Lino Spiteri
Placing 1981 in proper context
The past rarely can and never should be forgotten. It remains there to learn from, especially not to repeat mistakes. Remembering, though, should be done in context. Otherwise recalls carried forward will be warped. The Labour leader gave an example of that when he compared the present situation in Parliament, where the government could not muster enough elected MPs to defeat an opposition no-confidence motion, to the perverse result of the 1981 general election, and its aftermath.
The comparison does not hold. On several counts. This government was elected with a relative majority, if a very slim one exceeded by the combined votes of the Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika. In 1981 the Nationalist Party received an absolute majority of votes, but a minority of parliamentary seats.
Fact was, though, that could happen. It happened notwithstanding that earlier Prime Minister Dom Mintoff had reduced the margin by which electoral districts could vary from each other by 15 per cent to five per cent. After the perverse 1981 result, Mr Mintoff formed a government, as he was constitutionally obliged to do. But he also set in motion a committee from both sides of the House to seek a more correct way forward.
It failed to reach agreement. In due course, though, it was the Labour Cabinet, even if after much internal conflict, as I have touched upon in my book of political memories, which came up with amendments to the Constitution to introduce a corrective mechanism to ensure that if a party received an absolute majority of votes, but a minority of seats, it was allocated extra seats to enable it to govern, with a majority of one.
Nationalist claims that the 1987 result was due to gerrymandering, playing about with electoral boundaries, were blown apart in 1996 when it was the Labour Party which, after nine years of Nationalist government, received a majority of votes but a minority of seats. Such a result remains possible to this day because the parties have not agreed on further amendments to ensure proportionality. We have a sensible system to cover local elections, where the whole of the localities contested form one constituency, but not for general elections.
Context, however, goes back a decade before 1981. The Nationalist government then in office played about with the electoral districts for the general election of 1971. That still did not prevent the MLP from getting an absolute majority of votes and a majority of seats. Nevertheless the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party, in-Nazzjon, immediately declared editorially that the PN had a majority of seats in the majority of electoral districts and was entitled to govern, and that was what it intended to do. It was only the solidity of the Labour government that prevented the implication from becoming reality.
Labour increased its electoral majority in 1976. Still, between 1976 and 1981 the Nationalists offered the most negative form of opposition ever seen in Malta. In due course, a bombing campaign began, targeting government buildings and individuals who helped the MLP to govern.
That context is sad to recall. But recall it one must. As one should also recall that, between 1981 and 1987, when Labour again did not muster a majority, a number of Labour thugs and police officials disgraced all that Labour stood for with their unchecked behaviour. I still believe that small band included individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements. But it was up to the government leadership to keep that minority in check. They did not.
That fuller context of the 1970s and 1980s should not be forgotten as we now look forward and move on. Looking forward means experiencing the clash and contrast of opposing ideas without recourse to physical or moral violence and personal attacks, with focus on true democracy, not just the bits of it that suit us.
In the current circumstances it also means getting out of the prevailing uncertainty, through either a clear restoration of the Nationalist government’s elected majority in the House of Representatives, or an early general election to end the debilitating uncertainty, and return to stability.
Looking forward also means playing out the democratic game seriously, and not in a manner that puts the Don Camillo goings on to shame.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
41 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Victor Laiviera
Feb 7th, 21:03
The old, somewhat misogynistic saying goes "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". I think we have to amend that to read "hell hath no fury like a Nationalist when his cherished myths and illusions are challenged".
For decades when, somewhat foolishly, the Labour Party allowed others to write its history, they have been getting away with their exaggerations, half truths and outright lies. Not any more.
There is a new generation that, while shouldering full responsibility for anything that was done amiss, is not prepared to see the good that was done - which far outweighrd the negative elements to be forgotten.
Nor is it prepared to see a party responsible for unspeakable obscenities like the pardons given to Żeppi l-Ħafi play the pure virgins.
Saviour Cachia
Feb 7th, 20:31
@ Tommy Vella,
That's the healthy result of sharing opinions in a balanced manner. Mr. Vella I go for the party system. It is this system that determines whether with a 50+1 or relative majority, the party that is called by the President of the Republic to govern. Regarding the individual candidates, the number more or less will still be of 65 MPs, with the exception of cases where there is a relative majority or 50+1 majority and not overall majority of seats.
