Editorial
Remarks that can only raise eyebrows
Labour leader Joseph Muscat is not going down well with Dominic Fenech, a former party general secretary. In an interview with The Sunday Times, he comes across as being very disappointed, at least up to now, with what the new party leader is doing to the PL.
Some of the points he made, particularly those about the party "changes" Dr Muscat is being credited with, have already been commented upon before by other political observers but in the interview Prof. Fenech came out with some remarks that, for more than one reason, must surely raise eyebrows.
He made the remarks in the context of his views about political militancy, which, he argues, is today missing within the party. He explains he is not in favour of excesses or violence. By political militancy, he meant readiness to fight a battle, not pussyfooting. So far, so good, but, wisely, his interviewer went a step further and asked whether he could guarantee that militancy would not spawn violence. The interviewer asked: "Do you think you could have done more when you were general secretary of the Labour Party to stop the thugs that torched The Times (in 1979)?"
It is the answer to this question that, for more than one reason, raises eyebrows the most. Prof. Fenech replied thus: "What could I have done? I could do very little because on that particular day I was somewhere in Republic Street involved with the main demonstration. It was only later on that I, like most others, realised what was happening. Being the party in government, Labour could have been less tolerant as an authority towards these happenings and maybe we should have proceeded against the offenders... if they could be identified."
As if this were not enough to raise disbelief at the quality of the reasoning used, Prof. Fenech went even further when he was asked whether the PL knew who they were. "I didn't' know. And if the others knew, they didn't identify them. We're not even sure, strictly speaking, that they were Labour (supporters). Do you have proof? I'm not saying they weren't."
The Times had no intention of raising Black Monday again so soon after it marked its 30th anniversary but Prof. Fenech's remarks are so unbelievably pathetic that the newspaper could not possibly let them go unnoticed. If they were not Labour people, who were they then? Nationalist hirelings? Or men from some terrorist organisation?
Apart from the considerable physical damage done, many people's lives were put at serious risk on Black Monday. The matter should not therefore be treated as lightly as Prof. Fenech did in his replies. The people at The Times may not have identified the arsonists, but, surely, others did, particularly the few policemen who ran with them all along the way from the centre of Valletta to St Paul Street.
The PL, aware of the fact that it had violent elements within it, could have done a lot on that day to avoid the "happenings", particularly after that morning's incident at the office of the Prime Minister, but it did not. It was when Alfred Sant took over as leader that the party was finally cleansed of the violent elements. The PL should have been totally against such happenings, rather than "less tolerant", as Prof. Fenech put it. Indeed, it should have sought to weed the violent elements out, as Dr Sant did.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
Malta being held at gunpoint
Immigration relocation: a step back
Unethical behaviour cannot be tolerated
Another divisive appointment
What kind of ‘good governance’ is this?
Rethinking irregular migration
PM chooses to go down slippery path
The case of Franco Mercieca
We must promote science in action
33 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 27th 2009, 10:18
@Joseph Ellis
You are entitled to your opinions and convictions – they do not coincide with my own experience in the Police Force. The PN brought to justice those it could, and it had to resort to Presidential pardons. Those who had a vested interest that the truth would never come out criticized the PN for that successful prosecution. That is not any political convenience to let bygones be bygones!
You underestimate the destructive effect that a corrupted police force would have by omitting to collect evidence, by destroying available evidence and by abusing forensic material to frame innocent people instead of arresting the real suspects. Remove your blinkers and you will discover abundant court evidence to correct your unfounded convictions.
Joseph Ellis
Nov 26th 2009, 20:00
@ Dr Francis Saliba.
I am not convinced at all by this explanation. Surely, some of the perpetrators must have been identified and the fact that the Times was burnt to the ground cannot be contested. I rather think it was politically convenient to let bygones be bygones.
