         |
Parliament of fouls As echoes from last Thursday’s unsightly shouting match recede into the distance, the picture that begins to emerge is one of a largely dysfunctional Parliament, incapable of debating issues of national importance with the gravitas such matters deserve.The entire debate on the Delimara extension contract had been undermined from the very outset: not least, by Government’s audacious decision to forge ahead and sign the contract, at a time when the same contract was under investigation by the Auditor General. To add insult to injury, the Nationalist Party now criticises the Labour Opposition for ‘disrespecting national institutions’... when it was after all the Nationalist government which had earlier brushed aside the entire existence of another parliamentary body – the Public Accounts Committee – in its apparent haste to seal the €200 million agreement with BWSC. Elsewhere, government’s dismissive reaction to the Auditor General’s damning report was strongly reminiscent of the ham-fisted tactics used by Labour governments in the 1970s and 1980s. Ironically, it had to be former Speaker Louis Galea to publicly defend the Auditor General from disgraceful attacks on his reputation by both these ministers. In the end, government was literally strong-armed into asking BWSC’s permission to publish the contract – and even when this permission was grudgingly conceded, only a selection of carefully pruned excerpts were actually tabled in the House. Inevitably, the overwhelming impression is that there is a lot to this contract that the government (and BWSC) would much rather remain hidden from view. Coming from an administration that has delayed the enactment of a Whistleblower’s Act – and in a country very recently downgraded by Transparency International – this certainly does not bode well for the future. To compound matters further, the Prime Minister’s personal entry to the fray did little to allay suspicions that something is seriously amiss. Much has already been made of the curious revelation that Lawrence Gonzi himself had not read the contract before it was signed, or at any point until the debate got under way. Admittedly, this may not be as damnable as the Opposition has tried to make out – after all, a Prime Minister is entitled to delegate such matters to a trusted senior minister – but it does remain anomalous that Dr Gonzi would to this day continue to defend a contract he still hasn’t read, and which the Auditor General has revealed beyond any doubt to contain serious procedural shortcomings. Not only that, but like his underlings Gonzi has proved remarkably dismissive of the Auditor General’s work: choosing to focus only on the tired old mantra that ‘no hard evidence of corruption’ was found, while casually glossing over the numerous, serious irregularities exposed by the report. But while government’s behaviour betrays a shocking degree of arrogance and aloofness, it must also be said that the Opposition risks creating the negative public perception that it has mishandled a unique opportunity to present itself as a credible alternative government. On one level, Muscat displayed considerable naivety by seriously expecting (for so it now seems) a number of disgruntled backbenchers to actually cripple their own government – thus automatically ending their own political careers – by voting against the power station extension. On another, he appeared irascible in his reaction to losing Thursday’s vote, thus arguably undermining his own credentials as a ‘progressive moderate’. Much of this reaction can be attributed to frustration at the sheer intransigence displayed by the Nationalist side of the House. For though the backbencher revolt failed to materialise, in a sense it almost came about by accident, when former party whip commit a ‘lapsus’, and unwittingly voted in favour of the Opposition’s motion. The general public will probably reason that Muscat cannot seriously expect such an obviously unintentional mistake to actually stand. But Labour nonetheless claims a precedent in the notorious Frans Agius ‘lapsus’ of 1998, which former PN leader Eddie Fenech Adami had accepted at the time. By the same token, Mario Galea’s identical vote should also have been respected by Speaker Michael Frendo... and this in turn might explain Tonio Borg’s apparently unfounded claim that Labour MP Justyne Caruana had committed the same mistake, thereby compelling the Speaker to resort to the audio recordings. Political observers will also note that Muscat may have been left with little room for manoeuvre, when it transpired that these recording were inaudible, leaving the Speaker with no option but to ask for a revote. Faced with this intransigence, Muscat’s subsequent strategy was to withdraw Carmelo Abela as deputy speaker, and to pull out of the parliamentary committee for democratic change – thereby opening the Labour Party to the charge of over-reacting. Whether or not this criticism is justified, one thing is clear. The next three years will be characterised by a constant (and frankly tiring) challenge to the government’s fragile one-seat majority. Any comments? |
 |
We asked.... Do you know what Vision 2015 is? 89% said ‘no’ Labour leads, but Gonzi makes slight recovery Survey confirms unpopularity of commuting Who’s the most trusted nanny in Gonzi’s cabinet? Consumers fishing around for better deals Robert Arrigo ‘most wanted’ for minister Cabinet thrives, but Fenech and Gatt hit rock bottom Bleak times – depression at the Grand Harbour Budget 2010 – Raise taxes or cut benefits? Only 35% will be taking a holiday this summer Corned beef? a matter of class Labour poised for absolute majority |
Copyright © MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016, Malta, Europe
Managing editor Saviour Balzan | Tel. ++356 21382741 | Fax: ++356 21385075 | Email
Managing editor Saviour Balzan | Tel. ++356 21382741 | Fax: ++356 21385075 | Email