So i tie the mechanism to party system, but as a voter I should have every right to choose the 5 candidates I wish to represent my district. But it is not fair if i want to give my Number 1 preference to a particular candidate, the party ride on his back. I can vote for Labour as the party fitting to win the next election, but individually I can opt for a PN candidate, which maybe is a relative of mine, as a first preference where individual candidates are concerned. Why should we put the voter in such a dilemma? Why should we force parents to vote for a party whom they do not support, because their son is contesting on the other party ticket?
Come on let us widen the argument and find the right solutions for a the government wanted by the electorate and the five individual deputies that the electorate want to choose for its district. For me this option will even decrease the risk of getting the government with its back to the wall by any of his candidates, because safeguards would be taken by being given an adequate majority of deputies.
Saviour Cachia
Feb 7th, 15:00
@ Tommy Vella and Henry A. Grima
Starting with Mr. Henry A. Grima thanks for the prosit, but maybe we have different ideas about Lino Spitieri ability where it concerns expressing his opinion. Lino certainly is a leading opinion writer on our shores. As for Mr. Tommy Vella, I want a complete overhaul of the electoral system. The ballot paper will be divided into two sections,. First sections gives the voter the right or means to tick the party he/she wants to be in power. And it is here that on a national threshold, the total of votes will count to see how the Parliament is composed in strict proportion to the votes earned by each contesting political party.
4,000 for A.D. on a national basis, should at least earn them a seat. The second section will be entirely for the individual candidates. In this section, voters in the 13 different districts will have the right to choose the candidates they want to represent them their district in Parliament. The candidates can run for the general elections on a party ticket or independent.
This will bring no confusion where which party earns the right to be in power. That will be the party with the highest number of votes, even if a relative majority. The party with even a relative majority should have safeguards like today and have at least one/two seats more than other parties destined to Opposition, to overrule the possibility of any coalition or a repeat of Mintoff and Debono episodes. The government stability should be safeguarded without leading to dictatorship, Maltese style.....
I do not believe so much in coalitions, no matter what AD says. But I do believe that a 4,000 votes for AD should give them representation on the Opposition benches. Further suggestions to make the system as perfect as possible are welcomed. Where there is a will there is a way and all political parties should give their contribution for just, fair and balanced general elections.
As regarding to the voter, he/she has every right to opt either to vote just for the party, just for the candidates in his/her district only, and like today for the party and candidates by marking both sections.
But no matter what, as long there is such a separation party/candidates in the ballot paper, our electoral system I think will be improved upon and not damaged. The right to govern remains always to the party with the relative majority or 50+1 majority.
So far it is a fact that the general elections mainly lead to a two parties House of Representatives, but there is no harm in given recognition to a party than can muster a national quota equivalent in percentage or total of votes (let us say 4,000 votes) to the one set for an individual candidate to be elected from a district.
I must admit I am not a mathematician neither an authority where it concerns the electoral law, but mine is a humble opinion, hopefully expressed to help improve the electoral system to its fairest possibility. If I am completely wrong or expressing cucati (foolish ideas), excuse me and disregard me. Well there seems not to be all that will by the two big parties to improve the system, it seems to suit them.
Tommy Vella
Feb 7th, 17:07
I cannot see how this can work. Let's say that we have three parties running for election B, Q and W. B gets 60% as a party, Q gets 36% and W gets 4%. But when it comes to the individuals in the party B gets 55% Q remnains on 36% and W 9%, will you link parliamentary representation to the party system or to the individual system? In either case what will be the worth of the system not linked to the parliamentary representation?
Even if this system works I do not see it as solving the impasse we reached with Mintoff and Debono, because on whatever strength the candidate has been elected (party or individual) he can always threaten to, or actually, vote against the party.
I know that you put in the proviso that the party in government should get a more comfortable cushion of two or three extra deputies but then that would be fiddling with the actual democratic representation. I personally do not like that.