I find it more convincing if one were to say that the Nationalist government was initially in a very vulnerable position in so far as law and order was concerned and once it consolidated its grip, the crimes were time-barred. But I am not convinced about such explanation either and this is the stuff for historians and political scientists to delve in.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 26th 2009, 16:43
@Joseph Ellis
Your question has been asked many times before and it has been answered many times. How many more times will it be necessary to give same reply before this reply before it sinks in? It is very rarely possible for any new government to be able to solve political crimes committed by its opponents many years previously when a corrupt, politicized police used the intervening years for tampering with the evidence. And there is abundant evidence that this is what actually happened pre-1987.
Joseph Ellis
Nov 26th 2009, 10:23
I am amazed, but not too much, at people like Franco Farrugia who comment on an interview while admitting that they did not even bother to read it. This is to my mind intellectual sloth similar to that of those who went out of their way to castigate the European Court of Human Rights without bothering to read its judgment on crucifixes.
To my mind, the leader of The Times pounced on an isolated comment, which may not be to everyone's delectation, and ignored the thrust of the interview. No mention has been made of Professor Fenech's cri de coeur about the creeping counter-secularisation of these islands and the ever-increasing influence of confessional elements.
The political violence on Black Monday points to a total breakdown of the rule of law which the Labour government did not uphold by failing to prosecute the perpetrators. Eight years later, a Nationalist government was elected which likewise did not prosecute anyone. Is it possible that none of the perpetrators was known to anyone and his name provided to the police at any time pre- or post-1987? Why was the incident milked politically but no one ever prosecuted ?
Franco Farrugia
Nov 26th 2009, 06:17
@ Joe Vella - 'I remember the pre 1987 years very well. Prosperity and progress is everywhere for one to see and touch. Only the blind and those in a state of denial cannot do so.'
>>> Well, then, you must have been one of the untouchables of that time. With 'prosperity and progress' everywhere, how come the Dockyard workers were out in the streets so much at the time?! To help keep the country in order, no doubt!
Dominic Fenech
Nov 25th 2009, 23:16
@Francis Saliba, Martinelli, and other blinkered PN fanatics in here.
What are you so hot under the collar for? I'm not representative of the current Labour Party's direction. On the contrary. I'm critical of its lack of militancy, if anything. Left to my own devices, the Labour Party would be advocating a programme that would put the life back into Maltese politics, and stuff your self-righteousness up your ears.
Salvu Felice Pace
Nov 25th 2009, 22:10
I must congratulate you on your editorial. Dr Fenech's views are scary. It is true that Alfred Sant rid the party from violent elements but here lies a problem. If these violent elements were identifiable enough to be thrown out of the party, why on earth were'nt they turned over to the police to answer for their past violent acts? After all Dr Sant was President of the Party when the worse acts of violence happened. What did Dr Sant do at the time about these problems? Did he look the other way as Dr Fenech did when he was Secretary General?
For all we know these violent people may all be back in the party hoping that one day militancy will return in the PL..
Muscat. Pat
Nov 25th 2009, 21:37
@ Dr F. Saliba.
After two decades of sometimes fervent " Nazzjonalizmu" in Malta and Gozo, disillusionment (some would call it realism) is growing. At its height the bond within the different "interests" of the few "elite " was based, like the best marriages, on a mixture of emotion and mutual support. This relationship, is now looking more wobbly.
Until last year, the Maltese electorate swallowed their misgivings about the Gonzi, but now, (especially since the MEP elections), it writhes in distaste at the incompetence, corruption and maladministration.
The question is who can extricate us from this mess, Gonzi ( the man who led us into it) or someone who is a fresh, young innovator,and who can do something about it?
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 25th 2009, 21:10
@MBuhagiar
You do not understand my plain English. The “WISHFUL THINKING” is all on your part. Two decades of government are not some PN dream – they are the MLP/LP recurrent nightmare. What scares me is the same problem of all those who believe in the democratic principle of the peaceful alternation of power by free elections. Despite your prognostications and wishful thinking, the present MLP/LP does not present itself as a possible credible alternative government that would run this country without the recurrence of the militancy and the violence that characterized the Mintoff-KMB era. Prof Dominic Fenech’s article does not allay that fear. It exacerbates it.
