Library

My Cousin Bondi

This is a tale of two cousins. One is a self-professed journalist who has a time slot on national television the other is a thatcherite minister in the Maltese government. J’accuse does not normally take to the “pink” style references of familial links and the like but this time the coincidental operations of two cousins – one of whom we still admire – merited an appreciative pointer from this ever cynical blog.

First was the “journalism above all bloke”. This week there was another self-referential program about… himself. Or rather about the fact that assertions made by him in an earlier program did not sell very well to a large part of the population. Bondi must have been reading the news for a couple of weeks now for he planned a program full of clips and cuts from everything under the sun. Admittedly. and sticking to his philosophy, all references he read or saw or heard were to himself and his program. So he set up a new one in order to disprove his detractors.

He had planned a lovely jubbly program complete with an interview with Finance Minister Tonio Fenech. It would be a program in which he would prove that PL’s campaign depicting him as a statistic fabricating lackey for the nationalist government is completely cuckoo. It would all be as slick as a gelled hairdo. It would be. Until Bondi discovered much to his chagrin “a few minutes before the program began” (as he repeated ad nauseam) that a welcoming delegation from the PL were waiting at the studios complete with special guest Charles Mangion.

Bondi was as surprised as Alfred Sant must have been when he saw JPO sitting in the journalist benches on that fateful afternoon. He could not call for security and have the offending intrusion on his orchestrated program removed. He would have liked to. But he could not. Instead he smiled and gave Kurt Farrugia a “ma gara xejn” nod. And so the program began. It took a bouncy Bondi a full six minutes to settle down and actually start the program – not before flushing the cameras with caveats and mumbling sorry excuses about how a presenter of his international stature had been caught pants down by a rare sly move from the PL marketing team. He would have to go ahead with the program with the “adversary” in the studio watching every step.

Throughout the first part of the program (there’s a limit to how much bull we can stomach for you readers) we could feel Bondi’s discomfort as he squirmed from one figure to the next. He jumped from “zball zghir nibdluh” to “kollha l-istess baqghu il-figuri” with the grace of a clumsy donkey ride on a hot summer beach. Whenever he felt he was losing grasp of the situation (read: the program was not going according to script) he cannonballed onto Mangion with pleas for the labour parliamentarian not to “Set the agenda”. In Bondi’s mind, anything that risks disproving his theories involves setting the agenda.

Pity that Mangion was a feeble lamb and failed to live up to the occasion. He should have damn well insisted that the Beta tape he was carrying be shown. It was after all a table of figures and not – as Bondi seemed to imply – a porn video of god know what libellous nature. That Bondi managed to brush away the presentation with a feeble: “mhux fair ghax gibtha tard” spoke volumes of the worry that had planted itself firmly in the presenter’s mind. Truth is that Bondi cannot and will not take on his critics fair and square at equal arms. He needs to dance around and manage the show with clips that can be shifted and moved around at will. Even if Bondi was right, or half right – the manner in which he chooses to refute criticism makes him stink of wrong. Very wrong.

Which brings me to the much admired (in these circles) Austin. Among the sanscouillistes even the man with half a ball is king. Gatt seems to be loaded with such attributes (we are always speaking on a metaphorical level of course – I have no idea (or interest) what Gatt carries in his pants) and as such has often borne the brunt of audacious measures. Which makes his pussyfooting and excuse mongering in the BWSC affair all the more suspicious. Unlike Cousin Bondi, Gatt has never feared opposition and a good battle and prefers to take it head on.

Reading the script of the parliamentary accounts committee interview of the Auditor General was a bit of a throwback to kafquesue big brother readings. The quizzing of the AG by Austin Gatt had a bit of a stalinist feel about them that made more noise for what was not being said than what was being said. The “smoke without fire” metaphor had been stretched beyond limits. The AG had said ab initio that while all the investigations left a stinky smell of something fishy he had not managed to put his finger on the pile of stinking fish. Why then would we need the charade of Austin Gatt asking question after question about every stage to point out that no evidence was found? Had the AG not already said that?

It sounded like Pope Urban VIII vs Galileo:

He listed almost ten stages of the entire process and the persons involved during the decision process, and after each case, he asked the Auditor if there was any evidence that these people had been corrupted.

The Auditor General replied: “there was no evidence.”

Neat isn’t it? Almost ten stages. Almost like a rosary. A litany. Stage I. No Evidence. Stage II. No Evidence. Stage III. No Evidence. Stage IV. No evidence. etc etc. Ora Pro Nobis. Turris Eburniae and all.

In view of the information available to the Audit office. No corruption was found Mifsud (the AG) said, however he did add that “there had been lack of cooperation from some people who the NAO had questioned.”

