Herman Grech and Mark Micallef
MLP leadership race
The candidates in the Labour Party's leadership race have been instructed to refrain from giving any comments to the media or else face disqualification. The MLP's vigilance and discipline board has decided to muzzle those that are planning to contest the upcoming leadership election - at least for the time being, it was learnt yesterday.
In a letter ironically dated April 1, Joseph Falzon, the chairman of Labour's internal electoral commission, recently set up to oversee the contest, says he had been instructed by the chairmen of the disciplinary, vigilance and appeals boards to inform "whoever somehow showed an interest to contest a leadership post" not to give any comments to the media.
"I've also been instructed by the same chairmen to inform you that whoever fails to abide by these instructions will be disqualified from submitting his nomination once these nominations are open," Mr Falzon wrote.
The stand contradicts a previous unanimous decision by the same commission not to stop any of the candidates from giving interviews and comes after three of the main contenders, Joseph Muscat, Michael Falzon and Evarist Bartolo, have already announced their intentions and were given extensive media coverage.
To complicate matters, a fourth contender, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, said yesterday she would still go ahead with her announced press conference today, in which she will officially launch her candidacy, despite the media ban.
"I cleared the matter with the commission," she said when contacted yesterday. "So far, I have not confirmed my interest in the leadership race in a definitive way. There has only been speculation so far, so the directive does not apply to me. I will declare that interest tomorrow (today) after which I will then be bound by the commission's decision."
Ms Coleiro Preca has been reluctant to commit herself and hardly gave any comments on the matter from the beginning.
The other likely contender who has yet to put his name to the race officially, George Abela, on the other hand told Radio 101 he protested against the commission's directive, telling the radio interviewer that it would amount to an advantage to candidates who have already declared their candidature.
He also complained about the fact that the commission is considering whether he qualifies to contest the election given that he is not a party delegate. Dr Abela noted that there had been no such objections when he stood for deputy leader in 1992.
So far he has been ambivalent about his intentions to contest, saying only that he will announce his decision at the appropriate time, while calling for a level playing field for all the candidates.
His bid comes with considerable controversy as he has been at loggerheads with the party's administration for years, especially after quitting his post before the premature general election in 1998. Even recently, in fact, speaking on Xarabank, MLP general secretary Jason Micallef indicated he did not welcome Dr Abela's interest in the leadership post.
The commission's letter says that the "terms of reference" (in relation to the electoral process) will be finalised this week. Party insiders said the final decision on the terms of reference was expected to be taken last night, which means they could be made public today. The Times contacted Mr Falzon asking whether it was fair to impose a media ban now that three candidates had already made use of it to launch their campaign. However, he would not comment on the matter, saying that these "were internal party matters".
None of the three candidates, however, appeared to favour the idea of the media ban. Deputy leader Michael Falzon said he disagreed, adding he is prepared to abide by "any decision the party takes".
"It's not a final decision yet... I agree that there should be some rules which ensure fairness," he said.
Similarly, Dr Muscat said he thinks all candidates should be allowed to express their views freely on any media. "I trust that each and every one of the candidates wants the best for the party," he said, adding, like Dr Falzon, that he would abide by the rules laid down by the competent bodies. Mr Bartolo was more cautious, saying he would wait for the commission to issue the terms of reference and react later.
In the meantime, Labour MP Anġlu Farrugia has said he is considering contesting either the leader or the deputy leader's post.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
Updated: Shot migrant in critical...
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Sergio Galea Vincenti
Apr 6th 2008, 11:35
Without entering into the merits of individual candidates, I believe that there is an important issue to consider: How can a leader of the MLP (or PN for that matter) not be a Member of Parliament?
How can an eventual leader assume that he / she would be 'given' a seat by a condescending MP who would have to account for his / her actions to the electorate who put him / her there?
In recent memory, it was only when Dr. Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici was appointed leader of the MLP in 1984 that we had Dr. Paul Xuereb relinquish a seat in his favour. Other than that, it has been unheard of for a party leader not to be an MP.
