Minister demands reaction to corruption claims

John A. Zammit

Nov 28th 2009, 10:00

Mr. Martinelli you worked as a credit officer in a bank in Canada where you still live. You well know that besides the financial status of a company banks give much more information if one cares to enquire always without responsibility. But in this case the information given by Joseph Muscat was published in the press so all the Minister had to do is to engage a person to look up the news papers of the past which is quite basic. Besides as a credit officer I am sure that you had the experience to advise a client to avoid dealing with certain people even if their financial position was quite sound. Please stop commenting of the situation in Malta and concentrate about the situation in your adoptive country. Just to give you a hint there was an ineteresting article about the recent constitutional crisis in Canada in yesterday's The Times of London.

Martin Galea

Nov 28th 2009, 08:39

Does this mean that the Minister had to wait for PL's claims on corruption of BWSC before he had to resort to the Auditor General for further investigation? Why didn't he do his investigation before choosing BWSC for the so-called 'new' powerstation!! Dik trasparenza!!!!

Joseph Borg

Nov 28th 2009, 06:41

@J Martinelli it really shows that you really hate JM and PL cause your point is just without sense.So in effect you are saying that it is right to bribe someone since it does not effect "Credit Ratings". Moreover.. no one can point out irregularities since you are saying that we should investigate anyone who gives information to the Auditor General.

Just a correction.... ..the information provided by JM are not allegations but FACTS......it is a FACT that they bribed a lot of countries to get a hand on a contract...THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED!!!even their directors admitted so!

So follow Martinelli's comments .....anyone knowing something please keep it to yourself!!!Cause according to Mr.Martinelli "All Joseph achieves in this process is a possible delay in the implementation of the contract which cannot possibly help achieving the extra generating capacity on time." As if this Govt EVER managed to do something IN TIME!

m. borg

Nov 27th 2009, 20:41

It's too late in the day for minister Gatt to disassociate himself from the case, he should have refered BWSC earlier.

J Martinelli

Nov 27th 2009, 19:33

The allegations levelled by Joseph have nothing to do with BWSE's 'credit rating'. The company may have an excellent rating but practices unethical methods in procuring contracts. Whether this should in any way put the Delimara contract at risk, is another question. If Joseph was genuinely concerned about this company, why did he not present his findings to the Minister first rather than grand stand and go to the Auditor General who had already been actively reviewing the contract in question? Dr. Gatt did the right thing by killing two birds with one stone in referring the allegations by Joseph to the Company itself with instructions to respond to them. All Joseph achieves in this process is a possible delay in the implementation of the contract which cannot possibly help achieving the extra generating capacity on time. While at it, maybe the Auditor and the Ministry should start their own investigation in order to determine what Joseph's interests are in this whole affair!

Charles J. Buttigieg

Nov 27th 2009, 19:22

This is being done to allow Burmeister & Wain Scandinavian Contractor (BWSE) know what Joseph Muscat had remarked. Following this we see BWSE suing Joseph Muscat for defamation. Not very diplomatic .

John A. Zammit

Nov 27th 2009, 17:54

Businessmen have the practice of going to their banks and ask for status reports before they enter into business with a new company; even though such reports are given without responsibility by banks they are still valid. Currently in Malta we also have a company for such purpose as well. Could not the Minister follow this practice before giving the contract? Could not he have asked his Danish counterpart or a credit information company then and not now when the reputation of this company has come into question? In my humble opinion this is basic enough and I assumed that it is standard practice with the Government and its agencies; but as they say when you assume you an ass out of you and me.

J Farrugia

Nov 27th 2009, 16:45

that's the spirit Minister Gatt. Challenge them on their own ground, both the Opposition leader as well as this company. Let no one tarnish your reputation as one who acts and not who speaks volumes without anything solid. And after this one go get the ADT and those driving instructors. The instructors have agreed to reply to the questionaire which is being circulated to them with the same replies so that no one is identified. They are conniving with the driving examiners to milk the students from their hard gained earnings.