympathy there right? Instead the complaint is disguised behind the more human approach of “unemployed persons” – these persons being the architects who have been thrown out of the large architectural firms  after they “had been employed when the property and construction sectors were booming.”

Then comes the surprise admission:

One architect said the firm where he worked was moving away from simply designing apartments, maisonettes or villas and was turning to renovating vacant properties in an attempt to make them attractive to prospective buyers.

Really? Is renovating vacant properties rather than injecting more concrete into the earth a last ditch resort? Well I never. I’d have thought that the renovating bit would have automatically superseded the need to flood the market with new properties when even those available are having a hard time to sell.

If you go by the Maltatoday article then the other problem is the Inland Revenue valuation of apartments. A bargain buy means nothing when the IR inspectors value it at a much higher “potential” price. You do not have to be in the architecture business to be shocked by the IR evaluations – just watch it happen whenever somebody inherits a property or there is the division of a property between co-owners.  There might be a point where the tax on a sale is actually higher than the profit being made.

The question I have though is whether the business of unemployment of architects is really the heart of the problem. Could it not be that our “development industry” is based on a self-destructing business model that is also harmful to the nation? The warts of the system are bound to be exposed much further during a slump in the sales market but the whole wheels that make the system turn might be aiming in the wrong direction. A development industry that focuses heavily on constructing, constructing, constructing without diversifying into more socially friendly models (dare I mention CSR) will hardly find any supporters for its cause beyond the politician who is in dire need of their money. Ironically it is this kind of money that the constructors no longer seem to be able to provide – which bodes for interesting times.

Meanwhile spare a thought for the unemployed architects.

 

(check out Kunstler’s TED talk “The Tragedy of Suburbia” in the mediabox – that’s the top right corner)

Categories
Mediawatch

Jeffrey “il-Matur”, Mustafa “Kemal” and the “Non-European” Turks

The Chronicle

On the plane back to Luxembourg I was browsing through the Times of Malta and got to read my favourite section (a section that is sadly not reproduced on the internet version). The “A Century Ago” corner reproduces randomly selected articles from the “Daily Malta Chronicle” edition a hundred years back. Yesterday’s selection was entitled “Maltese emigration to the State of Sao Paolo” and was basically an editorial comment on the emigration of a 100 Maltese who were moving to Brazil “in the hope of faring better there than they can now expect to do in their own land“.

Although the editorialist acknowledges the necessity for Maltese to look for brighter pastures he expresses more than a simple reservation about the cultural differences into which the Maltese are throwing themselves – particularly when they opt to move away from beneath the protecting eyes of the British flag: “because we know that there is no better flag for them to be under“. In fact the article advocates for easier channels of emigration to the likes of Australia and New Zealand and not to Brazil where “the second generation of even European born parents have not in Brazil either the physical, or the moral characters of their race“. If that is not enough to astound you just read the conclusion:

“The great drawback with regard to emigration to Brazil is that our people must, upon going there, be thrown in with blacks and half breeds”.

I kid you not. That was an article in a Maltese newspaper appearing on Tuesday, April 16th, 1912. It would be shocking today but I would hazard a guess that that kind of lingo was common parlance in the early part of the twentieth century – to put it in perspective Rosa Parks wouldn’t be born for another 10 months.

Kemal

Somebody who was already born by that time was Mustafa “Kemal” – a thirty year old Ottoman who was to become father of the Turkish nation. Over the next few decades the man who would come to be known as Atatürk would shepherd a nation and its people and transform it into a most modern of democracies (not without his share of controversies).

Atatürk (then) embarked upon a program of political, economic, and cultural reforms, seeking to transform the former Ottoman Empire into a modern, westernized and secular nation-state. The principles of Atatürk’s reforms, upon which modern Turkey was established, are referred to as Kemalism. – Wikipedia

Undoubtedly controversial, Atatürk supervised much of the modernisation of his nation and this included the strengthening of the language, an important emphasis on educational reform and an expansive arts and cultural program. Importantly Atatürk  made Turkey one of the first nations to recognise the importance of women’s rights and their emancipation. Furthermore he was adamant about the importance of a secular state . Here is Ataturk speaking in 1926:

“We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and our legal institutions from the bonds which, even though they are incompatible with the needs of our century, still hold a tight grip on us.”

