You are a regular person, minding your own business at home, and suddenly your house collapses on you, and you lose your life. In a most unbearably light manner; even an inmate on death row is afforded more dignity. The entire nation has wept at this tragedy caused not by some natural calamity or war. But because in this country there is indeed the rule of law ― yes, the law of the jungle.

Why did the industry need to rend a family apart? Why did this innocent lady have to pay with her life for the success of other people’s business ventures? This is a most perverted meaning imposed on the expression mors tua, vita mea.

This innocent woman’s death is on the same moral level as the innocent bystander who’s hit by an errant bullet during a mafia shootout.

Because ultimately, it is the “state of nature” that an important philosopher spoke about a couple of centuries ago – the law of the jungle that exists where the State is either absent or weak, or, worse still, turns a blind eye to abuse.

The State cannot use the argument that it’s not possible to inspect every single building site. If that argument were to hold water, then we would dismantle the Police Corps. It is obvious that no State body can prevent all tragedies, but vigilance is a must. Then again, the police depend a lot on the wider vigilance carried out by the general public. Which makes me wonder about certain photos I’ve seen on the social media, of a foreign worker dismantling the concrete structure that lay beneath what looked like the foundations. Why were those photos taken? And if there were suspicions of foul play, why weren’t the authorities alerted? And if this was done, why on earth didn’t the authorities do anything?

I totally agree with the logic behind the inquiry into the State’s possible responsibility for Daphne Caruana Galizia’s (voluntary) murder. And because I agree with that logic, I see the necessity for a similar inquiry into the State’s possible responsibility for Miriam Pace’s (involuntary) manslaughter.

If an independent inquiry finds that the State could have prevented the death of either woman, or both, then political heads must roll. Let’s start transforming this sweet land into a normal country.

Joseph Muscat’s Mafia-style administration

Somebody recently asked me why, in that article of mine of a few weeks back when I remarked that Joseph Muscat’s administration seemed to have drawn its inspiration from The Godfather movie, I chose The Godfather and not The Sopranos, say, for my comparison. After all, they both are classics.

The short answer is that The Sopranos is about low-status angry men, whereas I can’t remember seeing any seething anger in The Godfather. One important characteristic of Muscat’s and of his henchmen and button men, was their sangfroid. Muscat, Schembri and the other members of the gang rarely if ever lost their cool. Just like Don Vito Corleone and his favourite son Michael.

Mind you, in the popular imagination, Vito Corleone is a hero, a family man, an inspired leader, essentially a good man... and when he falls dead in his tomato garden while playing with his grandson, it was like a great patriarch had just passed away instead of a murderous psychopath who built his empire on gambling and prostitution.

Women’s issues

While Parliament embraced the quota for lady MPs, the public debate focussed for a brief moment on prostitution.

A number of clear-headed organisations advised the Government to proceed with care when dealing with the oldest profession, and not to rush in where angels fear to tread. Given that the foolhardy Muscat is now (at least formally) out, it remains to be seen how the new Prime Minister will behave.

In the meantime, I must say that the imposed quota for female MPs is a big disappointment. It will make all lady MPs look like privileged girls rather than hard-working, deserving women. Possibly nobody will say it to their face, but many will think that from now on, all women will get elected thanks to the new, pampering rules. This isn’t an achievement for women; it’s actually a setback. Positive discrimination is an anti-democratic policy – the people are free to vote for whomever they like. Many women have been elected to the House, and they were elected under their own steam, because the electorate liked and trusted them. They enjoy respect and status, because they were their own “men”, so to speak. Now, they will be viewed as the recipients of a benefit, the holders of a privilege – such people are usually not respected but frowned upon. Time will tell. Even though common sense tells you that you don’t actually need to jump from the fourth floor to determine that every single bone in your body will be fractured upon hitting the surface of the street below.

The long and short of it is that our political class needs to re-define its basic philosophies. It has to stop behaving like a weathervane but embrace clear political philosophies. Politics is indeed the art of serving, although the verb “to serve” has to be understood not as patronage and clientelism but as the quest for the common good. It is the common good that has to be served, not the good of political clients. The common good is served when parties stand for something, not as vehicles to serve their clients.