Eppur si muove right? Not really. The nationalist inquisition is probably routing for an open and shut case. Austin Gatt had skillfully (not without causing a ruckus at the PMs office) set the agenda for the PAC in much the same manner as a Bondiplus programme. The obstinacy with which he opposes the calling of forgetful witnesses (a parallel with calciopoli perhaps) is baffling. Again. Whether he is right or wrong Austin Gatt’s methodology in this business has fouled the whole reasoning. The press that Bondi scours so assiduously for references to himself have been unanimous in criticising Gatt’s modus operandi this time round. He was painfully aware of this during his interview with Herman Grech.

So there you have it. Cousins Gatt and Bondi display similar traits when it comes to attempting to control a PR exercise gone wrong. These damn Gozitans… what is it they say about burning good ones?

Quotes from MaltaToday report.

Un Mangia Mangia Generale (Calciopoli Revisited)

San Moratti has been relatively silent over the last few days. Probably mulling his next moves on how to make Juventus spend another couple of years in Serie B since his team seem to be returning to the normal place in the championship – the one they are used to: beneath Juventus. Meanwhile Uncle Fester Galliani has been trying to silence Juventus’ DG Marotta who dared point out that Milan were getting more favourable interpretations than Juventus in certain circumstances. Galliani might have to worry about other problems away from the pitch. There’s even more evidence that, like Moratti’s Inter-cettati, Galliani’s Devilish fingers also behaved in much the same manner as those who were sent to pay for whatever sins were invented in Serie B.

Here’s a phone call between Galliani and Meani:

L’INTERCETTAZIONE – Ecco la telefonata Meani-Ramaccioni- Galliani del 3 aprile 2005 ore 12.07 sul­lo slittamento per la mor­te del Papa: se ne parla, ma senza molti particola­ri sul braccio di ferro di potere con Moggi e Capel­lo nell’informativa del 21 gennaio 2006 e senza evi­denziare il ruolo assunto dal Milan nella vicenda.

Meani. Ciao Silvano ( Ramaccioni, il team manager, ndr) sono Leonar­do. Allora cosa han fatto? Hanno fatto slittare il campionato, allora, praticamente Ramaccioni. Sì, Sì Se vuoi ti pas­so il presidente, te lo passo. E’ sli­tatto.

Galliani: Leonardo?

M: Dottore?

G. Allora abbiamo slittato, giochia­mo sabato alle 20.30, anzi alle 18 col Brescia, poi domenica andiamo Siena.

M. Senza Kakà senza l’altro

G. Ma secondo lei io dormo?

M. No

G. Lei pensa che io dormo, ma por­ca troia. Anche perché quel figlio di puttana di Moggi, le racconto: Mog­gi, che è un figlio di puttana, faccio sentire anche a Costacurta così si carica. Ha pure chiamato Preziosi ( e gli ha detto) Adriano l’ha fatto ap­posta così recupera i sudamerica­ni, c’hanno Shevchenko che sta meglio, hanno spostato di una set­timana. Con l’Inter ce l’abbiamo già. Dopo pensiamo a quelli di Torino l’abbiamo già sistemata perché l’ac­coppiata Moggi- Capello è?

M. : E’ micidiale?

G. : Come Capello- Sensi, via Ca­pello, Sensi è tornato amico. L’ab­biamo purgato già l’anno scorso ( la Roma di Capello perse lo sprint scudetto col Milan, ndr), lo purghia­mo anche quest’anno ( allenando la Juve, ndr). Fa niente ( ride). Capito Leonardo. E’ pieno di uccelli padu-l­i, se non tiri le corde, non capisco­no?

M: Anche se ho visto che nel sor­teggio gli è saltato fuori Collina ( ar­bitrerà Fiorentina- Juve 3- 3 del 10 aprile 2005, ndr): e ciò è positivo.

G. : Tranquillo, vigilare su tutto.

Dopo il celeberrimo Sie­na- Milan 2- 1 la telefona­ta Meani- Galliani del 19 aprile 2005 in cui Gallia­ni dimostra di sapere be­ne quale sarà il futuro della Can.

Galliani: Ha parlato con qualcuno dei due ex designatori?

Meani: Dio bono, altro che parlato. Non ha visto che in macchina c’era Ancelotti e gli bestemmiavo paro­lacce, e Ancelotti mi fa: ma che co­sa gli dici.

G. A chi?

M. A Bergamo e Mazzei, perché Pairetto è in Germania

G. : E che dicono questi signori?

M. : Si cagano addosso: frasi di cir­costanza? “ chi va a pensare un er­rore del genere da uno così ( Baglio­ni, ndr)”. Con una squadra come il Milan a un minimo dubbio si sta giù con la bandiera, non si va su a van­vera. Questa è gente che non è pre­parata psicologicamente. Cosa vi preoccupate più del Palermo? Ha visto la designazione? Ci mandano persino Puglisi ( amicissimo di Mea­ni, ndr). Adesso, gli ho detto, vieta­to sbagliare e vietato sbagliare dal­l’altra parte ( della Juve, ndr), nel senso contrario però. Questo è un periodo pericolosissimo.