For the first time in history Islamic law was separated from secular law.

Jeffrey

Mustafa was given the nickname “Kemal” by his mathematics teacher. It means “perfection” or “maturity”. His “reign” over the newly born state was not without controversy but there is no denying that post-Ottoman Turkish history can claim great parallels with those of other European states with its own lessons and mistakes. The unravelling of that history is of a fledgling democracy in the early ’10s that interacted with the other democratic (and non-democratic) realities around it. This account is also a poor one since it fails to acknowldge the huge role the Ottoman empire had in European politics for a very long time and it also neglects the geographic origins of modern Europe – both historically and spiritually.

What would the Greek states have been without Troy? Where would Saint Paul have wandered without Antioch and Ephesus? What of the Byzantine heart of the Eastern Roman Empire? Can Constantinople be erased with the stroke of a political pen?

Well Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando seems to think so. His emancipated, “liberal” statement that “Turks are not Europeans” gives me the shivers. If, as it seems, the Islamic creed of the majority of Turks seems to be one of the major hurdles that JPO has to consider than he really has no idea about who or what he is criticising.  This is an MP in a parliament that made divorce available to its citizens in 2011 and still has evident problems distinguishing between political obligations and religious proselytising. He is an MP in a country whose President is off to Peru on a missionary trip and where the Attorney General has no qualms invoking deities upon appeal from a court sentence.

And what is JPO’s major excuse? The Turks are culturally different. It must be a strange coincidence that the Times’ Century Ago piece reminded us that this kind of mentality – fear and snobbism in face of difference – existed in Malta in 1912. Thanks to people like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando the front pages of our papers (and the red faces we should have when speaking to Turks) remain a stark reminder of just how little progress we have made in our interaction with the outside world.

With politicians like this you can only wish to hop onto the next plane to Sao Paolo, Istanbul or Luxembourg – there to submit to the “cultural shock” that the JPO’s of this world seem so intent to shield us from.

Categories
Mediawatch

Dear Dumb?

Sitting around a table with a group of people reminescing times past is an experience that we have all gone through some time or another. I have fond memories of a parapett in Gozo that in its heyday served as a stopping point for many an ambler enjoying the summery nights of Marsalforn. Stories, rumours and recollections are part of any social fabric and their role is highlighted on a rock of a few kilometres squared inhabited by nigh half a million souls.

Among the stories that I picked up in my childhood I was always most fascinated by the accounts of the deeds and misdeeds of Mintoff and Mintoffianism. In post-war lore I believe you could equate the standard of this kind of story with that of the deeds of Arthur and his knights or those of Robin Hood and his merry band. Obviously there was less myth and much more fact in the accounts of Mintoffian errantry or socialist theft in the name of the poor, but the personal timbre and impression given by whoever took the baton of chief raconteur was just as manifest as it was inevitable.

Mintoff’s effect on the social, political and even physical lanscape of these islands is an indelible mark left by a trailblazing meteor that rose from the ashes of war torn Malta, blazed through the puberty of a nation in search of an identity and then erratically stuttered to a shaky stop in its twilight years. The Mintoffian stamp on Maltese society spans six decades and can hardly be reduced to a one hour overview.

Every step from the post-war rise within (and without) the ranks of Labour to the epic battles with the powers colonial and ecclesiastic would require contextual analysis based on a multidimensional perspective of the politician and his deeds. It is not a sense of partisan justice that underlies this requirement for rigorous analysis but a the historical paradigms of contextuality and clarity – as far as they could possibly be achieved.

Falkun Films have pulled off a magnificent feat of marketing by managing to tap into the vein of curious controversy that is the main selling point of any current affairs item in Malta. “Dear Dom” has hit the airwaves and the opinion columns in full force and the Maltese buzz is out doing what it does best – a concoction of summary exectutions, intransigent condemnations and unreserved plaudits delivered by a mixture of consenting viewers and disdained abstainers alike. In doing so, Falkun Films and Pierre Ellul proved one important point even before the cinema tickets were sold: Dom Mintoff is still hot stuff.