Wenzu Vella
Feb 7th, 07:58
Why is it that every time there is a whiff of an-election in the wind all this garbage surfaces again.
What happened in the past is yes, a part of history but must you all relive it again and again. I am sure that every political party have something to hide and not just little things but real shameful episodes. How many of us have lost family or relatives to all sorts of accidents, murders or wars and these are far worse than a political disagreement serious or not.
Do I hate every German because they killed 10 of my relatives in WWII, of-course not. On the contrary I own and drive a very expensive German car and like it too. Those who choose to open their political garbage bags every time they talk about politics do so because they are immature and have an infantile mentality.
So grow up and do not pre-empts the present with what happened half a lifetime ago.
David Buttigieg
Feb 7th, 11:12
"What happened in the past is yes, a part of history but must you all relive it again and again. "
Of course, until labour show us it has changed, gets rid of the perpetrators of that terrible past still within it's ranks and apologises cap in hand for the disaster it created during those terrible years instead of trying to rewrite history.
Until that happens, every time I see Muscat, I see KMB and Mintoff, the worst two Prime Ministers this country ever had by far!
Wenzu Vella
Feb 7th, 13:24
Mr Butiggieg I am not going to tell you or anyone who you should like or dislike. To me it is childish to get what you are asking for. Is it possible the PN is so pure that none of them has ever done anything to be ashamed of, have they always been so good and just with everyone. Come now be honest with yourself, I am sure that if you turn on your memory bank you will soon find more guilt the PN have on their conscience to fill a few big garbage bags.
You have mentioned Mr Mintoff as the worst Prime Minister without even giving it a thought of how many benefits you and members of your family and mine are enjoying to-day because of Mr Mintoff and his team.
David Buttigieg
Feb 7th, 17:01
@Wenzu Vella
Mintoff was NOT the worst, KMB was, but he came a close second.
Of course the PN are not pure and made many, MANY mistakes, but that pales in comparison to the disaster we had before.
Nobody lives in fear of being beaten up by government sanctioned thugs today for writing the way you do against said government.
Mintoff? Benefits to me? Name them, actually name just one. One of MY most vivid memories is being denied an education and locked out of my school, a PRIVATE school and not a church one, and forced to study underground.
And Muscat has the gall to boast about what labour did for education - hah!
Another vivid memory is my mother being attacked by a bunch of government condoned labour goons, for daring to protest about a lack of water our pipes, with police at best grinning otherwise joining in the fun!
Of course, she was not allowed to work either because she was forced to retire as soon as she got married.
Until labour get rid of all connections with that period, beg forgiveness and get a decent leader , my hands are tied every election.
R. Gauci
Feb 7th, 01:43
Nahseb li l-magna propagandistika tal-PN u l-allejati qed tkabbar il-frazi ta` Muscat bl-iskop ahhari li jaljenaw lin-nies mil-fatt li fl-2012 ghandna Gvern qed 'jiggverna' minghajr maggoranza parlamentari. Muscat ma qalx liema kienet l-aktar wahda gravi, kull ma qal kien li fl-1981 il-MLP kien legalment tajjeb imma moralment hazin, l-istess bhal-lum. Ovvjament Dottor Gonzi ha din is-sentenza fil-Kunsill Generali tal-PN fejn kien se jhabbar elezzjoni farsa b'kontestant wiehed u fost hafna mossi gabha qiesha kienet xi gidba fahxija meta fil-fatt hi verita' sagrosanta. Mbaghad ha hsieb Lou Bondi jkompli jonfoha prova ohra fuq kemm dan il-gurnalist jahdem id f'id mal-magna tal-PN.
Saviour Cachia
Feb 6th, 23:55
What's all this argument about gerrymandering in 2012.Once we know that the party who win the general elections is that party who has the majority of votes, not seats, gerrymandering does not come in question. Obviously 50%+1 is better than relative majority. So let us look forward and repair any damages done in the past. It is the duty of both the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party to secure that we have the fairest general elections possible. Nothing can be perfect, but at least let us do our best to be near to perfection as much as possible. Give every vote cast, its weight. No vote should be squandered and reform the system where the choice of the party is obvious in itself, not leaving any doubt whether the party earned the no 1 preference thanks to the candidate, or the candidate thanks to the party. Set them apart.