G. : Lo so, lo so.

M.: Anche perché lui mi fa: siete an­dati in vantaggio lo stesso? ( dopo l’annullamento del gol di Sheva, il Milan segnerà con Crespo l’ 1- 0, ndr). Gli ho detto: comincia a darmi il mio gol. Dottore, ha parlato ieri con Collina ( con cui doveva parlare segretamente per un futuro da desi­gnatore: ricordiamo che allora per la scelta del designatore serviva il placet del presidente di Lega, Gal­liani, ndr)? La cercava.

G. : No.

M. : Guardi che la chiamerà.

G. : Adesso, lo cerco io.

Un Mangia Mangia generale… altro che Moggiopoli. Vada via i ciap! Milanesi di mer…..

(Austin's) Time to Say Goodbye

Austin is preparing his swan song. He told Herman Grech of the Times that he has been doing so since the results of the last election were announced at the counting hall. It may be so but the fact that Austin feels that it is time to say goodbye and “enjoy his wife” does not suddenly give this Minister the license to take us all for a ride – whether or not he is the transport minister. J’accuse has often had words of praise for the Thatcherite resilience of Minister Gatt who seemed to get things done in areas were even devils feared to thread but as readers well now our criticism is equanimously balanced.

The two-part interview available on the Times contains a couple of “whoa” moments that might be an indication that notwithstanding ministerial claims otherwise, the Time to Say Goodbye might also be linked to the danger of Gatt’s decreasing capability of squirming out of hot issues.

First there are the questions on the parliamentary cock-up by the PN regarding the possibility of listening to witnesses on the BWSC question. Gatt is adamant that parliamentary procedure does not offer sufficient protection to witnesses who might incriminate themselves. Weird. Weird because, as Herman points out, Gatt had no such qualms for the Voice of the Med investigation. Weird because different political weight of the two issues is absolutely no excuse for not proceeding in the same manner for the second. Weirder still because Gatt is a member of the House of Representatives – a house that would be performing its duty if it were to investigate whether or not public monies have been subject of corrupt activities. Gatt is not the advocate for any of the witnesses and is in no way duty bound to protect them. Is Gatt aware that he actually stated that the witnesses are not protected from self-incrimination when bearing witness before the parliament? One should hope that if there is something incriminating about their behaviour then it would be in everybody’s interest that that behaviour were to be discovered (and not sheltered).

Then there’s the point of parliamentary procedure. Gatt has been serving his country since 1976 and feels it is time to retire and enjoy more worldly matters than the business of parliament. Is it possible that in all that time he did not notice this lacuna and move for a law that remedies the situation. Parliamentary democracies in the UK, US, Italy, France etc are used to examining witnesses within their legislative assemblies. It is rather sorry of a member of government to practically compare the safety of our parliament to some interrogation in Basra that could result in self-incrimination.

As for comparative studies, when Gatt is asked about the discriminatory fees in the transport system he rolls off the names of a number of city transport systems that – according to him – discriminate between residents and non-residents. He asks us to do the homework. So we do.

London:
Oyster Card: You go to the visitorshop (click here)and you can order an Oystercard delivered to your home in Malta prior to your visit to the UK. Once in London you can top up the card and use it just like any other London resident and at the same rates.

Stockholm:

Notwithstanding the fact that “By one measure—single ticket price for a 10-km (6.2 mi) journey—Stockholm has the most expensive-to-use public transport in the world, as of March 2009” – there is no discrimination between residents and non-residents on Stockholm public transport. A quick tour of the Wikipedia site for Ticket Prices in Stockholm would have given Dr Gatt that answer.

Helsinki :

Same as Stockholm. The advantages you can get in Helsinki are obtained by buying Travel Cards instead of single-fare tickets. It’s an obvious mode of discrimination that J’accuse has already pointed out but it is a discriminatory choice for the consumer and not based on the nature of the consumer. Read about it here (God bless Wikipedia).

Talinn :

Talinn is the only one of the cities mentioned by Dr Gatt that does discriminate between residents and non-residents. With all due respect to Talinn it was rather, how shall I say, unusual for that city to be thrown in within the list. You’d expect a cocksure Minister to say “Hey, London, Paris, Barcelona, Rome, Brussels and Amsterdam” discriminate against non-residents. I guess Talinn has been bandied around as an example by Austin’s advisors. So I did not just look at Wikipedia (article here
 – the article does include the following unequivocal statement: Ticket prices for non-resedentials of Tallinn are more expensive than stated above!) this time – I asked an Estonian blogger- Andrei Tuch –  about this scheme. Here’s the reply:

J’accuse: Would you know if city transport systems in Talinn (buses/rail/etc) actually discriminate between residents and non-residents when charging fares?