In my opinion, therefore, the MLP delegates should be told how candidates like Joe Muscat or, eventually, Dr. Abela would be handling this issue and also reveal any arrangements or agreements which may have been struck. Transparency and fairness should be shown from tthe outset.
One important point which worries me relates to a minor but somehow important matter: Money.
Whilst I admire most (if not all) runners for parliamentary seat because most would lose part of their normal income - given the paltry parliamentary income and taking for granted individual honesty of most individuals - I cannot see how someone as young as JM with his young family in tow, without the backing of some family fortune behind him, can renounce to the salary and perks of MEP for that of Leader of the Opposition when he might not even be sure he would have someone relinquishing a seat in his favour.
I believe these are all important matters which need to be asked now as the MLP might have to fight the implications of these matters after irrevocable decisions may have been taken.
R. Gauci
Apr 4th 2008, 22:04
I agree with the ban, this will prevent what happens in the Song for Europe Festival where rich participants get more airtime than others so to gain a slight advantage.
JOHN SCERRI
Apr 4th 2008, 20:01
Ben Grech: Now please give us a reason why MLP has lifted the ban.
Fabian Borg
Apr 4th 2008, 17:34
When will MLP learn ? We need a serious contest for opposition leadership to elect who is best, not for MLP but for Malta.
The last general election was won by PN due to their perseverant consistancy to ensure their message reaches out in all corners by using every means possible. Fr. Joe Borg mentioned that this election was the INTERNET election which is true. No wonder the PN Government was subsidizing broadband internet to give it away almost for free weeks before the election. The MLP must realise that it must open itself up, get rid of rotten apples and invest in new talents while showing the real new labour to the world. Holding on to memories and old restringent tactics will only sink them deeper and offer no challenge in the future.
Joseph Grech-Attard
Apr 4th 2008, 16:53
I cannot understand the fuss about this so-called ban! These are internal matters. And it is democratic since democracy nowadays means that the majority rules!! If not so, then our present president has not been democratically selected since only gonziPN wanted him!! Would-be candidates for MLP leadership should abide by the party rules. If they do not like them they should join and fight for change from inside. Their main aim should be the good of the country and the party and not their own personal gains! The end DOES NOT justify the means.
ben grech
Apr 4th 2008, 14:19
I'm afraid in this respect you're slightly off Martin. The reason for the 'media ban' is that the new party leader is to be chosen internally by the party delegates. The public for obvious reasons can not be involved in such a process. Furthermore as a large number of party members are actually nationalist party members as well, they have to be excluded as well. the logistics involved in giving their say would simply be too hectic to solve by June. By issuing a media ban I d assume they re trying to prevent the media being used as a tool in which to sway opinion towards or against any candidate. A further aim would be to prevent any conflicts between candidates from getting out of hand and being used by nationalist party for their own purposes.
Matthew Gatt
Apr 4th 2008, 14:13
In response to Mr. Buttner's comment, party candidates are not contesting a general election and their responsibility therefore is to the party and its members; not to the electorate at large. The labour party, as an organisation, must reflect the needs and opinions of those who it purports to represent, and not the needs and opinions of the public at large. Within a democracy such organisational structures are the only way to avoid minorities being marginalised and muting their voices as they are slowly dominated by the opinions of the majority.
On the issue of the media ban; an ideal society can utilise the media as one of the viable channels to convey information to party members. This information should allow members to make a fair and unbiased assessment of the candidates’ potential to fulfil the contested roles. However if the media consists of a biased and dysfunctional channel of information (as is the case of a significant amount of the media in Malta) and in the case that the issue does not concern the public at large, such a ban merely serves to curb misinformation and external distortions which would ultimately shift the opinions of party members rather than enhance their faculties to make rational choices that truly represent their interests.
Martin Büttner
Apr 4th 2008, 10:43
Candidates, whatever post they contest for, need to explain to the electorate what they stand for and why they should be elected.
This is called democracy.
By issuing a media ban or censorship the fundamental right of freedom of speech is being breached and so is void.
The candidates for MLP leadership should ignore Joseph Falzon's and the boards' order.
The question one has to ask now is: What do Mr Falzon or the boards really fear?