I wanted to reserve my judgement to when I witnessed what the movie had to offer with my own eyes and I finally got to see the film on Easter Sunday. A fitting date, many would opine, to see the return of the saviour before the eyes of his people. Waiting in the ante-chamber at the cinemas someone remarked that they could not fathom why some would choose not to watch the movie… “At least you could learn something”. That, I think is one of the main points here. Is “Dear Dom” a documentary? Does it have any educational value?

Or was “Dear Dom” after all the latest in a long line of attempts at destroying the hero-factor that the name Mintoff still carries on? Was the man worshipped by our Leader of Opposition (by his own admission) being dismantled in a new medium of local propaganda?

You do not need to sit through the full hour of Dear Dom to notice that there is nothing documentary-like about the movie. The monotonous narration reads like a long j’accuse from the beginning to an end (not this J’accuse). Intentions, motives and nefarious plans are imputed without missing a beat. What is missing is the facts that back the assertions. Sure, many sitting in the theatre – especially those who have brushed up their history lessons – would know the background to the interdett, the obsession with integration, the swing to separation from the UK, the control economy, the battle with the church and more.

I did ask myself however – what would someone who had never heard of Mintoff and his story make of this film? Not much I’m afraid. The film depends on a priori knowledge and relies strongly on preconceptions. It taps into the narrative that has been woven in the parapetti, the pjazez and the kitchens of the nation. You enter the cinema armed with your idea of Mintoff and walk out nodding or shaking your head – not because you have been given a theory based on historical investigation but because the film has touched upon those nerves that have been lying dormant for a while and you’ve risen to the provocation.

If you have none of those preconceptions you are probably still wondering who the interviewees are, you are probably asking more questions about the relationship between Mintoff and the Church, between Mintoff and the English, between Mintoff and the Nationalist party. You’re probably dying to find out what makes the torch of Mintoffianism still burn to this day and why his many followers are reluctant to shed his heritage.

The magnificent and purposely charged typographic shifts from one scene to the next will have done little to satisfy your justifiable curiousity and the motley band of interviewees might only have served to give you a tiny fraction of the impact of Dom on Maltese lives and Maltese life. Artistically I would dare say that Dear Dom is an emotionally charged “skizz” or “makkjetta“. In sharp contrast to the documentary portrait that one expects but that it is not, “Dear Dom” is a cross between a caricature, a parody and a picassian esquisse that has evident limits in both time and space.

Which is why J’accuse firmly believes that the film is a must watch. It is a must watch because we need this kind of provocation. It is a must watch because if it is true that we shy away from controversy and from dealing with our heroes (maybe thanks to the censors in our head) then any start is a good start. It is a must watch because notwithstanding the shortcomings and failings on a historical level therein lies a wealth of visual retro-porn that is awaiting the history fetishist.

I must admit that I sighed with that twisted sense of oxymoronic nostalgia for an era that I hope will never return when I saw the rows of Sanga (or was it Soldini) shoes in a factory. The short tourism ads and clips that were sampled included such wonders as the old Hilton and Gozo’s Hotel Calypso. The library of reels picturing Mintoff in various negotiating moments are also a jewel that should be preserved – hopefully for a deeper, longer and more purposive analysis that is waiting to be made.

Dear Dom is not and could never be the only source of the controversy that has dominated the scene over the Easter break. Yana Mintoff will secretly see the movie as a godsend as it has given her some popularity (notoriety?) points and drawn the media to an otherwise bland latecoming hopeful to the political scene. The naysayers who wouldn’t watch the film (and still judged it) proved that the controversy has nothing to do with any movie or its content but simply with the fact (and probably the fear) that the man elevated to hero status was being brought back into the limelight. The fact remains – Mintoff and all things Mintoffian is a recipe for controversy… even in 2012.

