The Labour Party made such a big deal about the honoraria issue during the previous legislature. It is safe to say that, together with the divorce referendum and the length of time the PN had been in power, it played a major part in the outcome of the election, which saw the Nationalist Party succumb to the heaviest defeat since Independence. The eventual giving back of the €500 weekly rise ministers had given themselves did little to reverse public opinion in the PN’s favour.
The Labour Party pledged not to give its own ministers and parliamentary secretaries a pay rise, and so far it has kept its promise. It also pledged not to add the parliamentary honoraria onto the basic salaries that Cabinet members receive, and so far it has kept its promise here as well.
But it has done another thing.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has allowed one of the junior ministers, Dr Franco Mercieca, to continue practising ophthalmology. This goes against the ministerial Code of Ethics, which the Labour Party has promised to revise in due course to suit present day needs. Until it does, I will stick to the current issue, the one that has placed Dr Mercieca in a privileged position when compared to his own colleagues.
Dr Muscat has justified his move by saying that Dr Mercieca’s services are indispensable to the Ophthalmic Department at Mater Dei Hospital, drawing the ire of its head, Dr Thomas Fenech, who said that other ophthalmic surgeons carry out the same kind of procedures as Dr Mercieca. Dr Mercieca went on a self-praise exercise by saying that his expertise gives him the edge over his colleagues – which is not a nice thing to say about people who covered for him during the election campaign, and with whom he works every day.
Dr Mercieca had told another newspaper, soon after being elected, that he was sacrificing his medical career for one in politics. But after the euphoria of becoming an MP had receded, he had a change of heart and requested that he be allowed to continue to practise his profession – a request that the Prime Minister accepted.
There are several issues here.
If Dr Mercieca wanted to pursue his career in the ophthalmic field, he should have stayed out of politics. He knew the rules before he became a candidate. He knew that anyone who is given a Cabinet post must temporarily give up his or her profession. Censu Tabone did it way back in 1966, at a time when ophthalmologists were fewer in number and in greater demand. Dr Tabone had pleaded with then Prime Minister George Borg Olivier to be allowed to work for nothing just on Sundays in Gozo – where he was the only ophthalmologist who practised – but the answer was a definite no.
Dr Mercieca had another option. After being elected, he could have refused the appointment Dr Muscat offered him. But he was either too greedy or so dedicated to his profession that he accepted this new position without wanting to renounce his profession. The sad thing is that Dr Muscat accepted this proposition.
Frankly, there were other people who could have been offered the job of Parliamentary Secretary for the Rights of Persons with Disability and Active Ageing, the post Dr Mercieca holds. Dr Muscat was spoilt for choice in this particular sector, and yet he chose the person he knew – with the condition that he continues to practise medicine – would have caused him political trouble.
Dr Muscat should have put his foot down when Dr Mercieca asked to continue practising ophthalmology, and said no, as did Dr Borg Olivier.
There is another matter, and this concerns the other Cabinet members who have had to give up their profession upon appointment. Other ministers and parliamentary secretaries would have wanted the possibility of retaining their profession, even for the love of it. We had a typical example this past week when Health Minister Godfrey Farrugia broke down in tears because he was asked about his profession as a doctor.
Dr Muscat discriminated in favour of one Cabinet member. He acted like a father who gave a bag of sweets to one child and neglected his other sons and daughters.
* * *
President George Abela may have opened a can of worms with his suggestion that there should be a referendum on the constitutional reform that is being projected to be carried out during the present legislature.
Although the reform is still in its infancy – and as such we are quite a long way from an eventual discussion in Parliament, as well as the possibility of a referendum as has been suggested – in the long term, the idea of calling upon the people to decide will have political connotations.
The Opposition is not expected to offer much support for a reform that will be spearheaded by the man who brought the Nationalist government down last December. But the Opposition’s backing is needed for the Constitutional reform to go through Parliament, as any changes require the approval of at least two-thirds of the House.
On the other hand, it is to be expected that the public will support any kind of constitutional reform proposed by the Labour government. Given the result of the last election, it is hard to imagine otherwise, although I wonder how many Toms, Dicks and Harrys will know what they are voting for.
The holding of a referendum on the issue could therefore be seen a way of bypassing the Opposition, or putting pressure on Nationalist Members of Parliament to vote according to the people’s wishes. It happened with the divorce issue, when there were several Nationalist MPs who voted ‘yes’ in Parliament only because the majority of people had done so in the referendum.
In these circumstances, while I understand Dr Abela’s encouragement for the debate on constitutional reform to continue, I think that he should have refrained from making such a bold statement.
[email protected]