The PN’s attitude to the Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando case is beginning to resemble John Cleese’s memorable line the classic Fawlty Towers episode: “Don’t mention the War.”
Statements like “I will not let the media exert pressure on me” and “at this point I cannot be cornered,” reveal the newly elected PN secretary general’s deep unease on an issue which is clearly embarrassing his party.
Paul Borg Olivier would not even reply when asked whether Pullicino Orlando has become a liability to his party, after his name was repeatedly mentioned in court during procedures initiated against three public officials on charges linked to the approval of the Mistra disco.
“I insist and believe that the politician should be responsible for his actions,” Borg Olivier opines. Philosophically, he goes on to ask himself: “How can we measure personal responsibility for ones own actions?” adding that “It’s not just a matter of your actions but also a measure of what other people think of your actions.”
But when pressed to take a stand on whether Pullicino Orlando behaviour was acceptable, he repeatedly said that: “the process in question is not concluded. Therefore one can only make a judgement when the process is concluded.”
But it remains unclear whether the process he is referring to a political process taking place in the Nationalist Party, or the legal process taking place in the law courts.
Paul Borg Olivier acknowledges that the yardstick to assess political responsibility is different from that used to assess criminal responsibility.
“The legal process is completely distinct from politics. We are here talking of political responsibility… When it comes to criminal procedures one can prosecute someone; the measure of political responsibility is something which is both subjective and objective.”
But he insists that the two processes are linked together arguing that a political judgment could also affect pending criminal procedures.
“The investigation was the first part of the process. A new process was initiated when the Attorney General arraigned three individuals in court. This is not the end.”
Borg Olivier compares Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s case to someone facing libel procedures.
“This is the same as a libel case. If I say something harsh about someone to the extent that I destroy him, I also have to shoulder political responsibility. But this does not mean that the process is not tied to criminal procedures. They are different, but interlinked.”
But will the party refrain from pronouncing itself on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando until all legal procedures related to this case are concluded?
“I have only been in this position for three days. I have to take stock of the situation. I am not stepping into the shoes of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, and I have stepped into Joe Saliba’s shoes three days ago. I have to take stock. In the process of taking a stock, one has to follow developments. There is a process.”
Borg Olivier’s predecessor said that if he was in Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s position he would have resigned. Would Paul Borg Olivier have resigned if he was in Pullicino Orlando’s position?
“I cannot step myself into Pullicino Orlando’s shoes. What I am saying is that everyone should be responsible for his actions.”
But is this not a subtle way of putting pressure on JPO without taking a definitive stand on the matter? “No, this is not the case.”
Has the new secretary general raised the issue with Pullicino Orlando directly?
“I have been in this position for just three days. I will talk to all MPs in due course.”
But is he satisfied with the way Pullicino Orlando is behaving? “I cannot say whether I am satisfied or not. At this point I cannot be cornered. I need the time to see the process going on. Judgements should be made when the process is terminated.”
But when will the party be pronouncing itself on this case?
“The party has already initiated a process even before the election. The process will continue and is far from over. But I will not let the media exert pressure on me to make this process. Even the Prime Minister has taken a stance. There is a process which should be terminated. I do not want to determine the process…”
But is Pullicino Orlando hinting at a political process which is taking place independently of the judicial process?
“A number of political decisions have been taken. One of which was not to appoint him minister.”
Clearly Borg Olivier would not say anything more on this case and reveals little on how his party is tackling this major embarrassment for the government.
While his replies on Pullicino Orlando are reminiscent of the Byzantine antics of Christian democratic politics, his stance on social issues represent a sharp novelty.
With MLP leader Joseph Muscat pronouncing himself in favour of a divorce law, the PN should not react by presenting itself to the electorate as the NO camp in a referendum similar to that held before Malta joined the EU.
“It would be a big mistake if the divorce issue is turned into a political football as a question pitting ‘us against them’ or ‘the yes and the no’ camps.”
He repeatedly insists that the PN cherishes family values but he would in no way assume the role of an arch conservative resisting change.
“The President himself in the speech from the throne referred to the need of legislation to protect new forms of families. Let’s not forget that Malta already recognises divorce registered in other countries and that many families are being created after marriages are annulled. The parameters for granting a state annulment have changed, and marriages are annulled because of incompatibility.”
Once again Borg Olivier would not pronounce himself directly insisting that whatever the outcome of the discussion on divorce “the family remains the building block of society.”
The new secretary general has promised that during his term in office the PN will be more critical of government.
When asked what he would criticise of the government’s first 100 days, Borg Olivier shows that he is in tune with popular angst on the length of waiting lists for operations insisting that his party should always be “on the patient’s side.”
“When we say that the service should be improved, we are not saying that the service is bad. The demand has increased and so has the number of operations. From last year the number of people requiring an operation has increased by 500 people. Therefore one can be critical because there is a problem with waiting lists. This is constructive criticism.”
He insists that the PN “should remain humble despite its recent victories, while remaining energetic and dynamic in its vision and its implementation.”
He also sees a role for his party as a watchdog to ensure that the 353 electoral proposals are implemented.
“We have to implement them and continue to produce new ideas and visions. Our greatest challenge is to turn this building into a political beacon for new ideas”
One of the main promises made by the PN was that of slashing income tax for middle income earners. But even before the election, there were clear indications of an unfavourable international scenario due to rising oil prices. How can the PN keep its promises now?
“I think that my obligation as secretary general is to ensure that all promises made are honoured. Obviously, we have five whole years to implement them.”
