Institutionalised blackmail

In his closing speech on the last day of Parliament before it rose for the summer recess, the Leader of the Opposition referred to institutionalised blackmail. He quoted from my letter of resignation which said "... I cannot tolerate a situation where I subject my family to a system of political blackmail which has now become institutionalised."

True to his inimitable style, Dr Sant muddled up this statement to suit his argument at the time.

How does political blackmail manifest itself in Malta?

It does so through fraudsters who run to the politician to cover their trail and through politicians who jump at the opportunity to attack their opponents through repeated innuendoes that many would be brainwashed in believing.

Through businessmen who are not awarded a contract they think they have a right to and who run to the politician who is prepared to take their side and throw as much dirt as possible at his political opponent.

Through individuals who feel aggrieved for not receiving the promotion they think is theirs by right and who rush to the politician with stories that are eagerly believed and used even out of context.

The political blackmailer needs a receptive politician as an accomplice. He needs a politician who does not care about truth, and who cares even less about the aggravation and the human misery which his irresponsibility causes. All this corrupt politician would care about is his personal gain through winning political mileage by denigrating his opponent.

Such an ignoble way of making politics has sunk the local political scene into a deeper and dirtier quagmire. Through this process, alliances are made among the least likely partners - but in the interest of money and power all grudges are temporarily shunted aside.

The rape of truth

It is amazing how the two lawyers who wrote again last Sunday have conveniently avoided all arguments and again simply regurgitated their fantasies.

They did not explain the deliberate contrast in the wording used by the appeals board in the case of INSO against that used in the case of Hospitalia. It is obvious that the effect of the decision was to stop the implementation of the award of the contract to INSO so that SIMED will be given a chance to explain their bid. Therefore the final decision to award the tender to INSO did not "resuscitate" anything but was a continuation of the process, as the INSO bid still stood to be compared to the SIMED position after the revision exercise.

SIMED fell short of the INSO bid and this as stated not by me but by the experts appointed to conduct the review. The insinuation that I acted on my own is therefore another figment of their imagination. This decision passed through the filters of the experts, the adjudication board, the contracts committee and finally Cabinet. None of these saw the situation in the same light as the SIMED lawyers.

The lawyers did not explain why they did not proceed with their case in court.

That the INSO tender was cheaper than SIMED's was certified by Grant Thornton who made an in-depth analysis of the documentation submitted. In such matters I rely on an accountant's analysis much more than a lawyer's opinion. That the INSO bid was technically better was certified by SECTA, experts with better credentials in these matters than the lawyers.

Disseminating suspect information cannot be veiled under any ruse. If the matter had, in their own words, "possible grave import", then the lawyers should have scrupulously ensured the veracity and corroboration of the information they were handling. They cannot disown responsibility for the Zahra report.

Maybe they will explain why they took their suspect report to the Prime Minister and not to the police. What is truly risible is the lawyers' comparison of their action with the commissioner's investigation.

The lawyers ask why I have not taken action in three years. I tell them that I will take action when I deem fit. I assure them that since Joe Saliba uncovered the first layer of the plot by admitting that the cause of the pressure for my resignation was the false report that they disseminated, I have more than a tripod to stand on.

Gambling and lying

Most of us know of one or more compulsive gamblers who are constantly chasing their losses in an attempt to give themselves a chance to get even. This chasing of losses is the defining characteristic of the compulsive gamblers who become experts at denying reality. This chasing attitude is a warning of disaster.

The same applies to the compulsive liar. He chases his lies trying to cover one lie with a bigger lie. Instead of confessing the truth, he keeps going on and on until the lie becomes so big that it becomes criminal.

jd@dbms.com.mt