Politics

Donations and Donations

donations_akkuza

Donations to political parties were already a hot topic during the last election campaign. We all remember the explanations given by Paul Borg Olivier regarding what amounted to the practice of “trading and barter” between the PN and commercial “supporters” of the party. Doubts were also raised about the Labour party’s mysterious meetings with persons of substantial economic weight that seemed to explain the expensive electoral campaign afforded by Muscat and the Taghna Lkoll gang. During an electoral campaign it all boils down to more fodder for one or the other party but ultimately little is ever done about the links between parties and their economic “sponsors”. As for the unprofessionally drafted party financing law, don’t hold your breath if you are expecting it to change anything. It has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese – and little wonder at that for it is drafted and “fine tuned” by the very parties that are supposed to be kept in check.

More recently we have the Gaffarena scandals with Marco (of said Gaffarena descent) making much fuss about the fact that he donated monies to both parties. We’ve been there before. Sandro Chetcuti, of Malta Developers’ Association fame, also went on record in the press as to how much of his money went to line either of the main party’s pockets because “it was important to be in their good books”. There is no doubt that the structure of our political fabric is such that depends equally on having a well-oiled party funding machine as part of the greater process of achieving the Holy Grail of a place in power. The not too finely spun network of quid pro quos that follows logically from such a system of interdependence is one that belies the recent statement that “it’s not whether you took a donation that counts but whether you do anything in return”.

Such a statement alas is equivalent to ignoring the bare truth that lies before all to see. The only reason that such donations are given (whether on or off record) is to curry favour with the recipient party. In the words of the man in the street… “they owe them one”. Sometimes they owe them much more than one. The structure of our political system cannot ignore this simple state of affairs. It is useless to assume a holier than thou attitude when the general trend is to enable the giving of donations anyway. Whether you allow the donor to cash back his cheque in the future is, frankly speaking, rather irrelevant.

I for one do not doubt (and am rather glad) that the PN did not cave in to Gaffarena’s requests with regards to his Qormi petrol station but the fact of the matter remains that Gaffarena was at some point a registered or unregistered donor of the PN to the tune of a thousand or so euros. Why were such donations accepted? Because the sub-literate Gaffarena was eager to support the party ideals inspired by Don Luigi Sturzo, Rafael Caldera and Serracino Inglott? Pull the other one. The smallest donation of 1€ to the largest donation lining a party HQ in marble and snazzy furniture is all there for a purpose. It is an IOU that lies heavily on a political party’s conscience.

Labour have proven to be masters in the IOU banking service. They have taken the informal word of donations exchanged for favours and have brazenly exercised it out in the open without any ounce of shame (when they are not profiting from the expropriation and use of public land such as Australia Hall). Far from the meritocratic and transparent government the Labour movement has signified the consolidation of the hitherto subtle network of exchanges between businessmen, lobbies and politicians. Cui bono? That is the question (sadly, the only question) that can be asked of practically every measure and move under the present government. Who benefits? Laws can be altered hastily and even framework legislation (such as that for planning and environent) radically reformed simply to be able to allow donors and supporters to cash cheques. This is no system of donations to support a roadmap… it is a direct consequence of cosi fan tutti reaching its final climax of corrupt obscenity. With practically no one batting an eyelid.

Creating spurious distinctions on whether the donation was “cashed” directly by some counter-move does not help in uncovering the deep-set malaise that both underpins and (ironically enough) undermines our political system. Accepting donations from the Gaffarenas and Chetcutis of this world is wrong in any case. It is wrong because such donations have ALWAYS created an expectation for what the donor seems to perceive as a legitimate return. The fact that our political parties need to millions of euros in order to exist is neither here nor there nor an excuse for this kind of enabling of a sick network.

A new style of politics is one that clearly creates a huge distance between profiteering businessmen and the political parties. It is one that reneges on developing money hungry political parties and concentrates on a system where the boundary lines between policy making and benficiaries of such policy are clear. We are very far from that ever happening. Frankly it might be too late.

Cue Daboma, See Black

daboma_akkuza

Hindsight. It can be a good thing. With hindsight, and the help of a video filmed on the personal initiative of one of the RIU officers, the police union are trying hard to show that your average constable does not include racism or racial profiling when in the course of performing his duties. In an interview I caught this week (still cannot find the link) the union officer stresses that Daboma Jack was handcuffed for “only” four and a half minutes and that the procedure leading to his handcuffing can not be classified as “excessive use of force”.

