The Prime Minister raised an issue concerning his privileges as an honourable member of the House and, on the Speaker’s ruling, the Leader of the Opposition led his merry band out of said House in protest at what was described as an unconscionable restriction on the right of honourable members to draw political conclusions from facts in the public domain.
Lil’Elves will, no doubt, find themselves at one with the Prime Minister’s reaction that the Opposition, more specifically the leader thereof, demonstrated a precipitateness that was unfortunate (perhaps not in so many, and as pompous, words).
On the other hand, if you tend towards the school of thought that prefers the rough and tumble of political discourse and respect for freedom of expression, you might come to the conclusion that it was the Prime Minister who was being a tad prissy in his zealous efforts to protect his privileges.
No prizes for guessing which side of the equation I would call my own, if push were to come to shove. As far as I am concerned, the only privilege an honourable member has, even one as exalted as the Prime Minister of the day, is the privilege to serve and represent us, the Great Unwashed.
The only privilege an honourable member has is the privilege to serve and represent us
It is when the exercise of this privilege is interfered with, by violence or scurrilous lies, for instance, that an MP should go running to the Speaker for protection and not simply when two and two are added together and made to equal precisely the same number as we’ve all made it equal, however much the figure ‘four’ is blush-inducing.
A question raises itself, quite incidentally. If it is an MP’s privilege to serve and represent, does s/he have the corresponding duty to do this in a manner that doesn’t give me, to speak only for myself, itchy eyeballs? I’m referring here to the less than elegant manner in which the Prime Minister resorts very often to the “yah, boo, we won, so there, now shut up and anyway see what you used to do” manner of debate that adds so little to the wealth of the nation.
I’m only asking, now back to the main thrust of the argument, hoping my little detour will be forgiven.
The post hoc ergo propter hoc line of argument that is adopted by many is not scientifically rigorous enough to establish concrete facts but, in the political world, it is more than sufficient unto the end. I think it was Sherlock Holmes who had said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, after all. We can substitute the ‘must’ with ‘is reasonably likely’, as we’re not in the world of fiction, but the point remains cogent.
In other words, the Prime Minister was precipitate himself, bless’im, when he ‘cused his opposite number to the Speaker because of the comments made.
Given that the (then) Commissioner of Police had found grounds for John Dalli to be arraigned before the elections but the (brand spanking new) Commissioner of Police had found grounds for the same Dalli not to be arraigned after the elections, is it entirely unreasonable that Simon Busuttil should put into words thoughts that many were batting around in their heads?
On the same lines, the arguments being made by Konrad Mizzi and his governmental colleagues about the (direct) appointment of Mizzi’s wife to publicly-funded office miss the point profoundly. As I pointed out in a blog recently, Sai Mizzi Liang’s qualities and attributes, sterling or otherwise, are not the point and nor is it the point that, at least insofar as the Prime Minister is convinced, she will be a fine and upstanding envoy.
The point is, to put it into almost arithmetical terms, that when you add A (where A is the wife of a Cabinet minister) to B (where B is the publicly-funded nature of the post) to C (where C is the hand-picked aspect of the appointment) then you come to (A+B+C) = Z (where Z is the inescapable fact that many people’s eyebrows went skywards when the news broke).
Switching away from current affairs completely, I would like to smack every government since 1945 or thereabouts roundly about the head. I had the privilege of a short guided visit to the Notarial Archives and I got to see documents of breathtaking historic value.
The smack on the head is because the place has been left to fall into a neglect that is equally breathtaking and a very significant part of our national memory bank - were it not for the heroic efforts of a few individuals - has almost been lost. As it is, there are gaping holes.
Shame on you, ministers, every one of you since 1945.
The usual end-bit, this time concerning a pizza in Marsalforn. We went last weekend and we went the weekend before last and, on both occasions, Il Gambero, part of Il-Kartell, was excellent. Get a table in the balcony and watch the world go by.
imbocca@gmail.com
www.timesofmalta.com/articles/author/20