That the Delimara power station extension has been mired in controversy is something all but the blindest of the blind will readily acknowledge. But in a pattern of events that has unfortunately come to dominate proceedings, the real issues at stake appear to have been overlooked, as the typically Maltese dynamic of party politics – with Nationalists defending the contract, and Labour crying corruption at the top of its voice – took over instead.
Apologists on either side of the political divide have gone into overdrive to spin the issue to suit their own party’s agenda. But the truth of the matter is that Maltese taxpayers – be they Red, Blue, Green or what have you – are entitled to a detailed explanation as to how their money is being spent, and above all to be informed about how government’s decisions will affect them on a wide variety of fronts: not least, health and the environment.
Whether or not there has been active corruption in the award of the Delimara power station extension to Danish firm BWSC, the fact remains that government’s justifications for its unusual choice have so far been unconvincing, to say the least.
In the final analysis, the entire controversy appears to hinge on the following points:
That government opted for heavy fuel oil, at a time when its own energy strategy proposes to convert to gas by 2015. This means that the new extension will have to be converted again, at considerable extra expense, in only five years’ time.
That correspondence between BWSC’s agent in Malta and the Danish firm’s marketing manager appears to indicate some form of contact between BWSC officials and unnamed government officials – or to quote the email, “sources further up the political hierarchy”.
That the successful bidder turns out to have been embroiled in numerous corruption scandals in other countries: one of which – the Philippines – even resulted in a conviction;
That the Maltese middleman involved – a former employee of Enemalta – appears to have been more interested in securing his own retainer fee (rumoured to be around €4 million or “substantially” less) than in securing the best deal for the country.
And finally, that unlike the combined cycle gas technology proposed by other bidders – in conformity with the original tender specifications, one might add – the chosen heavy fuel oil plant is expected to produce some 30 tonnes of toxic waste a day, which in turn will have to be stockpiled until it can be exported (it cannot be landfilled in Malta)... resulting in a further, unforeseen extension of the same power station’s footprint.
In view of all these anomalies – some of which have serious health and safety implications – the Maltese public would be justified in asking for reassurances from its elected representatives, that the tendering process was indeed above board, and that the chosen technology was the best among the available options.
Unfortunately, the present government cannot claim to have offered any such reassurance. On the contrary, its behaviour has been typically bullish and dismissive of any criticism. And to add insult to injury, it remains a fact that not a single one of the above details would have emerged in the first place, had it not been for the complaints of rival bidder, Bateman.
In fact, what emerges most clearly from the entire affair – apart from the lingering hint of political interference inherent in that email, which has tainted the entire process and which deserves to be fully investigated by the police – is the shocking lack of transparency at all levels.
Considering that the present administration is supposedly committed to greater accountability – although its promises to this effect, namely a Whistleblowers’ Act and a law on party financing, appear to have been forgotten – it is to say the least suspicious that so many details should have come to light, as it were, by accident.
It is also disappointing that the media as a whole has once again succumbed to the scourge of party politics – asking only those questions which further the interests one side or the other, instead of going directly to the heart of the matter and establishing exactly how and why the successful bidder was chosen, in spite of the many disadvantages of its bid.
Naturally, we will leave to our readers to decide whether this is indeed a salutary way of doing politics (or even business, for that matter).
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
