David Cameron made internal news about the way he used Shakespeare’s comedies to make pun of his rival, Jeremy Corbyn. It should be pointed out that Cameron was extremely witty in his selection of Shakespeare’s plays. Normally, the political plays of Shakespeare’s are the tragedies. There was no reference for example in Cameron’s speech to Macbeth, Hamlet or Richard III. Referring to one of these tragedies would have killed the subtle satire that Cameron wanted to convey onto his political rival.

For sure, in our case, one cannot say Much Ado About Nothing when analyzing the way the political situation continued to evolve during these past weeks. It all started with two young ministers, Carmelo Abela and Ian Borg. Then the focus turned on Konrad Mizzi and Muscat’s chief of Staff, Keith Schembri. Abela has been spared from accusations of corruption and misbehaviour but the same cannot be said for Borg and Mizzi.

Abela defined the horrible structure built at Haywharf under the watch of his predecessor, as aesthetically beautiful. This leaves me dumfounded. If he wanted to be honest with the general public, he should have stated the truth about this project. I am sure that he would have gained more sympathy stating his feelings than trying to play the political animal. Linking utility with beauty has failed abysmally in this case. To this day, I don’t think that the name of the architect of this horrible structure has been made public. If it were a nice and successful building, the name of the architect would have been splashed on the front pages of all newspapers. It is a case of Love’s Labour’s lost.

Much more serious were the number of deaths that took place at the Depot, prison and Mount Carmel. This time, the Minister ordered a magisterial inquiry. I don’t have much faith in magisterial inquiries. It is unacceptable that citizens die while in police custody. We are dealing with human beings. No comedy of errors can ever justify these deaths. Something, somewhere, is definitely not functioning well. For sure the way the police commissioner reacted to these cases, shrugging them under the carpet, is an issue of great concern. These stories are turning out to be Malta’s winter’s tales.

Then, there is the case of Ian Borg. The story has been too long in the news and concerns his permit over works on his residence situated in ODZ. I think that the Opposition was too quick to ask for his resignation after the Ombudsman’s report. The report hinted on false information about the ownership of his residence to MEPA. The application was in his father’s name. While I agree that politicians should give correct information, MEPA never assessed applications on the bases of legal ownership of property in question but only from a planning point of view. In theory, any citizen can apply to demolish Castile to replace it with a block of flats. MEPA should not look whether the person applying is the owner of Castile or not but whether the application makes sense from a planning point of view. At least, this was the argument that used to be brought by MEPA in assessing applications. Here lies the real problem of this whole issue. The Opposition needs to lobby for a change in MEPA’s laws and policies and start insisting that applications have also to be vetted from an ownership point of view. In simple words, MEPA should start giving weight to issues of ownership before assessing applications. 

The point here should have been whether Ian Borg got this permit because he is the citizen Ian Borg or because he is a junior minister. This brings to the fore thoughts that there is a hidden and subtle relation between the approval and the fact that the application came from a politician. Even if, Ian Borg sought to hide this fact, by asking his father to apply for him instead, MEPA knew the real owner behind this application and approved it. It is this form of deceit that should be emphasized by the Opposition, as it was made to appear that all citizens are equal in front of MEPA when some are more equal than others. Therefore, MEPA’s policies should start also to be questioned and how certain officials are applying arbitrarily MEPA’s rules and policies.

Then, there is the political side of this whole story. In my opinion, this should not be searched in the supposedly false information given by Ian Borg but in the fact that when another politician submitted a similar application, hell fire broke out in Malta. I am referring to the case of Victor Scerri. All the NGOs protested and went on Scerri’s site. The Labour Media dubbed this as the biggest scandal of the century. L-Orizzont wrote editorials about this case. Now we have a similar case, with the difference that no NGO organized any protest on site. L-Orizzont is now stating that the Ombudsman is nit-kicking in Ian Borg’s case. Different was L-Orizzont’s spirit in Scerri’s case. The only big difference between Scerri’s and Borg’s case is that the former’s permit was revoked, while the latter’s still holds. To keep with Cameron’s mode, this is a case of As You Like It.

Then, we have the third case about Konrad Mizzi’s secret accounts. New revelations continued over the weekend and I am sure that much more is to be expected. While Mizzi has won Labour’slove to the extent that he was elected with a strong vote as deputy leader, one cannot ignore the fact that this won love was accompanied by revelations,which came out on the eve of his election. This reminds me of what happened to LinoSpiteri, when he sought the bid for the Leadership and an anonymous letter, signed MC, was circulated. I am sure that behind these accounts in the Panama there is much more then lost and won battles, as the three witches state in the opening lines of Macbeth. Unfortunately, Labour did not take the warning of these witches as these events have put the party in thunder, lighting and in rain.