G . Mangion
Nov 25th 2009, 19:14
@ A Borg On ONE TV yesterday there was a discussion on the violence suffered by the Laborites in the 60s ( your quote ) what you did not say IS, That the mlp's Clash was with
the Church heq !! And Not with the P.N, No ??? Now if you are to answer me on this, Please
do not try to twist the Fact's, as was so clearly done on ONE TV,
Joe Vella
Nov 25th 2009, 19:12
@ Galea L
What Joseph Muscat said goes further then what you are claiming. He said that regardless of the Courts decision is that a PL Government will reimburse the registration tax. So much so, for the rule of Law/
Joe Vella
Nov 25th 2009, 19:06
@ James Grech
I do not know how old you are my friend. I remember the pre 1987 years very well. Prosperity and progress is everywhere for one to see and touch. Only the blind and those in a state of denial cannot do so.
M.Buhagiar
Nov 25th 2009, 18:53
Dr. Francis Saliba
Your comment to Pat Muscat is purely WISHFUL THINKING!!! Xejn ma nghidlek . Inti u shabek - KOMPLU OHOLMU . In four years time ikollna Gvern Laburista !!!
Does this scare you???
Its your PROBLEM mate!!!!!
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 25th 2009, 18:30
@MuscatPat
I presume that your solution to all our ills is your desire of a change of government at the next election. That is unlikely to happen as long as MLP diehards keep on hankering for a return to the "militancy" of the Mintoff-KMB era.
Muscat. Pat
Nov 25th 2009, 16:37
Its amazing how the elite passengers on the governments GRAVY TRAIN prop up all sorts of arguments to continue to enjoy the free hedonistic ride. In the meantime, medicine are increasingly out of stock, lists for operations continue to soar, stable electicity power is becoming a joke ( if not sabotage!) ministers are busy availing themselves of free tickets to ride, and yes freedom of speech is being curtailed in the Malta of 2009- vide REALTA-; deficit is out of control,the public debt is out of control.Yet, deviating from the real problems that ordinary non gravy train passengers are going through is not important enough.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 25th 2009, 16:36
@MiguelBorg
Even assuming, for argument’s sake only that it was the PN that committed your “VJOLENZA MORALI AGHAR MILL-VJOLENZA VIZIKA” (which is NOT the case) there is no trace of evidence that any PN stalwart is recommending any return to that kind of "violence" and militancy. It is only Dominic Fenech that is urging Joseph Muscat to return to that militancy! He has let that cat out of the sack - and perhaps, less importantly, you! You should pause and count the number of elections that the MLP has lost in the meantime. Don't you wish that the MLP will eventually get out of that rut?
Miguel Borg
Nov 25th 2009, 16:29
@ J Martinelli Tista tikkumenta xi haga fuq li hawn hawn taht dwar dal li gara fis-60's Sur Martinelli jew dejjem sas-70's u 80's tasal int? Nerga nfakrek. Dnub il-Mejjet, Dfin fil-Mizbla, zwieg fis-sagristiji, ma jqarbnukx, ma jqerrukx etc, etc.. VJOLENZA MORALI AGHAR MILL-VJOLENZA VIZIKA. In-Nazzjonalisti kienu komplici f'dan kollu. Araw l-istorja. Xi darba l-PN u l-Mexxeja tieghu ikkundanaw dawn l-avvenimenti l-iktar dizgustanti li saru f'pajjizna? Fis-60's kienu jafu x'qed jigri precizament imma ghal vantagg politiku taghhom il-PN baqghu MUTI u hallew persuni Kattolici jsofru u jbghatu minhabba t-twemmin politiku taghhom. Sahansitra lanqas wara dawn is-snin kollha ma kellhom id-dicenza jaghmlu appologija talli minflok iddefendew lil dawn il-kattolici spiccaw jirkbu fuq il-karru tal-knisja biex jassiguraw il-poter. F'DAN KOLLU L-PN KIENU U HUMA KOMPLICI GHAX KIENU JAFU X'QED JIGIR U BL-AKBAR IRRESPONSABILITA U SUPPOST BHALA L-PARTIT DEMO-'KRISTJAN' 'QATT' MA LISNU KELMA WAHDA FAVUR MIN KIEN QED ISSOFRI DIN IL-VJOLENZA RELIGJUZA U MORALI. Bilhaq..... Insejt li fis-snin 60 lanqas il-gazzetta tal-Partit Laburista 'Il-Helsien' ma stajt iddahal f'istituzzjoniet pubblici bhal per ezempju l-isptar. In the mean time ghadni qed nistenna, wara 22 sena, lil Dottor Fenech Adami biex kif kien wieghdna fl-1987, jghidilna min kien qatel lil Raymond Caruana u lil Karen Grech.
