An insult bites back

Remember Labour MPs and leadership contenders describing Government's offer to appoint an Opposition MP as an insult? The Opposition's opinion was that this was the Government's attempt to increase its parliamentary majority on the cheap.

I had mentioned that, first, the Opposition must be assuming that Government's parliamentary majority is vulnerable and, second, they are unable to see that they had been offered the post that would have given them much leverage on parliamentary debate. Will they learn their lesson from what's happened recently in Parliament?

The Speaker of the House of Representatives said supplementary questions to parliamentary questions must be strictly related to the original question.

In his first ruling of the legislature, Louis Galea said it was up to the Speaker to decide whether a supplementary question was related to the original question and, therefore, whether it could be allowed.

Referring to a point of order made last Wednesday by Opposition whip Joe Mizzi that to date, supplementary questions which were not directly related were still allowed if the minister agreed, Dr Galea quoted Standing Orders and Erskine May and said the observance of standing orders was in the hands of the Speaker, not ministers or MPs.

Got that, Joe? It's "observance of standing orders was in the hands of the Speaker, not ministers or MPs". No, Labour's thirty-fourth MP does not make a difference because Government's "insult" was not accepted.

Regarding privacy

There is one matter on which my full sympathy and support are with MaltaToday. A couple of editions ago the paper reported on a survey it conducted on Labour delegates on the voting intentions for the upcoming leadership election. To do that they, of course, had a list of delegates with their personal details. Contenders for Labour's top post complained (with Marie-Louise Coleiro-Preca saying that this was a breach of delegates' privacy) although, it seems, the list was circulated to all those who are standing for a Party post.

Just as a reminder, this is a Party whose Leader recently tabled a list of 2,226 voters who travelled to Malta to vote. This he did without any respect to these people's personal data as well as to the fact that these people were exercising a right which they unequivocally have.

Now, of course, I wouldn't expect complaints from Labour's ranks (although I would have expected a murmur at least from 23% of the people on that list who Sant claimed are "Labour-leaning"). But others? Raphael Vassallo, you who usually complain about the Parties' compiling list of voters with their voting intentions, are you out there? Jacques-Rene Zammit, your name should be on that list. Not saying anything?

The Nicholas Azzopardi case (V)

Oh, almost forgot this on MaltaToday's reporting of the "Nicholas Azzopardi" case:

Nicholas Azzopardi’s father has presented the case of the mysterious death of his son after his arrest and interrogation at police headquarters to the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture last Monday.

In a lengthy presentation to foreign experts who were on an official visit to Malta, Joseph Azzopardi went through all the details of his son’s case – from his custody at police headquarters to the damning declarations made on his death bed on 22 April, 13 days since he claimed he was beaten up by his interrogators.

Hmm, so someone saying that he was soundly beaten by the police is a "damning declaration"? And let's not forget that there is a claim that's much, much more serious -- that Azzopardi was thrown over a bastion wall which fall caused his death -- which claim is not on record on the video available from the paper's website.

The Nicholas Azzopardi case (IV)

As I said last time, MaltaToday's treatment of this case has ceased to be about the death of Azzopardi but about the hapless Adrian Lia and the police force in general. Not much change to report this week, it seems.

First, the paper commented on the fact that the Police Commission did not answer question on who guarded Azzopardi while he was recovering in hospital (there are two inquiries going on, remember). On a previous occasion I surmised that, considering that the paper had "unearthed" muck on Adrian Lia unrelated to the Azzopardi, now they're busy looking for something on Constable Reuben Zammit, the other investigator in the case. If that's the case it seems they have found nothing about Zammit so now they want a few more names in the hope that they can dig some more stuff which, irrelevant as it may be to the Azzopardi's case, comes in helpful in vilifying the police force.

Second, they're describing Albert Manchè's inquiry as "toothless" because it is not seeking to establish criminal liability but rather administrative shortcomings. Manchè's, it ought to be remember, is running in parallel with a judicial inquiry and seeing that in future there's less risk that a case like Azzopardi's, whether criminal or accidental, happens at the Police GHQ is an important thing to ensure.

Third, how could they not mention the case of Nardu Debono?

The Azzopardi case evokes uncanny similarities with the infamous murder of Nardu Debono in 1980 while under police custody, and even in that case, the officer indicated as the man who dumped the corpse in that horrific cover-up is still working as a policeman.