The explanation given by the officer does go a long way to explaining why it takes two officers plus one from a specialised unit to immobilise a protesting “well built” (sic – fih ragel) person of dark coloration. Apparently no matter your coloration or build it will always take two officers to do the job – and this for your own safety. I am prepared to accept this line of reasoning: that if you have to immobilise and detain someone then the safest option is two officers who do so while taking care that you do not incur any injuries.

What is more worrying is the reasoning as to why it was deemed necessary to handcuff Jack in the first place. While I set aside my worries that the RIU arresting officer constantly addressed Jack in Maltese throughout the handcuffing procedure, issuing curt orders such as “wara”, “oqghod” and the like, I am more inclined to question what led to the suspicion falling immediately on Jack.

Who called the RIU to the scene? What kind of information was given to them upon arrival? What did the policeman who had been on scene until the arrival of the RIU tell the officers? The Union spokesperson seems to have blamed two factors that could have led to the unnecessary handcuffing. First of all it seems that Daboma Jack was very agitated (rightly so, the spokesperson adds), and secondly the crowd that was present (and the reference seems to be to the patriotic locals) did not help the cause much.

Four and a half minutes in handcuffs are four and a half minutes too many, even given the scenario as presented by the police union spokesperson. That our nation is still chock full with uneducated bigots who are ready to ride the wave of intolerance at any opportunity is a given that the strong arm of the law should by now have factored in whenever it makes an intervention. It hits strong at the core of the issue of tackling the possibility of racial profiling.

It’s either that or a descent to the law of the pitch-fork carrying rabble, so help us god.

I.M. Black

imblack_akkuza

That’s karma for you isn’t it? Sometimes the reality of life in Malta has a way of bitch-slapping you in the face like no other. A diligent and upright resident of the island takes it upon himself to try to organise a mob that is assaulting a transport company kiosk in order to top up their transport cards. Said diligent and upright resident is not seen in a very good light by his fellow strugglers for a top up – particularly those who feel that they have some God-given right to be first to receive any service on the island and who frown upon “foreigners” who dare breathe in the same part of the eco-sphere.

Things get ugly and said upright resident gets hassled, harassed and ill-spoken to by a deviant of the fairer sex. He is told in a less than roundabout a way that he better pack his bags and return to his country of origin lest he will be told where he can take his weird foreign ideas of queueing up for a service. How did the dame know to politely address him towards the nearest exit border? How did she tell that he was not one of us? Why by way of the colour of his skin (and maybe because he was marketing a foreign philosophy that jarred heavily with the idea of pushing and shoving to get served).

The bagarre did not stop there. Transported by the heat and frustration of the moment, the local maiden decided to refresh the upright resident’s general being by despatching a few dollops of freshly brewed saliva in his general direction. For good measure said woman also let rip a handful of applauses straight onto the upright resident’s person.

Sticks, stones, saliva and slaps did not break the resident’s will and having spotted the strong arm of the law (Domine dirige nos) he appealed for their judicious intervention. Such intervention was sadly left lacking, especially since the aforementioned serjeants of justice had seen a colour. Black to be exact. Before you could say Fundamental Human Rights or even Simple Common Decency the blue coloured officers had used all the force that was necessary (and a bit) to immobilise and handcuff the upright resident.

Yep. In these days of Ferguson controversies that surely never reached our shores, members of the police force entrusted with out safety have gone and arrested a manifestly innocent person for the obvious reason that his skin colour was not to their liking and made him an automatic suspect for any crime – even when a madwoman of Maltese nationality had just been caught spitting and abusing the black person in question. Surprised are we? If this is the same corps that speaks of Madonna Tas-Suwed on radio despatches then not really.

There will be an Inquiry. Leave the capital I. They are so a-la-mode these days. We have a flurry of inquiries being called for by our smug PM that will hopefully uncover a web of fraud and deception that is to be found at the core and more sensible areas of the notorious corps. Are we wrong to arrogate political responsibility to the rotten state of the corps? Hardly. Two years into Labour government and the cowboys are out – more brazen, more audacious, and ever so effectively entwined with the underworld.