A recently uploaded episode of “kwartakollox” on youtube dealt with Mintoff and seemed to have kicked off on a much better track than the Dear Dom movie – ironically it took a quarter of the time. Dear Dom got much more attention than a one hour edited series of clips and photos with a voiceover plus some great typography deserved. Had it not made it to the cinemas and had there not been any well timed marketing leading to controversy it would not have caused such a stir among those who might have got down to watching it.

Rather than binning Dear Dom we can only hope that more effort is put into this kind of production. More effort could bring more perspectives, more angles and more history being put under the lens. Our young nation needs this kind of effort. So do the artists and historians who have for too long been operating under a system of self-imposed censorship.

And after that? Well, after that… the world goes on.

Categories
Mediawatch

More on Thrift

One of the books I’m reading deals with the issue that we were talking about on this blog yesterday (“Thrifty with facts”). “The Price of Everything” by Eduardo Porter is an interesting study into the “true cost of living” and attempts to give an interesting perspective on otherwise mundane facts. My original post had been triggered by the fact that Maltastar deemed it fit to compare average wages in Luxembourg and Malta ostensibly because the evident gap would mean that the Maltese and only the Maltese have it worse off all round.

One of Porter’s chapters deals with how firms selling goods operate on the market in such a manner as to obviate the possibilities of the consumer to purchase comparatively. In other words, firms will go through great lengths to ensure that the consumer is not in a position to compare the price of their products with those of their competitors. We see this when a price is camouflaged under a pile of add-ons, bonuses, offers etc. Another of Porter’s interesting observations is that different brackets of the population have different shopping habits for different reasons. High wage earners give less value to the time spent comparing prices and tend to shop off the cuff while low wage earners are prepared to invest time in order to get the bargain.

Studies (I know that vague term is ugly but give it a chance) have shown that the same product might sell for very different prices depending on the customer involved. I do not need to believe some obscure study. SATURN, an electronics goods operating in Luxembourg has proven to be quite a good example of this practice  over the past few months. I have noticed that anything from headphones to in-car hands-free sets can vary in price depending on whether you opt to shop at Saturn in the city-centre (Gare area) or whether you drive to Esch-Belval (20 minutes highway).

It’s not just electronic goods either. Malta has now got Lidl as a household name. Luxembourg too has its different tiers – from ALDI (think lidl but cheaper – yes, cheaper) to Delhaize via Cora, Cactus and Auchan (that’s Pavi in Malta) you would have to command a panoply of comparative programs in order to get your really thrifty shopping list.

Am I making a point here? Well yes. It might be worth reflecting that when we speak of Malta’s consumers we are not talking of one homogenous block. Times may have changed from when Mintoff’s budget was eagerly awaited in order to know the going rate for the next year for a can of sardines but that does not mean that consumers are not still a varied bunch that are daily tackling the traps and offers of a myriad of shopping establishments.

One instant in the movie the Iron Lady struck me (or was it “The Road to Finchley”). Thatcher knew the price of butter in the stores (she was after all a grocer’s daughter) but her fellow politicians did not. I wonder whether some intrepid reporter could cold question Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat and find out whether they know the going rate for a carton of milk or butter (even if it’s the fake kind). Before our politicians can fan the flames of discontent with regard to the cost of living they would do well to show a little more understanding of the situation.

Is there open competition in Malta? Are your Pavi’s and Arkadia’s and Smart’s providing a range of prices that might be beneficial to the consumer? That too must be taken into account. Before we look outside our shores and focus on how much money is ending up in other people’s pockets it would be interesting to know who is spending what and where with the money that ends up in our own.

Feedback is welcome. Meanwhile here is an excerpt from the Porter book.

According to a study of Denver shoppers families that make more than 70,000 dollars a year pay 5 per cent more for the same set of goods than families making less than 30,000 dollars. Singles without children pay 10 per cent less than families with five members or more. Families headed by people in their early forties pay up to 8 per cent more than those in their early twenties or late sixties. Retirees are much more careful shoppers than middle-aged people. They search dutifully for the best deal and end up paying nearly the same amount for the same product. People in middle-age, by contrast, buy more carelessly. The prices they pay are all over the map.