Police Sergeant 710 Joseph Mangion remains employed with the police – even against the Police Commissioner’s own recommendation for his removal in the public interest three years ago – “another stab in the wound” for the Debono family that can’t believe that the person dumping the corpse of its son and brother is still wearing uniform.

Notice the sophistry. Mangion dumps a corpse and is then promoted and Debono's family rightly feel indignant. Lia was given a delayed promotion after only 10 years and then interrogates Azzopardi in whose death nobody, so far, has said that he (Lia) had a role.

But then MaltaToday seems to have a very liberal (ugh, that word again) understanding of causality (not to mention complete ignorance on the meaning of the word "contradiction":

Yet another police contradiction that is of direct bearing on the Nicholas Azzopardi death case: The police yesterday issued a press release about the British national who got seriously injured on 5 May on board a yacht in the Marsamxett harbour. The man was reported to have died Friday night at Mater Dei – 12 days since he entered hospital.

In contrast, the police issued no followup press release when Nicholas Azzopardi died in hospital 13 days after his arrest and serious injuries while under police custody.

A reminder from last time: the question is not about Lia, Debono or the police force. It simply is: how could a conscious man with a large frame be dragged across a public courtyard early in the evening and pushed up and over a wall?

Leading Labour (IV)

My fav contender for the Labour Party's top post continues to impress with his ability to pander to the gallery. And he certainly knows which way to pander, dependenting on the gallery. For example, when that was a meeting of Labour delegates the election was stolen from Labour and, because xenophobia still works with Old Labour, he also added that the culprits were "outsiders".

Those "outsiders" gave the Government its "half-seat" majority (sic) and their number is, curiously, twice the number of what Varist's erstwhile Leader said it was in Parliament. Varist has a solution: he will let only taxpayers and those studying abroad, the latter category, by the way, including his daughter. He forgets to tell the meeting he needs a two-thirds majority to do that and, even if in Varistspeak that eleven and a half "chairs" away, it's still a long way to go.

But Varist is highly adaptable. If you're a God-fearing, Jesus-loving and church-going to you he's the tifel sewwa who gave lessons at Muzew; if, on the other hand, you manned the barricades in May '68, he's the chap who read Mao.

Speaking to MaltaToday, a paper with which he has already earned himself the title of "liberal" (whatever that means but which, in the paper's parlance, is equivalent to godliness), he shows he knows which buttons to push:

Labour leadership contender Evarist Bartolo has called for a radical transformation of Malta’s post-Independence Constitution into an instrument which re-invigorates democracy in this country and protects civil liberties.

Bartolo, who is known for his liberal viewpoints, told MaltaToday that Malta needs a new Constitution “which is relevant for Malta in the 21st century”, giving more powers to the President, who should be a figure on national unity.

“Instead of patching here and there I am suggesting that we have a wide consultative process about a new constitution, which means that we should build on what we have and which we agree is still good, change what we think should be changed and introduce new elements that we agree would be introduced,” he said.

I can imagine the MaltaToday journalist totally awe-struck. I mean, "liberal viewpoints", "21st century", "wide consultative process" (while, somehow, building "on what we have and which we agree is still good"). Let's all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". But, at least, the journalist asked the right question:

Asked whether he believed that the existing Constitution, which has been in force since 1964, had become dated or not and which were those areas where the existing Constitution needs to be revised in order to be up to scratch with the present-day realities, Bartolo said that the answer to these questions “should not come from me or from one individual or from the major parties.

“These relevant questions should be answered by political parties, business organizations, members from civil society... organizations and individuals... and then we try to find common ground and converge on common answers to such questions,” the Labour MP explained.

So, over to you civil society. You come up with the answer to a question you never bothered asking because it is totally irrelevant to your concerns.

Easy like Sunday morning

Sunday morning and an historical inaccuracy hits you in the face. Noel Grima reporting on a commemoration of Aldo Moro held recently:

Here was former president Guido de Marco telling an audience at the Auberge d’Aragon on Friday evening how he, together with two other former presidents – Ugo Mifsud Bonnici and Censu Tabone – with President Edward Fenech Adami and Speaker Louis Galea, had gone up to Rome with one specific mission: to tell Aldo Moro to stop helping Dom Mintoff in his demand for more money from the British for the British naval presence in Malta.

That must have been between 1977, when Eddie Fenech Adami was chosen as leader of the Nationalist Party, and 1978, when Moro was kidnapped and later killed.