J Martinelli
Nov 25th 2009, 15:57
I used to think that the more things change in the Labour Party, the more they stay the same.
Reading Prof. Fenech's comments, it seems I was wrong! I should say that 'the more things change in the Labour Party, the worse they get'!
Some still think of the 70s and 80s as being the glorious days!?
Prof. Fenech stated that he could do nothing regarding the burning of The Times since, "...on that particular day I was somewhere in Republic Street involved with the main demonstration"!
A typical peaceful and orderly demonstration by the Labour Party supporters, no doubt!
"Didn't know at the time...only later we knew what had happened...could have (but didn't) find out who they were...not even sure they were Labour supporters"!!! And this guy is a professor at the university and expects us, mere mortals, to swallow his garbage?
And we are entrusting our young men and women in the tutelage of Prof. Fenech? Maybe this was yet another veiled attempt at recruit more 'militants' within the Party and return it to its former glory? Sounds like another one 'with no regrets'!
A world gone mad!
Franco Farrugia
Nov 25th 2009, 14:13
@ Dominic Fenech: Forgive me, but I AM a 'virgin' in political matters, yes, indeed. I actually didn't read your interview; I came to know about it and refer to it by today's Editorial and I simply cannot imagine you saying things like that. I am just surprised. That's all. I think I DO have a right to express my opinion, no?
anthony girard
Nov 25th 2009, 14:10
I expected much, much more from Prof. Fenech. As a 'floating voter' I remain uncertain, I'm afraid.
Frans Sammut
Nov 25th 2009, 13:37
@Albert Farrugia
You're absolutely right. Dr Sant never minced his words. What's more he backed his words with actions. He knew what he was doing all the time showing no fear or favour. Only history will give the full verdict on the events mentioned above, only future historians will give Dr Sant his full credit. Present historians are still too involved, personally and emotionally, to present an unbiased opinion on his performance. Until historians agree to give such an opinion we mortals can only speculate on what really motivated Old Labour foot soldiers to indulge in that violent binge!
Myself, I would put it this way. If they were really motivated by the urge to defend the Prime Minister who brought glory to the young Republic from the conniving politics of foreign agents and their local minions, then I have no qualms in saying they were right, no matter what damage they wrought. If they were only exploiting the situation for their personal gain (favours from certain ministers and so forth) I would condemn them with no reservations at all.
As I said, I would let future, unbiased, historians to decide which theory is nearer to the truth.
