CONSTANTLY UPDATED - MPs do not have a blank cheque by the people to do what they like, and they must by loyal to the government and their party, while making their contribution, David Agius, the whip of the PN parliamentary group said this morning.
He was opening the last sitting of the no confidence debate.
Mr Agius said the PN was a party of values and this motion should not be approved because the party was true to its values.
Among them was the value of work, and this was the government which was creating jobs, giving the people dignity, fulfilment and peace of mind. For this alone, the government did not deserve to be defeated.
It was right that MPs had a clash of ideas. All MPs should be heard, like the people should also be heard. But criticism had to be timely, appropriate and with the best method because it should be criticism inspired by love.
He would as whip continue to work for all MPs to make their voice heard in the interest of the common good. MPs were important when their voice was heard by the collective group. The value of loyalty was key in such communication. Loyalty should be a unifying factor.
In terms of democracy, everyone had a right to his opinion and to try to influence others, but decisions had to be taken collectively and it was the prime minister who was responsible for the leadership of the government.
This government had not shirked from taking tough decisions in the national interest. This government had even nominated a President from the labour camp.
The government needed to correct what was wrong within it, rather than demolish everything.
An MP without a party would not be elected. Neither would the party without its MPs. The two, therefore, had to work together to ensure that the will of the people was implemented. The will of the people was supreme.
MPs had to be heard, and they had a duty to serve the people while being loyal to their party. MPs did not have a blank cheque by the people to do what they wished and they had to at within parameters set by the party and the government. One could discuss how to extend those parameters without violating loyalty to the people and the party, but loyalty had to be observed, Mr Agius said.
Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici, a frequent target of Franco Debono, said that the Opposition had moved this no-confidence motion because it was hungry for power. It was ironic that Malta was managing to weather the economic storm which had brought so many countries to their knees. This was a certificate for the government.
And yet the governemnt here was facing a no-confidence motion.
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the governemnt was continuing to work for the common good, and a long list of Bills was pending before the House.
OPPOSITION IN FAIRYLAND
The Opposition was acting like it was in fairyland, ignoring the turmoil all around Malta and instead seeking to bring down the government.
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he was of no doubt that Lawrence Gonzi was the best prime minister for Malta in such critical times. Thanks to his abilities, Malta had managed to move forward while others had gone backwards.
Indeed, the fact that the Opposition had not given any reasons for its no confidence motion actual proved this. And the people could more easily compare how the government and the opposition were acting and who had the interests of the country at heart, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said.
Foreign Minister Tonio Borg compared the no confidence motion to a bill of indictment and said the charges had to be proved. But the opposition was failing to do so. Indeed, so far only Joseph Muscat had spoken in this debate, and he had spoken about procedure, not the substance of the debate.
Dr Borg noted how in his opening speech, Dr Muscat had spoken on procedure and implied that whatever the outcome, he would win, claiming that even if the motion was defeated, there would be instability. This was a case of heads I win, tails you lose!
STIPENDS UNDER THREAT
It was a disgrace, he said, that the Opposition had not allowed its MPs to speak in this debate. That government MPs had spoken on the government's achievements because that was what the people expected and what was their duty.
They were justly proud of job creation, of the e-government achievements, of the records in tourism despite the tough times, of the fact that Malta's shipping register was now the biggest in Europe, of the high rate of healthy life expectancy, and how education had improved in leaps and bounds.
People still remembered how the last Labour government had removed student stipends and the current would-be Labour finance minister had said, some years ago, that the stipends scheme was unsustainable and was unproductive use of scarce resources.
Turning to foreign affairs, Dr Borg said it was ironic that while the Opposition wanted parliament to declare no confidence in the governemnt, foreign dignitaries, one after the other, were coming to Malta to thank its government for its actions during the Libyan crisis, possibly one of the most serious foreign crises that Malta faced in recent years. The government had not sat on the fence but sided with whoeever was right.
Referring to a point raised yesterday by Franco Debono on a Constitutional Court decision that mandatory arbitration breached human rights, Dr Borg noted that there were actually two court decisions, which were contradictory.
He also highlighted increased rights given by this governemnt to arrested persons, including the need war a warrant of arrest issued by a magistrate, particularly in the case of searchers.
Indeed, he said, no one came near the PN where it came to legislation on human rights.
The government would face this vote in a serene manner, whatever the outcome. The people's mandate was for a five-year term and whoever moved this motion should shoulder responsibility for letting his hunger for power take the better of him.
Dr Borg was followed by the prime minister, who is being reported separately.