Grima is right in proposing 1977-78 as a possible time frame when the high-level Nationalist delegation visited the Italian PM. But the last military and financial agreement with the Britain, had been signed long before that: in 1972. By 1977-78 Mintoff was knocking other doors.

Now watch out for the Labour-Union media spinning this as an "admission" on the part of the "former Deputy Leader of the Nationalist Party" and the "Nationalist-leaning English press".

The Nicholas Azzopardi case (III)

This blog still calls it "the Nicholas Azzopardi case"; over at MaltaToday they should start calling it "the Adrian Lia case".

For the uninitiated, here is a list of factoids, not necessarily related, or even relevant. Lia was one of two police officers interrogating Azzopardi. Way back in 1997 Lia fabricated a story that he has rescued a woman from drowning. The gold medal he had been award for the act was withdrawn when it was revealed that it was all a hoax.

In its reporting of the Azzopardi case the Times said that, according to police sources "[t]he officer, who was escorting Mr Azzopardi, was treated in hospital for scratches on his forearms and chest injuries "which the doctor confirmed were exactly compatible with somebody trying to hold onto someone hanging from a wall".

At which point, enter MaltaToday. The paper unearthed the 1997 Lia story, put the stories side-by-side and declared Lia a "PROVEN LIAR" (their caps not mine). Oh, almost forgot: they also warned us against attempting to vilify Azzopardi's relatives. There's more this week. First, the news that Lia was promoted "two months before Azzopardi death". Erm, is there some causal relations between the two?

It which case the headline might have read "two months after Christmas". Then, reading on, you realise that the thrust of the story is the paper's indignation that Lia was promoted in 2008 after his bogus claims of 1997, without noting that Lia was made to spend more than ten years as lowly police constable and that is discipline. MaltaToday may not consider that punishment commensurate with what Lia did in 1997 and that nothing short of dismissal would have been appropriate. Fair enough. But it's discipline nonetheless and to give the impression that Lia went scotfree is misleading.

The other "story" in the paper is that "sources" have told the paper's journalists that there seemed to be no police or medical record on the injuries sustained by the police officer trying to rescue Azzopardi as claimed by the Times' sources. The paper does mention, in passing, that

the police records show that both Sergeant Lia and Constable Zammit [also interrogating Azzopardi] were unable to speak and give any details to their own colleagues as they were evidently “under shock”.

But it decides not to follow that up. Why not?

There, I was getting carried away. This is about the case of a man who sustained injuries while under police custody which injuries later led to his injuries. It is not about the police officer who interrogated him. What should be investigated is not this officer's personal file but the question of: how could a conscious man with a large frame be dragged across a courtyard that's not exactly secluded early in the evening and pushed up and over a wall.

There's five years' time

Maltastar are complaining that the PM will not be honouring his pledge on tax cuts ... not in the next five-months, at least. Relax folks. It's a five-year mandate.

And Varist will hopefully go down the same way ...

Sant says it was 2,226. Evarist Bartolo has another figure (obviously higher):

His [Bartolo's] comment follows a recent remark he made on similar lines, that there were more Labourites than Nationalists in Malta because at the last election the PN received about 4,200 votes from Maltese who lived abroad and who left the island after the election.

Hmm, probably they had two votes each then. Kulma jonqos Jason to come up with some really original numbers of his own.

Thankfully, it is his swan song

One fine detail from Alfred Sant's speech which is worth recording:

The Opposition Leader revealed another factor which has affected [sic] the outcome of the 8 March polls. That is the Maltese citizens who live abroad and who were brought back to Malta to vote. He said that in the last years, government dismantled every verification system to check whether voters from abroad can lawfully vote.

Dr Sant tabled the data of some 2,226 persons who came from abroad to vote in the 8 March polls. Out of these, Dr Sant said, only a maximum of 23 per cent are Labour leaning.

Well, what do you know? At least they live somewhere; on another 8 March a referendum was, in Sant's book, determined by the "dead vote".

And these people did not lose the right to vote just because they lived abroad. Labour may have conveniently forgotten the Cassola case when plaintiff had a weaker case than would most people on that list. It's just a way Sant to say: "Hey, I still got my moles in AirMalta and the Electoral Commission". I just hope nobody calls them "whistleblowers" -- they did not reveal any hanky-panky, they leaked people's personal data.