The black man in question is “lucky” enough to have a hungarian ID. Very lucky actually – and this is where Karma comes in big time. Only a few days ago – the 23rd June to be exact – Hungary suspended the application of the Dublin Regulation in full defiance of EU asylum rules. The Hungarian government is itself not going through a very democratic period what with illegal expropriations, rampant corruption and the rise of the ugly head of racism. Surely Mr. Jack (for that is the name of the upright resident of this island who has been wronged) might have thought that a year in Malta away from the dangers of the new Hungary would be a good thing.

Go figure. Domine dirige nos (God guides us) is the motto of the police corps. There is very little of God’s hand in what happened today. Mr. Jack, a devout christian would tell you that himself I am sure. Another infamous set of “defenders” also used to fight battles in God’s name. Gott Mit Uns they used to say…  fat lot of good it brought to them.

Cardona’s Meritocracy

cardona_akkuza

“Nahseb ghandu dritt dan il-guvnott.” There they go again. Economy Minister Chris Cardona tried to ward off questions related to the appointment of Karl Cutajar (an 18 year old) to head the board of Fort Security Services – a newly set up government company. The controversy has raged for a few days now, especially since it has featured on Malta’s version of Wikileaks quite extensively (spreading to other relatives of Cardona’s Chief of Staff) so you’d expect the Minister to be better prepared to fend off questions.

Well, he is either not prepared or he is ignorant of the goings on under his watch. Just wait for some idiot to come and tell us that so long as Cardona has no “mens rea” then its ok.  They’ll tell us that notwithstanding the fact that the answers given by Cardona when “cornered” by the press with very legitimate set of questions smack of anything but a meritocratic approach to public appointments we must assume that he is cleaner than Caesar’s Wife.

As it happens judging by Cardona’s reply we have the following facts:

1. An 18 year old was employed by MIMCOL as an executive clerk (which could be quite ok – and is where the buck stops with “ghandu dritt dan il-guvnott”);

2. The 18 year old has been placed at the head of Fort Security Services which is a company that will be taking care of security on sites where the government is winding down operations such as Malta Shipbuilding;

3. His job on the board is not remunerated;

4. The best one – there will probably not be any persons employed by Fort Security Services so it’s anyone guess whether the 18 year old Cutajar will be doing all the night watching on his own (sans remuneration);

5. It is a complete and utter coincidence that the eighteen year old put at the head of a one-man security company sans remuneration is the nephew of the chief of staff of the minister under who’s remit the very same company falls.

There you have it. We have moved far beyond the “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” days. The denial of the patently obvious (tmeri is-sewwa maghruf) is now becoming a day-to-day business at the Taghna Lkoll factory. Never, never-ever has this amount of patent disregard of meritocracy while abusing the government appointments system reached these levels.

Taghna Lkoll indeed.

“Jghodd mhux dak illi taf imma lil min taf”.

The Wisdom of Tomatoes

wisdom_akkuza

I saw this meme the other day that had a couple of paraprosdokian phrases and particularly liked one of them. It said “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.” Often life has its ways of coughing up situations that are full of tomato conundrums. Take the problem raging in the US’s southern states after the massacre of black persons in a church. The huge debate is whether the “confederate flag” – for long a symbol of slavery and suppression – should be banned and removed from public places.

The killer in the church shootings was a southern fanatic and publicly acknowledged that he did what he did because he wanted to provoke another civil war in the name of the confederate flag. So what do they do? They blame the flag. They blame the symbol. Sure, because it was a flag that shot and killed nine innocent persons in a church. Not guns. No. Definitely not guns.

The root of the problem – legal purchase and possession of weapons in the US is nowhere near being tackled because of the US’s perverted love of the right to bear arms. The Americans prefer to keep putting tomatoes in their fruit salad.

Back home we have just heard the announcement of a new possible 40 storey colossus in the middle of Sliema. What is another concrete tower? What indeed? The perverse conviction of the development community and of the politicians in their pockets that Malta can sustain a steady stream of new developments in ODZs and beyond seems to know no end. The recent non-partisan front created with regards to the Zonqor space cannot be limited to that space. The Sliema monstrosity is proof that a charter on sustainable development and a clear plan for the future of planning in Malta needs to be pushed and marketed.

