Why would a crippled government, without a clear majority in Parliament, desperately struggling to survive a few more weeks, play Russian roulette? For that is what, in the present circumstances, the decision to offer 34 parking sites to private operators on a 10-year concession amounts to. Nothing less than Russian roulette.
Why is someone in power playing this very dangerous game?- Mario Vella
It would have been a hot issue even under normal circumstances. A wise government set on such project would have first consulted Parliament, local councils, constituted bodies and residents of the localities concerned before proceeding. It would certainly have published a comprehensive document outlining as clearly as possible the rationale behind the initiative, explaining what it was proposing to do and why it was proposing to do it.
Even under normal circumstances, a wise government eager to secure the broadest possible consensus for its initiatives would have acted otherwise. It would, first of all, not have waited until the last few weeks before a general election to issue the tender. It would have taken into consideration that, even in the best of circumstances, an understandably sceptical electorate would tend to be wary of the real motives.
A wise government with a quarter of a century of experience on its back would have taken into consideration the electorate’s likely gut reaction to such an initiative. An electorate accustomed to all sorts of hanky-panky inevitably tends to speculate that the real beneficiaries of such a project are specific and well-known business interest groups close to the party in government or to individual ministers. Even if this is not the case, and a good government would ensure that it wasn’t, a shrewder government would have done its best to show that any such suspicion was absolutely unfounded.
If all of the above are to be expected of any wise government operating under normal circumstances, even one with a comfortable majority, even more so are they to be expected of a wise government that, quite frankly, does not have a majority in Parliament, let alone a comfortable one. We are not, however, living under normal circumstances. Nor, perhaps, are we dealing with a wise government. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in this country.
This brings us back to the original question. Why pull the car parks initiative out of the prestidigitator’s top hat now and why handle it so clumsily and uncouthly? Clearly, someone’s mind was not quite there when Transport Malta was ordered to or allowed to go ahead with this initiative. Whichever is the case, someone (the same one and/or someone else) then changed their mind and ordered Transport Malta to suspend its plan to privatise the 34 parking sites. It was also directed to discuss the issue with the Opposition.
Transport Minister Austin Gatt’s version of the story is that the project was his initiative in the first place but the decision to go ahead with it was taken by Cabinet. He is quoted by this newspaper to have said: “Not only was Cabinet informed but, weeks ago, Cabinet specifically approved a memo defining the process I presented and authorised me to proceed” (October 2).
Not more than a week went by between the publication of the call for tenders and the abrupt suspension of the project. In between, the Opposition filed a parliamentary motion calling for the repeal of the tender call and emphasising the need for broad consultations. The Government, however, was not responding only to the firm stand taken by the Labour Party in Parliament. It was clearly taken aback by grass roots dissent.
In fact, none less than the Nationalist Whip himself called on Cabinet to reconsider its parking sites’ privatisation plan. He conceded that “there had been a negative reaction from the public, particularly in Mosta and Rabat - which are districts which he will contest” (October 1).
After Cabinet’s second decision reversing its first one, Minister Gatt, true to form, said: “The proposal was mine. It was obvious that Parliament would have blocked consideration of the tender, so I suggested that the tender be suspended and talks on the details held with the Opposition” (October 2).
Meanwhile, Nationalist MP Franco Debono, drafted an amendment to the PL motion turning it into a vote of no confidence in Minister Gatt. Independent member Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando suggested that if Minister Gatt cared for the PN, he would resign, as this would stop Debono from voting against the Budget, whose issue was with Minister Gatt. The minister was, also true to form, not amused.
Which brings me back to Russian roulette. Why is someone in power playing this very dangerous game? If one really knows what the electorate’s views and moods are and elections are around the corner, one does not take unnecessary risks. Was it really necessary to come up with this initiative now when it could have been done any time in the past quarter of a century?
Unless, of course, one has given up and is expecting to lose. In which case, whoever took the decision to go ahead with the privatisation project did not give a damn about David Agius’ constituents. These – together with the rest of the electorate – would, however, be justified in asking why then the hurry to start the tender process.
The author blogs at http://watersbroken.wordpress.com .