Loved also the way Sant determined that a maximum 23% are "Labour leaning". That makes 511.98 ... not 500, ghad-dritt. It tells you a lot about Labour under Sant. They can hardly conceive of people who are not "Labour-leaning" ever voting Labour. Meaning that, unless the "Nationalist-leaning" are dying like flies and the "Labour-leaning" are breeding like rabbits, Labour is destined for a long, long time in Oppostion.

And if 77% of Maltese living abroad are not "Labour-leaning", so what? I'm sure that if you were to take a survey at the Centru Nazzjonali Laburista 100% would be "Labour-leaning" and nobody tabled their data in the House. And if those had a right to vote what about the tenants of l-Addolorata who despite having no such right still made their voice 100% heard against EU membership in 2003?

For us who thrive on whatever is online, the first papers that were laid for this legislature will soon be available. Wonder what Jacques will have to say on this one. But probably he's too busy making an issue why the DOI did not let journalists ask questions to the French PM. Probably to avoid Francois Fillon having to answer awkward questions about the press card issued to JPO.

Reply or swan song?

Sant's has replied to the "Speech from the Throne". But, of course, he had to do it with some dramatic effect:

Dr Sant tied all this to how this government is “living a lie” repeating the phrase three times to stress it.

(Thank you folks at MaltaStar; I never, ever crossed my mind that one could repeat something to create emphasis).

Here's more:

“Democracy is facing a new threat. A web of power has spread across the country, and this is made up of people who are not on the forefront of the political scene but have total control over public and private interests so that the big decisions in the country are taken to favour their personal goals and interests.

“It is a web of power was weaved by very powerful people in the business, political organisation, media and professionals, people who are well off … who live in a world much better than the ordinary citizens … a web of power which has been milking the state’s structures, where abuse of power and corruption are secondary to the higher need of power and the safeguarding of the people inside the web,” said Sant.

There you have more or less what Sant's been saying about in the last decade and a half. But from the looks of it the man is planning a return to literature.

The opening of the Eleventh Parliament

The Eleventh Parliament was opened yesterday. Not much noteworthy except for two comments of Alfred Sant:

In his first public appearance since he resigned as Labour leader following the 8 March general election, Opposition Leader Alfred Sant said he hoped the government and the Opposition would reach an agreement [on pairing] in the coming weeks.

Dr Sant also pointed out that the reason he had voted against the appointment of Anton Tabone to act as Speaker in 1998 was because he was not an MP.

On the first, the issue of pairing, it might dawn on the Opposition that they were too quick in throwing away the offer of a Labour MP as Speaker in order to pair. The real beneficiaries would have been the Opposition, gaining much leverage in the Parliamentary debate at a negligible fall in Parliamentary strength (33 out of 68 instead of 34 out of 69). The government, in turn, would have only got in place a system once described by former UK Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey as "organised truancy".

As to Sant's second point between 1964 and 2003 all Speakers were all (a) former candidates with the governing party and (b) from outside the House. But Labour consistently keeps reading history where it's a victim (as, for example, the end of the pairing agreement in 1997). It really needs some new perspectives.

Leading Labour (IV)

The Labour General Conference voted 4 to 1 to reject the motion which would have changed the method of election of its leadership from the current system of being elected by the General Conference to being elected by the Party membership.

With hindsight, it was hardly surprising. The greatest beneficiary of the amendment would have been George Abela and it is not unlikely that the other contenders found a common cause to fight. Then again, I get the impression that Abela has gone from strength-to-strength with the Conference (probably at the expense of Michael Falzon) and he is still a strong contender.

This is where the weakness of Labour's method of electing its leadership might come to the fore. Labour elects its leaders through a two-round system (where no candidate manages 50%+1 of votes in the first round the two candidates with most votes go into a second round). In an election where there are more than two strong contenders (as is in this case) there are a number of tactical options such as, for example, fighting for second place in the first round (or, rather, just edging out a weaker front runner). The result might risk deepening divisions (it did in 1992 with two strong and one weak candidates; the risks are now higher).

The Nationalists, in contrast, elect their leaders through an exhaustive ballot requiring no less than a two-thirds majority to elect someone to the post. Very often, ballot rounds are inconclusive and the first round serves more as a "testing of the waters" with candidates who find out that their support is weak quietly withdrawing from the race. Consensus and alliances are actually built along the way as the number of people in the race towards the difficult target of two-thirds dwindles slowly rather than in the abrupt way of two-round system. Labour may have ditched the idea of party membership vote, even for compelling, non-tactical reasons but that does not mean that there are not better methods to elect a party leadership.