Andrei (antyx): Yes, they do. Tallinn has a populist mayor who wanted to isolate his supporter base, bribe them with benefits. At one point the scheme was blocked because it was judged to be unconstitutional (nobody must be discriminated based on residence), but right now the scheme does operate. You can see the prices here.

There you have it Dr Gatt. Three out of four of the cities you quoted actually do not discriminate between residents and non-residents. It turns out that Talinn’s scheme was judged unconstitutional (not even at EU stage but national stage) and is only the result of “a populist minister isolating his supporter base”.

Time to say goodbye? Maybe. Just maybe.

UPDATE:

In case we get accused of biased reporting. J’accuse sent a query to the Talinn City Government with regards to the question of different fares. Here is their prompt reply:

Dear mr Zammit,

There is a slight difference between the prices for  electronical periodic cards for the city of Tallinn residents and non residents.

Prices for  non residents are approximately 15-18% higher than prices for residents.

There are no price differences among the single tickets and hourly tickets (paper tickets).

Different prices for the city residents and non residents have been in force from the 1st of February 2010.

Please find all the ticket prices from the pricelist which you can find at:

http://www.tallinn.ee/Tallinn-ticket-fare-from-01.02.2010

In case you require some additional or more detailed information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Eva Kärblane

Tallinn City Government

Transport Department

Chief Economist


Enhanced by Zemanta

The "IVA" Deception

JPO is happily heading a coalition of sorts that will campaign for the introduction of divorce. While it is definitely encouraging that persons from both sides of the parliamentary divide can join with social powers that have been stonewalled out of the institution thanks to the PLPN rules it would seem that the very participants are blissfully unaware of how this IVA business can turn into a great deception.

It is one thing to form a movement that lobbies for the introduction of divorce and another to choose a slogan that is an evident throwback to the referendum moments pre-EU accession. I am sure that I will be called the eternal cynic in this respect and that the excuse that “some effort is better than no effort at all ” will be thrown back at me in full force but the advocates of this new IVA movement should be made aware of the constitutional (and marketing) pitfalls of their arrangement.

By orienting their movement to a referendum style formation the IVA for divorce group has already conceded valuable ground in the battle for the introduction of the divorce. They are virtually admitting that this will have to be a majority decision in the form of a referendum and/or consultation of the people. They are allowing the parties in parliament to do what they do best – i.e. abdicate from any responsibility of legislating for divorce as they should have done decades ago.

Instead JPO & friends give the impression of being much more interest in the limelight afforded by this discussion than by the actual force of their argument. Divorce is not a majority question. The Bonnett Balzans of this world may come back at divorce arguments with the fire and brimstone philosophy but the endline in a normal democracy operating in normal conditions would be for the parliament to legislate and allow for a legal possibility that has long been missing in our juridical system.

Instead we have IVA. And IVA to what? As we have pointed out previously under Maltese law we do not have a propositive referendum. Should we have a referendum on the matter that would probably come AFTER parliament introduces a law on divorce – because our law allows for abrogative referenda: a referendum asking the people whether they want to abrogate (cancel, annull, remove) a law that has been enacted. In which case the answer for the IVA movement should be LE (no, I do not want the divorce law removed) and not IVA. Quite a quandary no?

But of course the PLPN will play along with the whole idea of a consultative referendum. It pays them because they can blame “the people” for whatever decision is taken in the case of divorce. We might have JPO & friends to thank for any eventual cock up…

Ingriterra

Take a quick tour of the written and spoken media on the Maltese islands and you notice that such linguistic delicacies as “dutchboard” and “spartan plug” (dashboard and sparking plug) are not exclusive to the stereotypical “hamallu” that first springs to mind. One of the most painful recurrences on Facebook is the word that people insist on spelling as “definAtely”. There’s definitely no “A” in definitely. When it comes to TV the word that really jars – in Maltese – is the Maltese name for England. I’ve heard both Peppi Azzopardi and the guy who presents Realtà on One TV refer to l-INGRITERRA that sounds like some talcum powder for Ingrid.

It’s Ingilterra. I’m sure Peppi and Realtà guy don’t say l-INGRIZI. What would that be? The in-people wearing gray? Both Peppi and Realtà guy seem to also be intent on killing the word “insurance”. I am quite sure that “INXJURINS” pains others and not just me… have you heard of any other words being massacred lately? Share please.

CHECK THIS OUT