Which brings me to the controversy on the church school plans for Ghaxaq. The church is now a victim of the Zonqor madness. While Zonqor was evidently an excuse and a provocation by the government to allow its trojan horse of a crazy development that has nothing to do with education to be pushed (and many swallowed the bait), it would seem that the Ghaxaq project is the result of studies and the proper use of exceptions insofar as educational development is concerned. We are now however faced with the socialist scythe of equality inducing measures: the analysis is not legal or environmental, it’s simply No Zonqor, No Church Development. We’re throwing the tomatoes with the pineapples and the melons. It’s crazy.

Using the letter of the law to smash its spirit. That is just the phrase I was looking for. We are witnessing it every day and the rapid decline and fall is preposterously horrifying for those who care to worry about the future of our nation.

Marlene: The Real Taghna Lkoll

marlene_akkuza

I’ve tuned into the parliamentary sessions a few times ever since the new parliament has been inaugurated. It is rarely a pleasant experience and I do not delude myself with expectations of high oratory and rhetoric. Still, the PQ sessions provide a very good picture of what our politicians are up to and the respect with which most of them hold the highest institution of our nation. It was during one particularly ugly PQ session involving a cat-and-mouse session with the PN trying to get answers from an absent Konrad Mizzi that I was once again pleasantly surprised with an intervention by Marlene Farrugia, Labour MP.

Following a particularly cringe-causing exchange where it was evident that the Labour MPs were all out to avoid answering any form of questions no matter how they were phrased, Farrugia stood up and started to speak. The way her intervention began led me to believe it would be more of the same partisan pot and kettle talk. “I’ve sat through previous legislatures watching the previous Ministers and MPs dodging answers to questions and failing to be accountable”, she began. Was Marlene about to justify the government MP’s attitude with a classic ‘Tu quoque’ intervention?

Not really. “I’d expected our newly elected government with its promise of transparency and accountability to be different” she continued. Now there was a politician worth her salt. Marlene was not defending the Labour MP’s economy with the truth – she was criticising them, and precisely because they were doing nothing to improve the situation inherited from the previous lot even though they had been elected to do just that.

To me that intervention embodies all that Marlene Farrugia represents. She is a living proof of the politicians of real change. Oftentimes she is wrongly placed in the same category as the Franco Debono’s and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s of this world – renegade, unhappy backbenchers who are trying to get more from their party while it is in power. Party faithfuls do not miss a beat when insulting and remind “why she was elected”. Yet Farrugia does not seem to aspire to power as much as to a kind of politics that is rare – real accountability, real transparency and a real change from the past.

Part of the charm of the Taghna Lkoll message for many during last election was the promise to break away from the old way of doing politics. This meant doing away with deals brokered with friends and friends of friends, it meant an open, transparent and meritocratic system. Had JosephPL stuck to the Taghna Lkoll promises it would not be in the dire situation it is now – a situation that might not be reflected in the opinion polls yet but that is evidently paving the way for electoral disaster.

Farrugia’s constant questioning of Labour’s performance is not based on a renegade development suddenly sprung on the party leadership. Rather she is the stronger version of the conscience that should remind the leadership, the party and the government of its democratic commitments to society. Is all this done out of some Macchiavellian manoeuvering? Does Farrugia hope to unseat the current leadership? Is her aim to destabilise the Labour party’s majority? As things stand it is very doubtful whether any of these options are possible or whether they are actually a priority in the outspoken MP’s mind. What is clear is that by sticking to values and committing to the most basic of electoral charters of accountability that is the party’s own manifesto and promises Farrugia towers strongly over the rest of the Labour MPs.

Until now Muscat has been able to ‘tolerate’ Farrugia’s outspokenness, also because he can scarcely do otherwise. If, as we hope, Farrugia remains steadfastly consistent in her commitment to a code of values that seems to have been ditched by the labour mainstream upon election the situation might become more and more uncomfortable. The main reason is that there is a limit to the number of gaffes that can be committed without the accountability.

Muscat’s nine lives might still be in full swing but Marlene Farrugia remains a wonderful reminder of what Taghna Lkoll would have been and could have been had it not been hijacked by power hungry opportunists who fail to understand or respect the liberal democratic system of accountability. Hers remains a tough task of civic education – particularly when it comes to imparting the lesson that having a majority does not automatically make everything right.

also read this: ‘This is not the Labour government we strived for’ – Marlene Farrugia urges ‘change in direction’