Joseph Goerge Borg
Feb 6th, 20:31
I used to live next door to the Apostolic Nunciature when a high explosive bomb went off on one of the roofs of the same building, instantly I went out to have a look to see what was going on. At that very moment an AFM landrover was parked on the other side of the road and two soldiers were preparing to leave the site. Maybe according to some MLP members the landrover and the soldiers were under the command of the Nationalist Party.
Saviour Cachia
Feb 6th, 19:52
@Tommy Vella,
Thank you Mr. Vella for taking the trouble of explaining the difference between absolute majority (5%+1) and relative majority. `I do not feel I am that fool not to know the difference and what happened during the 2008 general elections. An adapt definition in the sense that all votes in the ballot boxes should get us somewhere, if a 4,000 votes or nearly as gained by the Alternattiva Demokratika or any other third party are not squandered. Ok up to now it is the district quota that counts, nearly 16.6%, but these injustices should not carry on. As far as i know, persons who are voting, to who ever they give their preference, not pets (without being offensive) and their vote should be given more weight.
The past is over, but there is still chance to improve for the future and give not only an adapt definition to relative majority but also democracry itself. Come on let us grow up, and really have the Government chosen by the electorate, not gimmicks, maybe played between the two big parties.
Let us start voting for the party first, and the candidates preference will be a different and personal matter. Perhaps i want Labour in Government, but my favourite candidate in my district is Mario Galea (PN). Why should not I be free to do so. Or else vote for the party only and stop or vici-versa, abstain from voting for any party, but then choose to give preference to the five candidates I wish to be elected from the Third District where I live. For me, this is an absolute definition of democracy. The head scratching for finding the right formula i leave it to the experts commissioned for such job. A job not done on voluntary basis but on a good income.
Mr Henry A. Grima
Feb 6th, 22:03
Prosit Saviour! Your comments are a ray of hope that there are genuine people around.
A direct contrast to what Lino wrote; a pack of suppositions. A lot of hearsay and idle talk, never expeced. from Lino, a respected, till now, public figure.
Tommy Vella
Feb 7th, 11:10
A definition is a definition, so there is nothing that can be done about defining an absolute majority. I know it and you said that you know it.
In the way that our elections are run, ie. proportional representation, the votes given to other parties not elected to Parliament are usually part of the votes lost due to the calcukation of the quota. The quota is one-sixth(or 16.6%, as you said) plus one of all the valid votes. In the actual election of representatives only five of those six-sixths are used which means that one-sixthof the votes are squandered. This happens also where no third party candidates are nominated.
However the amendment that the party with the most first count votes gets elected does away with this squandering because at that stage all the votes are used.
What is your suggestion in this regard? Is it that the 4000 votes given to AD (or those given to any other party or independent candidates) are to be added to one of the other parties at this stage?
Andy Farrugia
Feb 6th, 17:30
What a masterful fable of spin, revisionism and deceit! A leopard never changes its spots!
Andy Farrugia
Feb 6th, 18:01
On second thoughts, it's good to have such contributions on this paper; sort of wakes us out of our slumber, if you get the drift.
Carmel camilleri
Feb 6th, 17:03
So according to Lino Spiteri all the Nats's clubs, the torching of the Times, the ransacking of Eddei's home, the murder Raymond Caruana, the murder and torture at he police HQ, the destruction of the curia and many many other attrocities were done by Nationalists thugs. U hallina LIno. Are you not ashame of writing such dishonesty. You seem to be writing to the diehard labour supporters and not to the sensible readers of the Times most of whom have lived those heinous years. How is it that not one Nationalist's thug was caught by the police.? The reason being that the police force which inflated with labourites were prevented from doing their duty by the political masters. That's the truth Sur Lino.