For Borg Olivier, the problem of rising energy costs is principally an environmental issue. “This is a question of environment and quality of life put together. We have to see how alternative sources of energy are used.”
Yet after 20 years of Nationalist government, Malta is the country which uses the least amount of renewable energy in Europe.
“But we should see from where we started. You cannot compare us to northern Europe. We have taken giant steps on the environment. It was the PN which made the environment an issue. It was the PN which closed Maghtab and started treating sewage.”
He also sees the current energy crisis as an opportunity to inculcate a more environmentally friendly mentality. “While ensuring that our quality of life does not deteriorate, we have to make our savings.”
He cites the new PN’s headquarters as an example of sustainability.
“In this office I rarely switch on the light because the glass façade of the PN’s new headquarters ensures that there is sufficient light during the day. I am also raising the air conditioner’s temperature by one or two degrees. The more energy we save, the more money there is for education and health. The more we save on energy the less we spend, and the more we can invest in other matters.”
Paul Borg Olivier would also like the PN media to concentrate more on projecting the “credible” policies of the PN, rather than attacking political adversaries.
But he sees no need to appointing a commission to set up a code of ethics for the PN’s media.
“The Labour Party is making a mistake by creating a division among journalists. Journalistic ethics apply to people of all political beliefs. What Muscat is saying is that the MLP media should respect the other party, but this does not require an internal code of ethics. One should simply abide by the code of ethics regulating all journalists while adopting it to your medium”
But isn’t NET a partisan political tool?
“There is nothing wrong with political journalism. What I expect from our media is to be more credible, because the substance of our policies is credible. Our party is addressing major issues like the dockyard and rent reform with credible policies. Where is the MLP’s political substance on these two issues?”
Upon being elected leader, Joseph Muscat expressed his willingness to work hand in hand with the government to find solutions for the dockyard and ST Microelectronics. The PN decided to ignore this by announcing the privatisation of the dockyard without even consulting the MLP or the union. Is this the way of implementing the “Together, everything is possible” slogan?
He denies that the government has not consulted the union or the MLP in the past, insisting that the Opposition had access to papers tabled in parliament showing the dire financial situation of the dockyard and that submissions had been presented to the union.
“If Muscat was unable to come forward with concrete proposals he cannot now keep us from moving forward. Is Muscat’s proposal aimed to avoid taking a position or to prolong the process? At this stage the government has to lead and take a decision. If I invite you for dinner and you do not turn up, you cannot criticize me for dining alone.”
But when Muscat inaugurated the new political season by expressing his willingness to join a national front to address the dockyard issues, he had only just been appointed leader. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt by responding to his good will gesture?
“Muscat became leader at a time when the process was in full swing. Just because Muscat became leader, it does not mean that the whole country has to stop to wait for him to build himself as a leader.”
The PN is criticizing Muscat for not taking a stand. Doesn’t the PN welcome the fact that Muscat is not being dogmatic and is taking a flexible approach on this issue?
“By neither saying yes or no, means that he is simply adjusting to circumstance. It also shows that the MLP still lacks substance. We all know where this policy leads. I ask again: What is the MLP’s position on the dockyard?”
But there was no reference to the privatization of the dockyard in the PN’s manifesto and no reference to it in a letter sent to dockyard workers.
“But wasn’t it evident that restructuring was leading to privatisation?” asks Borg Olivier.
He also insists that the privatiaation of the dockyard is an opportunity rather then a misfortune for the country.
“All privatisation processes like Valletta Gateway Terminal , Sea Malta, Tug Malta and Maltacom have yielded positive results... So what is best for the country: to continue dishing millions to an enterprise which is not giving results, or to save the dockyard by privatising and using the funds dedicated to subsidies to more beneficial things for the country? The country is not selling its silverware but is creating opportunities for growth”
One of the first decisions taken by the PN secretary general was that of expressing his willingness to renounce the security of tenure of PN owned clubs.
He also takes this as an opportunity to lash out against the MLP, by pointing out that none of the PN’s club was abusively requisitioned from private owners.
“Owners are still afraid that a future government might abuse of the requisition system. That is why the 1995 amendments to the rent laws did not have a full impact. Does the MLP have the political substance to return those properties used as party clubs, which were taken from owners abusively, and is it ready to commit itself in favour of an entrenchment in the Constitution which forbids governments from requisitioning properties?”
Borg Oliver was elected by 60 persons. The MLP secretary general will be elected by 900. Is the MLP more democratic?
“Don’t forget that I was first elected to the party’s executive by the party’s council, which has 1,000 voters. Our process is a two tier one. I have the confidence not just of those who voted for me for a post on the executive, but also of the 1,000 persons who form part of the general council which elected me to the executive. I had to face a double test.”
Simon Busuttil was the Prime Minister’s first choice. Busuttil himself revealed that the Prime Minister had tried to convince him to accept to contest for the post of secretary general. Does this not make Borg Olivier a second choice?
“In our party we do not rate anybody on podium as if we were in a Formula 1 race. It is obvious that people like Simon Busuttil, who played a pivotal role in the electoral campaign, are approached to consider taking a post. “
But he strongly denies that the party machine worked against his election.
“I can assure you that it is not true that there was any plan of the Prime Minister which was foiled. The person to whom I was mostly accessible during the campaign for secretary general was the Prime Minister, whom I met at least four times. It was always clear that I enjoyed the full trust of the Prime Minister.”
He insists that he simply won a free and fair contest.
“I left no stone unturned and met with all executive members who had a vote and others who didn’t. But the person I met most during the campaign was the Prime Minister. At no point did I feel that there was anyone working against me. There was just a free vote.”