Pawlu Lia's conflict

Franco Debono is obviously right to argue that Pawlu Lia’s presence in the courtroom can put pressure on the presiding judge or magistrate. Pawlu Lia sits on the Commission for the Administration of Justice, which is the judiciary’s watchdog. This is another of Joseph Muscat’s Corleone-style triangulations. Can we exclude that Muscat appointed Dr Lia on the Commission for the very purpose of intimidating the judiciary?

So yes, Dr Debono is right. And if Dr Lia were serious, he would either have not accepted the appointment in the first place, or else, now that Muscat has rode into the sunset, he should resign out of his own accord.

There’s another element. The Commission for the Administration of Justice is chaired by the President of the Republic serving as President of the Commission. I have it in writing from one of the President’s aides, that the President – a man I admire for his pro-life stance, mind you – is not knowledgeable enough on human rights. I wonder whether, given that surprising shortcoming, he can understand the human rights implications of having Pawlu Lia, a practising lawyer, sit on the organ that tries and punishes the very people who have to decide Dr Lia’s cases.

I’ve been told by somebody quite knowledgeable, that in the past the unwritten rule was for lawyers who were in semi-retirement to be appointed to this Commission. But under Muscat, unwritten rules – which probably reflected principles taken for granted by decent people – were gleefully ignored.

Which is why Robert Musumeci should stop giving vent to his proclivity for positivism and start working out why unwritten rules are necessary rules and necessarily unwritten.

Parenthesis: I once had an interesting debate with Dr Musumeci on Facebook on positivism and the other approach to law. Somebody butted in and told me to stop being in favour of negativity! At first I thought it was a witticism; then I realised that the guy was serious. Foxily, Dr Musumeci did not disabuse him of the misunderstanding; so when I told him that positivism is not Muscat’s positivity and positive thinking mantra, he simply didn’t believe me! It would be hilarious, weren’t it so sad...

Back to permits

It seems that another mill in Gozo will be overshadowed by a block of flats. Who on earth was the idiot who okayed such a building permit? The building industry might be the goose that lays the golden eggs for the so-called developers, but it’s not the only goose in the country. Tourism is another goose, and it possibly lays more golden eggs in the long run than the building industry. One goose is killing the other one!

Crazy construction is destroying the tourism product. If this isn’t crystal-clear to all involved, then we’re living in cuckoo land.

Conflict of interest

I don’t agree with the assertion that the architect involved in the Ħamrun tragedy had a conflict of interest. I can see no reason why an architect cannot be involved in a building project of which he (or a relative, say) is a shareholder or even the owner.

The law makes amply clear the responsibilities of the architect, whether the project is his or his client’s. This demonstrates the invalidity of the logic according to which an architect will be less careful when the project is his own (the logic of the conflict of interest). This logic is self-evidently invalid because an architect will be held responsible in all cases of negligence, whether the project is his or his client’s (or both). Negligence means non-use of expertise, that is to say, you have professional knowledge and you either do not make use of it or not enough, and because of that non-use you cause damage to third parties.

Conflict of interest arises when somebody uses their expertise to give advantage to one party over another. Conflict of interest is intimately related to impartiality. A judge, a notary, a minister, a university professor, say – all these can have a conflict of interest. Because they can use their power or expertise to help somebody else achieve or acquire something that somebody doesn’t have the right to.

In the case of an architect, there is no need for impartiality. The architect (or civil engineer, to be more precise) has to use his expertise to make sure that a structure is sound. If the architect fails to exercise his professional duty and does not use his expertise, he is liable for the damage he creates to third parties, but certainly not of conflict of interest. Because it is in everybody’s interest that an architect does his job well, according to the expert knowledge he possesses. In conflict of interest cases, expertise is used only in someone’s interest.

This is reflected even in the language we use. We call them periti, and perit comes from perizja, expertise.

A perit is like a surgeon. If a surgeon leaves something inside you after the operation, there’s no conflict of interest. There’s negligence.

There could be conflict of interest, however, with Prime Minister Abela having served as the Malta Developers Association’s lawyer in the past. I believe that if Dr Abela were a judge, and MDA a litigant in a case he’s judging, he would have to abstain.

This week there’s no “My Personal Library”.