Miguel Borg
Nov 25th 2009, 13:28
Dnub il-Mejjet, Dfin fil-Mizbla, zwieg fis-sagristiji, ma jqarbnukx, ma jqerrukx etc, etc.. VJOLENZA MORALI AGHAR MILL-VJOLENZA VIZIKA. In-Nazzjonalisti kienu komplici f'dan kollu. Araw l-istorja. Xi darba l-PN u l-Mexxeja tieghu ikkundanaw dawn l-avvenimenti l-iktar dizgustanti li saru f'pajjizna? Fis-60's kienu jafu x'qed jigri precizament imma ghal vantagg politiku taghhom il-PN baqghu MUTI u hallew persuni Kattolici jsofru u jbghatu minhabba t-twemmin politiku taghhom. Sahansitra lanqas wara dawn is-snin kollha ma kellhom id-dicenza jaghmlu appologija talli minflok iddefendew lil dawn il-kattolici spiccaw jirkbu fuq il-karru tal-knisja biex jassiguraw il-poter. F'DAN KOLLU L-PN KIENU U HUMA KOMPLICI GHAX KIENU JAFU X'QED JIGIR U BL-AKBAR IRRESPONSABILITA U SUPPOST BHALA L-PARTIT DEMO-'KRISTJAN' 'QATT' MA LISNU KELMA WAHDA FAVUR MIN KIEN QED ISSOFRI DIN IL-VJOLENZA RELIGJUZA U MORALI.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 25th 2009, 13:23
This is positively scary. Coming from Prof Fenech it undermines any hope that the LP intends to emerge as a potential and credible alternative government unencumbered by the fear of a resurgence of the MLP’s bad old days of violence. “What could I have done?” You could have done plenty, at least in the immediate aftermath, to prevent recurrencies. The MLP “could have been less tolerant”? There could be no “could” about this, please - it ‘should” have been less tolerant, perhaps then the murder of Raymond Caruana would have been prevented! You ask “If they could be identified?” Of course they should have been identified but there is no evidence that any attempt was made to identify them even with a police station within metres of Eddie Fenech Adami’s residence!
Against this background Prof Fenech’s appeal for more militancy sets all the warning bells jangling that we are risking “more of the same”!
g.c.Forte
Nov 25th 2009, 13:16
Taking just one point from the article,regarding " the Black Monday " I sure believe that the mob were socialists, but I also believe that there might be a small chance, that the ring leaders were paid by somebody, to create instability in the country because under the Mintoff government, they ( those who pay ) did not have freedom to operation their businesses. I came to this conclusion because I cannot understand this. Everybody knows that the trouble started because of Mintoff, that day. So, A. How come the mob from Valletta found themselves in B`Kara, when Mintoff was still in parliament? B. I always heard that the mob consisted of around 80 to 100 persons, may I ask..........With what did they all move, at the same time, so from Valletta found themselves at B`Kara ? Still I hate what they did,especially when they touched the First Lady Mary Fenech Adami.
Galea. L
Nov 25th 2009, 13:13
g. scerri
"..militancy without violence - a paradox in terms for you cannot control people once you take them out into the streets.."
Petrol is highly volatile and explosive, yet it is used perfectly in car and other engines.
Gas is explosive, but used correctly in cookers and other appliances.
Just because one in a while there is an accident does not mean that they are not used or cannot be used.
Joe Vella
What Dr Muscat promised was that he shall give back to the people that what was stolen from them by Gonzi's government. Yes Mr Vella STOLEN FROM THE PEOPLE BY THE PN GOVERNMENT.
James Grech
Nov 25th 2009, 12:40
@Joe Vella
"Once bitten, twice shy! Better the Devil you know, then the Devil you don't know! "
Does this mean that you have not been bitten in any way by the PN government? Unlike so many others who's pockets, to mention just one aspect, have been the PN's gov main target, with very little as regards auditing of where there money is effectively going.
Also, you seem to know this Devil (I'm taking it as referring to the PN Gov). Indeed, you seem to know it well. However, the rest of us remain quite perplexed as to the various claims and promises that the PN Gov has reiterated over and over again and the decisions being taken on a number of issues, just to name a few: delimara power plant extension (why use an almost obsolete technology? why go for a technology which is not green at all?), political morality and ethics (why ban Mr Dalli from cabinet and hail more then once in favour of Mr. Fenech?Why promise to reform Mepa and then leave irregularities to happen over and over? why criticise Mepa's auditor when he talks about abuses? You sure u know this devil after all?
