Negativism is alive and well and living mainly at Pietà, at PN headquarters. If by nothing else, consider that in the context of the hounding of Sai Mizzi Liang, the appointee of Malta Enterprise to drum up business in China. The attacks on her have been persistent ever since her appointment was revealed, in part due to the government’s mishandling of the affair.
She believes, saying so close to tears, that it is essentially due to the fact that she is Chinese.
In that she is mistaken as the government has been in not giving details of her status, basic pay and other conditions that go with it early on in the day.
She is relentlessly pursued by PN spokespeople and fellow travellers in the media. The guns aimed at her are intended to bring about her resignation. It might just happen, unless she is convinced that, sadly, this is the way things are done in Malta. But the bigger fish the attackers intend to fry is her husband, minister Konrad Mizzi. The minister is one of the best-performing in the Cabinet.
For someone who had no experience of politics, he has done remarkably well. He was given a tough portfolio, including oil and Enemalta, two areas where the previous Nationalist administration had fallen badly by the wayside.
Early on, the guns were out for him and there was a danger that he might crack, not having previous experience of the hurly burly of Maltese politics. He did not and went on to get better and better. So much so that the Prime Minister included health under his portfolio, to tap into his management qualities, along with the extensive medical knowhow of parliamentary secretary Chris Fearne.
When the appointment of Mizzi’s wife came to light, the bore of the guns firing away at him were increased. The Opposition had a legitimate case to put and pertinent questions to ask. Why was a minister’s wife given such a high appointment, and what was the financial package attached to it? The Opposition asked that. Repeatedly. Repeatedly, the government remained silent.
Worse still there seemed to be confusion in high quarters, with the responsible minister insisting he knew nothing of her appointment, and a Malta Enterprise board member saying he didn’t know, either, as if it was his normal prerogative to know.
The government has been following a tactic which in this case certainly backfired.
It keeps an ace up its sleeve, only to play it once results are known, as has been done after the historic memorandum of understanding with China was signed, to a considerable extent due to Mizzi Liang’s efforts. Such tactics may be useful at times, but not when it comes to public appointments. I would suggest that whenever public appointments are made outside the norm, as in the case of trusted individuals, the financial package, including perks, as well as the qualifications of the person appointed should be announced simultaneously.
Whenever public appointments are made outside the norm, the financial package, as well as the qualifications of the person appointed should be announced simultaneously
That should be done not only to cut out the unnecessary mystery, but primarily because taxpayers have the right to know how their money is being spent.
The Nationalists pounced on this point, but whispered not a word about Mizzi Liang’s qualifications. That did not suit their intention to go beyond the appointment and reach at Mizzi and the government.
Such tactics, as intended, make the life of the government of the day more difficult as it tends to scare away good people from public service. The present case also comes at a time when the Opposition has little to attack the government with on policy. Slips by the government coupled with the Opposition’s negative bent, very much there after a few weeks of apparent reform, complete the picture.
It will not deter the government’s efforts, unless understandable human frailty sees Mizzi and his wife getting out of the heat. But it is not nice to watch.
Negativity, coupled with deliberate loss of memory, also predictably welcomed the appointment of Wenzu Mintoff to the bench. I too was surprised when the appointment was announced because there was no hint that it was coming. The subsequent comments were more surprising.
I hold no brief for Mintoff. He and I did not like each other when we overlapped in politics. Yet a principle is a principle.
There is no doubt that Mintoff was involved in politics at the time of his appointment, or about his beliefs. Everybody has them.
Some show them, some do not, or even deliberately hide them. But does that mean that the appointee cannot rise above politics now that he forms part of the judiciary, or that he is the only one that went that way?
History, somewhat distant and more recent, suggests otherwise. There was a serving prime minister, no less, of a precursor of the Nationalist Party who appointed himself a judge, drawing the memorable comment that this was worse than Caligula appointing his horse a Roman senator.
But is there any comment that Francesco Buhagiar did not rise to necessary impartiality during his term of service? I have come across none of that.
More recently, Joe Cassar, who had served in the recent Nationalist administration as a parliamentary secretary, was appointed a magistrate. No one has suggested he did not fulfil his duties with due impartiality. A Nationalist administration also made Philip Sciberras, a former staunch Labour MP, a judge. He was good, everybody says so. There was open regret that he too was one of the judges affected by the silly 65-year-old retirement rule.
So why has it immediately been assumed that Judge Wenzu Mintoff cannot and will not be impartial? The assumption was made by some lawyers who insisted on remaining anonymous, failing to put their name to their supposedly honest opinion. It was also made by the Nationalist Party, defying history as detailed above.
Why? Simple answer. Negativity is back, and flourishing.