Although it must have been a hit for over seven years now, Sudoku might still prove to be puzzling for some to tackle and frustrating for others
But when it comes to trying to pick one’s way right through the PR blitz that the PN is conducting on a 24x7 basis, almost as if we were in the final lap of an election campaign, one will soon realise that one does not even need to know the basics of Sudoku to unscramble their game plans.
Last Sunday’s media were dominated by a special kind of chorus line.
A triangular outburst by the three reported main contenders for the post-Gonzi era – Mario de Marco, Simon Busuttil and Tonio Fenech.
Almost in unison their lament seemed to have one common thread.
That the PN was bleeding. That the PN was divided. And that the PN was in no shape to face the electorate.
Whether this has all the makings of a John Major move by other dark forces within the PN to pave the way for the ousting of GonziPN is purely speculative. I will not buy it. I am far more inclined to think that when the chickens will come home to roost they can then adopt an ‘I-told-you-so’ approach, when he rams the PN into a big thick wall.
What really struck many observers as odd was the way Dr de Marco suddenly chose to glorify RCC, to my mind hinting – rightly or wrongly – that he just seemed to want to make sure that he will face no real obstacles when the real race begins.
Meanwhile, GonziPN itself will continue to do its best to hype up any issue or project to the hilt; bend over backwards to raise expectations even if they might be talking of untried and untested prototypes, while their anti-PL demonisation campaign has long moved into overdrive.
They were not content with having glorified and sanctified RCC to the hilt after circumstances had compelled him to move out of the shadows and start adopting a far more public profile as he had done the moment a parliamentary motion of censure had been tabled – when he found himself landed in the unusual role of a keynote speaker at a hurriedly put together AZAD seminar. We have now got to the stage where the PN – Dr Gonzi included – are intimating that if we run into trouble over Objective One funding this could be attributable to the fact that RCC will no longer be in the Permanent Representative’s hot seat as from 11 July.
It is worth recalling that the writing on the wall regarding the would-be prospects of our Objective One funding has long been evident since at least October of last year.
So much so that when EU Commissioner Johannes Hahn had addressed a joint press conference with Dr Gonzi at Castille, he had declared in front of a passive and stony-faced Prime Minister, that the fact that Malta most likely will receive less funds in the forthcoming EU budget should be interpreted as a sign of ‘success’ for the country.
He had also argued that the objective of the policy was to help poorer regions and Malta was no longer a poor region.
Although one cannot exclude that Malta might benefit – as I hope that it will – from a status for regions in transition which could still mean a lower level of funding than our country has enjoyed until now, it is also worth recalling that at the same time PN MEP Dr Simon Busuttil had been reported to have noted that EU membership was not just about EU funds so much so that a specific quote was attributed to him. In the sense that in his own words, there are other, even greater benefits of membership that should be taken into account. He had even listed a number of these benefits to sweeten the pill.
I am mentioning all this because on at least two occasions the Prime Minister and the government-friendly media had intimated that without RCC we could risk losing some half a million euros of funds while until the Air Malta restructuring was recently wrapped up, this could have easily gone up in smoke too.
The pro-government media has been so accommodating and has continued to bend over backwards – almost in ostensible sync – with the alleged diktats of Castille, that an excellent article by Prof Kevin Aquilina that appeared in The Times on 29 June was almost literally buried in the sand, even though it was at one stage quoted by Dr Muscat during a public event at Mellieħa on the same day – Mnarja Day.
While Prof Aquilina, as is typical of him, steered clear of any political prejudices or biases, he made an important point that burst the bubble of many an editorial that has graced certain newspapers’ columns.
Mainly that from the research he made it results that Mr Cachia Caruana was a permanent representative appointed from outside the public service, that his appointment was political in nature, and that he was also a permanent Cabinet participant. Towards the end of his article, the learned professor equated this instance with that of a political appointee who resigns from office in the same way that a minister or parliamentary secretary so resigns following a vote of no confidence.
The accompanying piece by a former trade unionist turned politician that the PL had resorted to a judge and jury approach and that turning Parliament into a courtroom should not be accepted nor allowed, stood out in sharper contrast particularly when he went on to jump on the PN bandwagon by reaching a gratuitous scaremongering conclusion. Mainly that this motion had set a serious precedent. In the sense that future governments may well use this procedure to force senior officials to resign from their posts – if they can command a parliamentary majority.
Like all other government apologists we were reminded or enlightened that the columnist in question, in his own words, does not eat cake with Mr Cachia Caruana.
With all this in mind one can easily understand why the PN seemed to be deliberately avoiding a potential political time bomb whenever I brought up the issue of the outgoing Permanent Representative’s financial package in its entirety including any related expenses somehow linked to his post and various roles.
As Joseph Muscat commented in a tongue-in-cheek manner in Mellieħa last Friday it has been easier to discover the €500 a week increase ministers had given themselves than what Mr Cachia Caruana’s financial package was.
This deliberate lack of transparency makes it even more understandable why my query was dismissed in two different manners by the powers that be when I had originally popped the question; namely that it was irrelevant to the whole issue and also that it was part of an act of vindictiveness and character assassination.
Unfortunately, this government is proving to be elusive even when other similar requests regarding financial packages of government staffers and consultants are concerned.
For months I have been chasing the Minister of Finance to find out how much his former personal assistant or head of secretariat was being paid, particularly since it was common knowledge that he had moved to more financially rewarding pastures within the same ministry and the same minister’s orbit.
Rather than being pinned down to the pre-determined salary and allowances that any head of secretariat is normally entitled to, since he moved on, he became virtually overnight a ministry consultant with some €38,556 per annum which according to a side note included, apart from allowances, what was termed as a resettlement bonus of €28,917; an €28,556 per annum Chairmanship of MGI as well as a Director’s fee of €2,796 at MIMCOL and a Director’s fee of €3,394 at Air Malta plc.
At this stage, I am not questioning the quantum but rather two different aspects: The delay in providing Parliament, once again, with a detailed reply, as well as what truly motivated his move to such directorships. Arguably, that he could have otherwise found himself excluded from any additional financial remuneration had he remained in his post of head of secretariat.
This government’s reluctance and foot dragging in owning up and going for full transparency on such matters does not bode well.
[email protected]
www.leobrincat.com
Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change