Sitting in parliament on Tuesday I could feel the moment demanded gravitas. I would say all went well. Almost.

This was, after all, a historic event. The House was being addressed by the President of the European Parliament and the President of the European Council. I sincerely hoped all would go well because I am very proud of my country and I wouldn’t want anybody to think we are not up to it, whatever “it” may be.

First we had the Speaker’s speech followed by those of President Martin Schulz and President Donald Tusk. As expected, there was reference to our history and our geographical position. There was also reference to our culinary and linguistic influences. There was a tone of respect and a feeling of pride… until our Prime Minister decided to do things his way.

Joseph Muscat had no intention of expressing his position on migration. Instead, he picked up where he left off in his budget speech. He went on and on about the economy, unemployment, childcare centres, etc.

The men and women around him had a look on their faces which read: “What on earth is he on about?”

However, they’ve been housebroken enough to know that, when confused, they should smile at the cameras and look at the boss.

At one point even the guests felt the need to pass remarks between themselves.

Muscat felt the need to address the guests by their first name to show us that he knows them well. While in other situations such a familiar tone is appropriate, the event in Parliament was formal. It did not call for this familiarity. It was immature and almost childish.

The man with a blatant lust for power revealed an underlying insecurity. Muscat still feels the need to prove to us that he is at ease with being in the EU. Perhaps this is why he insisted so much on overusing the adjectives and adverbs derived from anything European.

Still, what I felt to be inappropriate was the tone. It would have been inappropriate even if it had been Angela Merkel speaking, let alone Muscat boasting how good we are (actually it was more about him than all of us) and how the rest of Europe could learn a lesson or two.

Muscat was, in effect, ignoring the two men he was pretending to address. He was addressing the national audience, wanting us to think he is bestriding Europe. It was an arrogant speech. Worse, it was totally irrelevant to the occasion.

Perhaps Muscat wanted to save the juicy message of his speech on immigration for the discussion table. Maybe his mind was elsewhere, taken up with organisational problems with the summit. With last-minute cancellations of the logistics for gala dinners for CHOGM (the orders apparently came from foreign minister George Vella) and security issues related to close-combat assault rifles which have not yet been delivered to Malta. It could be that Muscat thought it best to remind people of some budgetary measures.

In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition expressed himself politely yet firmly. Without once addressing the guests by their first names (even though he obviously knows both of them very well), he kept his dignity while making a very strong point about the way he worked hard to make people listen in the European Parliament, at a time when migration issues were not as bad as they are today.

Simon Busuttil showed how to be assertive without being arrogant in demanding Europe’s attention to finding collective solutions. That is gravitas.

 

Health privatisation’s shadows

I have heard that the situation related to the privatisation of a good chunk of our health system is not a collective decision of the Cabinet.

Rumour has it that Konrad Mizzi’s most trusted consultant, a very secretive man called Alan Comerford, introduced the Minister to Shiv Nair, the blacklisted advisor with a very shady background. In turn, Nair and Comerford, after helping out to sell the BWSC power station to the Chinese, are now scheming to sell our health system, through another friend with a questionable background, Ram Tumuluri.

Of course, the information I have might be wrong. There is one way for Konrad Mizzi to prove that this is a clean deal.

Minister, for the sake of honest transparency, publish the signed deal with Vitalis Global Bluestone Malta. Prove to us that these people really have the €200 million you promised.

 

Right of Reply by Shiv Shankaran Nair

Dear Sir,

 

I am writing to request you to publish this letter as my right of reply to an article penned by Claudette Buttigieg MP on the 13th of November 2015 in your paper. Regrettably and shamefully, Mrs Buttigieg completely ignored two emails which I sent to her on the 18th of Nov and the 8th of December, requesting her to retract false and libelous statements made in her article. This is the reason why I now write to you.

In her article Mrs Buttigieg claims that I am in some way connected with a Alan Comerford, apparently an advisor to Minister Konrad Mizzi, and I believe, that possibly being the only “indian” businessman she knows, I must be connected with Ram Tumuluri, (apparently another Indian) whose company was awarded the hospitals privatization contract. How she arrived at this conclusion is perhaps best left to her convoluted thinking but in her rush to throw mud in the hope that some will stick, she tripped up on some fundamentals. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

To set the record straight, I have never met or had any business dealings with either Alan Comerford or Ram Tumuluri. I do not know either of them.

To add insult to injury and perhaps momentarily forgetting that she is writing a current affairs opinion in a respectable broadsheet, Mrs Buttigieg goes on to make another irresponsibly false claim in my regard  - that I may have been involved in the sale of a share in Enemalta to the Chinese.

I categorically refute this allegation and declare that I was not involved in any way, shape or form in this transaction or in any negotiations leading to it. 

I would have thought that a Member of Parliament would at least bother checking her facts before putting pen to paper, and more importantly, having been informed that she had got her facts wrong, would have had the decency to retract her false statements immediately.

The political party Mrs Buttigieg belongs to and represents, laudably trumpets the need for high standards of ethics and good governance in the running of the country. Respect for the truth and for every person’s right not to be unfairly tarnished in public are surely both values by which proper ethical behavior from Malta’s political class can be measured. Through her libelous claims in my regard and her failure to retract them when requested, Mrs Buttigieg has unfortunately shown that she only pays lip service to the high political standards demanded by her own party and her leader.