mark borg
Feb 6th, 23:19
Each and every episode you mentioned was callously provoked by you nationalists......The story takes us back years before the early to mid eighties...the story takes us to the 1960's till 1971 when your VICIOUS PN was governing on a joint venture with the church...AH WHAT DEMOCRACY AND HARMONY WAS MALTA BACK THEN IN THE INTERDET TIMES ! WHY NOT MENTION ALL THE BOMBS THAT TOOK OFF TO DERAIL THE LABOUR GOVT OF THE 70's and 80'S and stop making propaganda with Mr Ray Caruana as TILL TODAY NO WAS WAS EVER BROUGHT TO JUSTICE OR KNOWS FOR SURE WHO WAS THE CULPRIT/S,EXCEPT ANYWAY THAN A FERVENT NATIONALIST (which ACCORDING TO THE COURT UNDER THE THEN PN GOVT WAS A FRAME UP)
LET US ALL HOPE WHEN THE PN RETURNS TO OPPOSITION YOU WOULD NOT REVERT TO THE PAST DIRTY WAYS OF YOUR 16 WHOLE YEARS IN OPPOSITION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pat muscat
Feb 6th, 13:51
Tal-PL jintenn: tal-PN ifuh!
What the PN are doing today, and if they continue doing it- that is continue governing with the Speaker's vote, will spell trouble for the future, because if the PL is elected sometime in the future, and looses its majority- the PN will then embark on a crusade like it did in the 80s, civil disobedience, political strikes and outright civil war! History does not repeat itself: its the PN that never changes and is always stuck in the past!
Tommy Vella
Feb 6th, 15:39
What the PN are doing to-day is what the MLP did in the first months of 1998.
Evarist Saliba
Feb 6th, 13:33
Comparing the present situation with one of 31 years ago, to justify the line of argument that is being adopted by some now is too simplistic and mistaken, if not as perverse as the election result in December 1981.
One basic fact that cannot be denied by any honest commentator is that the perverse situation created in December 1981 lasted for the full term of full 5 years. This was because the government in office resisted all efforts to rectify the situation in spite of face-saving efforts. To give it credit for the last minute change of heart, following a politically motivated murder, and Mintoff's stand against the prevailing attitude within the MLP parliamentary group, is a travesty of the truth.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 6th, 16:31
"To give it credit for the last minute change of heart, following a politically motivated murder, and Mintoff's stand against the prevailing attitude within the MLP parliamentary group, is a travesty of the truth."
.
Brilliantly put, had to be a murder of an innocent according to you Mr Saliba for the MLP to come to its senses. You forgot two thinhs.
1. P.N. walked out and boycotted the parliament for months on end therefore talks on constitutional changes could not be held.
2. MLP had to co-opt the whole number of P.N. MPs who had walked out which simply means that these MPs had forfietted their seats and were actually back in parliament without getting one single vote. And if I wanted to play around with logic I would say that the PN had forfietted its majority and was in a minority of ZERO votes.
Evarist Saliba
Feb 7th, 10:43
I never forgot those truths.
I did not mention them because they are not relevant to the fact that the perviously elected government stayed in office, implementing any number of unpopular measures, and allowing lawless groups, with the connivance, active or silent, by police to intimidate any opposition.
Saviour Cachia
Feb 6th, 13:19
Well done Lino, you put things in the right perspective. And instead of looking backwards, all the parties concerned, though the omen falls on the political parties represented in Parliament, should do their utmost to continue to improve the Electoral Law to be fair and just in a way to respect the voters' wish.
Strict proportionately, and we cannot afford any more that 4,000 votes are squandered and thrown in the dustbin. There should be a more adapt definition of a relative majority, when before it was a clear: 50%+1 majoirty. That's why in a way I wish the Gonzi PN Government find a solution for the rebus that resulted from Franco Debono legitimate rebellion on the way he was given the sidelined. But I am confident that that has been taken care of in the 'compromise' meeting between Lawrence Gonzi and Franco Debono.
As a Labour supporter, I would look forward for a Labour Government, but I do not see any benefits in having a 'hotch-potch'; general elections in the immediate future. I rather prefer to wait.
Let the Gonzi PN Government does it full term, but talks begin at the earnest for having things in order where Electoral Law, Constitution, Political Party Finances, and the question concerning the 18-years old right to vote, even if not included in the Electoral Registry. What are the safeguards, if such move is introduced? Are Identity cards enough. Thanks Lino for the balanced look at the past, though as the economists say the past is not always a guarantee for the future. Still it always an eye opener.
Tommy Vella
Feb 6th, 14:34
There should be a more adapt definition of a relative majority, when before it was a clear: 50%+1 majoirty.
Do you know what you are talking about? 50% + 1 is an absolute majority. A relative majority is the percentage of votes obtained by the party with the highest number of votes when no one gets the absolute majority, as happened in the last election.
George Calleja
Feb 6th, 12:55
Juggling with historican episodes seems to be Lino Spiteri's latest favorite pastimes. I think he should return to writing of good books because he seems to forget certain deplorable episodes that tarnish labour's history. Very often Lino forgets what labour was made of.
Henry S Pace
Feb 6th, 12:45
To Lino Spieri it is always the same tune. It appears that the Ellectoral Commission is always at 'Sixis and Sevens' whenever the electoral districts are in discussion.No matter what the PN Opposition did in the period of 1976-81 period because the Commission always have a tough job to do. . Howewver 'gerrymandering did exist in 1981 because districts were conected to one another by fields and not residential areas. by
Carmel camilleri
Feb 6th, 17:07
Do you know who the electoral commissioners were at that time?
pat muscat
Feb 6th, 12:38
Mr Spiteri left out two PN elections that were undemocratic and against human rights; that of 1962 and 1966. Then the Nationalist Party had no qualms about democratic elections-anyone who voted Labour was morally and psychologically abused when Michael Gonzi ordered that anyone who voted Labour committed a mortal sin! This meant that the terror inflicted on Labourites would pursue them beyond the tomb!The Nationalist Party usurped these two elections! The PN did this with the utmost disregard for the basic tenets of democracy, liberty freedom of speech and honesty ( Is-sewwa) ! To be fair the Church later apologized, but the Nationalist Party did not!
Tommy Vella
Feb 6th, 11:58
A one-sided and very biased article though at first look it does not seem so.
When the Nationalists do wrong, they do wrong. But when Labour does wrong then it's with the help of "individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements."
In 1976-1981 we had a very negative opposition but we didn't have a very negative government. Witness the attitude towards doctors and medical students, the gutting of the Times building, the ransacking of EFA'a house and terrorisation of his family, the 'funny' episode of the attempt on the Prime Minister's life. Maybe they were also committed by 'individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements'?
Could it be that the result of 1996 rules out also gerrymandering in 1981?
George Azzopardi
Feb 6th, 16:37
My my Tommy .. comparing 1996 with 1981, 15 years difference is not what you say to be comparing like with like. Moreover, I like I always consistently say, the first 5 years of EFA government were the best years under this regime, similar to the first 5 years of Mintoff's from 1971~1976.
Tommy Vella
Feb 6th, 17:41
@ George Azzopardi.
I don't think you understood. Mr Spiteri said in his article that 1996 proved that there was no gerrymandering in 1987. So I asked if that proves also that there was no gerrymandering in the election before that.
Pat Hobson
Feb 6th, 11:29
@Micallef & Zahra. The truth hurts. If it wasn't the truth, how come the bombs were placed on the doorsteps of those who co-operated with the MLP government? How come come the police involved were promoted after the PN won the election in 1987? How come Mintoff, co-opted the PN opposition after the PN boycotted parliament for over a year? If you answer these questions then I'll be able to agree with you!
Mr Joe Micallef
Feb 6th, 13:52
As usual you are a further insult to truth, however no measure of literary acrobatics is going to change history so stop digging - well do whatever you like.
As for a reply to your stupid devious questions I refer you to many PL MP's of that time who still litter the PL side today - they had hot lines with the regime police so they ought to have a reply, granted that the police were more interested in persecuting political opponents rather than doing their work!
Lapira unless you were born post 1987 it is evident that you were on the sunny side of things and supported that disgusting administration.
bryan sullivan
Feb 6th, 10:57
Am so disappointed in the comment regarding " individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements." Mr. Spiteri - for whom I had every respect - has every right to believe whatever he wants albeit without any proof at all. However us readers are now placed in a position whereby we can now believe that hitherto erstwhile commentators like Mr. Spiteri can also shed their sheeps' clothing and show their true colours. We also lived those days Mr. Spiteri and comments like yours do not do the present Labour Party any favours !
Jonathan Zammit Lapira
Feb 6th, 10:50
@Mr. Micallef & Mr. Zahra
have you forgotten from 1981 till 1987 a serious of bombs exploding behind government officials' homes/door steps? have you forgotten the campaign of "Dizubbidjenza Civili" ordered by the PN party? Did you forget about the boycott that were ordered on the Public Broadcasting TV/Radio? Have you forgotten the unrepairable damage the PN caused by sending letters and meeting foreign countries gov. officials and telling them not to invest in Malta? Have you forgotten re those armamnets and amunition found in the PN headquarters that were suppose to be used against their maltese fellows but of MLP followers? Shame on you!!!!!
Peter Zahra
Feb 6th, 15:51
I remember very well the dark days between 1981 and 1987.... police riots, tear gas, frame ups, politcal intimidation and beatings on employees working in govenmental departments and at Malta Drydocks, lock outs, closure of church schools, burning of several PN poltical clubs, Tal barrani accidents, Raymond Caruana murder, burning of the Times, the Law Courts, the Archbishop's Curia (just infront of the Police depot), the rampage on Eddie Fenech Adami's house, etc etc etc....
There is no comparison what soever with the boycott and the atrocities comitted in those days. The PN had rightly instructed its followers to boycott products being advertised on Xandir Malta which was a propoganda labour machine. I can clearly recall the "run rabbit run song" being played, and the time when the Xandir Malta refused to name the leader of the opposition. Rest assured Mr Zammit Lapira, that if the situation was the other way round, the Xandir Malta would have been burnt down by the so called "akristokarzija tal Haddiema".
Regarding the so called armaments, can you exactly specify the so called armanents which were found ?? This was all "a messa in xena" after the police raided the PN headquarters after suspecting that the PN was using walkie talkies, which during the labour era these were illegall !!! If this was another frame up, I do not take it by surprise, because these were a common practice. In any case if you have any doubts just check the matters or you can maybe hear Peter Busuttil recount how things were done in those terrible days...
Mr Joe Micallef
Feb 6th, 10:07
"Fact was, though, that could happen. It happened notwithstanding that earlier Prime Minister Dom Mintoff had reduced the margin by which electoral districts could vary from each other by 15 per cent to five per cent. After the perverse 1981 result, Mr Mintoff formed a government, as he was constitutionally obliged to do. But he also set in motion a committee from both sides of the House to seek a more correct way forward"
This paragraph is a concentration of pure and simple deceitful arrogance and insults in one's face and particularly in the face of the huge number of victims (physical or emotional) of that immoral criminal administration!
John Zammit
Feb 6th, 11:31
You need two for tango.I am against all forms of vandalism But vandalism is still being performed is to-day.Looking at some blogs is enough
Tommy Vella
Feb 6th, 09:54
A very one-sided and biased article though it may not seem so through camouflage.
When the Nationalists did wrong they did wrong. When Labour did wrong it must have been helped by 'mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements'.
1976-81 saw a very negative opposition but we did not have a negative government. Vide the attitude towards medical students, the attack and gutting of the Times building, the attack on the family of the leader of the opposition, the 'funny' story of the attempt on the Prime Minister's life.
Does the result of 1996 also prove that there was no gerrymandering in 1981 as well?
Peter Zahra
Feb 6th, 09:27
Quote from Mr Spiteri's Article : " I still believe that small band included individual mercenaries planted by Nationalist elements" -
Unbelievable. !!! This proofs that Labour did not change and even Lino Spiteri with his writings shows that they haven't changed at all !! Is he telling us that Labour Thugs like 'il Qahbu, Toto, Caqwes, Fusellu, L Indian,.... and many other have been Nationalist mercenaries ??? As the maltese saying goes ' Il hanzir taqtallu denbu hanzir jibqa !!!"