Joe Vella
Nov 25th 2009, 12:19
@ g. scerri
Joseph Muscat might have lost his soul but certainly he has not lost his militancy and the disregard to the "Rule of law" that was demonstrated by his mentor - Dom Mintoff. Wasn't Joseph Muscat that said publicly that he will desregard what ever the courts ruling is and will refund the vat registration tax. The question is; where will Joseph Muscat and this new movement of his that he is masquerading under the Slogan of a New Progressive Movement will stop in this regards.
Once bitten, twice shy! Better the Devil you know, then the Devil you don't know!
m.j.busuttil
Nov 25th 2009, 11:48
these words came from a moderate ... I wonder what if he was considered an extremist what he would have said! Mr Fenech could have done a lot of things, and not necesarily on that particular day ... he could have educated his party's supporters for example and not indoctrinating the "Mintoff qabel Alla" attitude, he could have preached freedom of speech, the right to have an (different) opinion, respect for your adversaries, he could have promoted discussion and not intimidation and many other things. Mhux kulhadd professur bhalek imma mhux kulhadd bahnan lanqas.
A Borg
Nov 25th 2009, 11:36
This is so similar to the attitude Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami had yesterday!
On ONE TV yesterday there was a discussion on the violence suffered by the Laborites in the 60s.
Eddie tried to deny the documented fact that the PN in government used to support the Church in their acts, for example by burying laborites in the “mizbla” at the Adolorata (a Government owned Cemetery).
Honestly this country will never grow up unless history is revisited and the sins of both parties are recognized.
So far I have only see the PL at least admitting its wrong doings. Maybe this is why Dr. Fenech is unhappy of the PL. Does he prefer the PL to act like the PN and continue denying any responsibility?
Dominic Fenech
Nov 25th 2009, 11:24
Pathetic eh? I feel tacky surrounded by all these virgins.
g. scerri
Nov 25th 2009, 11:09
The word "moderate" seems to have taken on a new meaning these last few days. First we had a "moderate" Imam revealing the true face of Islam to those who dreamed otherwise, and then we had "moderate" Profs. Fenech asking for militancy without violence - a paradox in terms for you cannot control people once you take them out into the streets - and claiming new labour has lost its soul. I wonder how many more perceived "moderates" there are around that have yet to reveal how immoderate they are.
Albert Farrugia
Nov 25th 2009, 10:53
This editorial is a vindication of former leader Alfred Sant's success in reforming the MLP in the early 90s, on its winning road leading to the 96 victory. I am firmly convinced that, much as Dr Sant has been vilified, ridiculed and contradicted, not least by The Times itself, the time will come when Malta will really come to appreciate this man, what he meant, and the loss that this country has had in not having him as Prime Minister for a longer time. One other small example of this man's ability - which unfortunately was his downfall - was his direct way of getting to grips with Enemalta's debts and inefficiencies. By increasing tariffs - yes - when the price of oil was low. If that had happened, we (and Enemalta) would not be in the mess we are in now, 12 years down the line and the biggest political controversy is STILL electricity bills.
Alfred Sant was destroyed PRECISELY because he was a man of action, a man who gave back electibility to the MLP, because he stood on the moral high ground.
Franco Farrugia
Nov 25th 2009, 10:27
And that is what scares the daylights out of anyone once again choosing Labour. If someone like Prof Fenech, who everyone takes to be tolerant, wise, intelligent, academically-able, open-minded and middle-of-the-road, speaks in this manner, thus shedding off any possible responsibility over what happened in those years, what assurances do we have that violence won't rear its dirty head again from new Labour? I mean, honestly, with words such as 'We're not even sure, strictly speaking, that they were Labour (supporters). Do you have proof? I'm not saying they weren't.' No? What are you saying then? That Nationalists actually half-killed their leader's family? Shameful.
Please choose the reason of your report below: