There is a mistake in the link – use this one:

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/midweek/2007/07/18/pix/front180707mw.pdf

Miskina, according to her the “architect had inadvertently left
out the window and the keyhole window from the plans.” So this was a genuine mistake but in the case of others, it is corruption.

However, contrary to you, I see opportunists in both parties and not just Labour.

[Daphne – Oh don’t worry, I see plenty of opportunists in the Nationalist Party, too. However, it is not an opportunistic party just because some of its people are opportunistic. The Labour Party, on the other hand, is opportunistic in itself, with its sole ‘policy’ being the attainment of government.]

A friend of mine used to work with an insurance company and he once handled a claim of a client and did not entertain it since his claim was not covered by the policy. The wife of a particular minister phoned my friend up and in a very arrogant way demanded that this claim should be paid when it was not covered. This guy (my friend) although, he always voted for the PN told her that she should not encourage people to get what they are not entitled to.

I do agree that there are those who would be wealthier if they do not go into politics, however, the networks and power itself does get them wealthier, don’t you agree?

[Daphne – No. I don’t. A few individuals work the system, but this is not a reflection on all the rest.]

Another story this time involving a Labour politician: a friend who works in construction was diagnosed with serious illness and obviously although he was not simply a builder (he is a small property dealer) was given the advice to tell social services that he had severe depression.

Since he dealt in property that he obtained after working abroad like a dog, if he claimed that he suffers from a severe depression or something of the sort, his contracts when selling property could be questioned and he will risk losing all his wealth.

[Daphne – I don’t think this is quite correct.]

To conclude, my point is let’s not treat politicians too nicely as we have always done. Unfortunately, we should question them constantly and without any limits, as you do with Labour only.

[Daphne – I don’t think politicians are treated at all nicely, but rather the opposite. My big question is why do they bother? Perhaps that’s why so few worthy people are attracted to the idea of being candidates in an election. It’s just not worth the hassle.]

I am not trying to defend Labour. I’m speaking in favour of hardworking people that find politicians mostly as obstacles to the achievement of the full potential of their abilities.

Let’s take all of them to task and not just Labour!!!

To Marika Mifsud: It is now considered funny how nobody spotted these things back then. Well, if someone dared to spot such things in those days, would have had a visit in the middle of the night by the Police, or maybe they would have been slapped with an ex ufficio tax bill, or maybe had their doors painted with black ink, or many other things. Can you imagine the likes of Ms. Astrid Vella in those old socialist days, marching to oppose the government or its institutions? Thank God and the PN that those days are gone.

Please Daphne don’t take it against those who choose not to vote. I am not one of them. However, I feel very stupid voting for people who don’t succeed in the private sector and go into politics so they obtain what they don’t deserve.

[Daphne – Jake, if you think about it you’ll see that very many MPs (probably the majority of them) are actually extremely successful in their private practice and were that way before standing for election. Indeed, it is being able to rest on the laurels of that private practice which allows them to do what so many others would find impossible: dedicate long parts of the working day to politics, pressing for votes, and attending parliamentary sessions (the last and the least). If they weren’t MPs they would be wealthier, not less wealthy, because they would have even more time to work at what brings in the money. Go through their names, and you’ll see what I mean. Ironically, the only MP who lived off his MP’s salary because he had no other income or work was the very one who like a sucker gave in to Muscat’s manipulation and gave him his seat: Joseph Cuschieri. It’s been my observation that what most MPs are after is actually status, which is why most candidates are men.]

@mark attard
“Falzon and Cacopardo are trustworthy. It is a shame trying to ask an investigation on them.”

Even if you are too brainwashed to care, here are the details of how Cacopardo betrayed the trust of his employer for, quite literally, a few votes.

This is an excerpt from an opinion piece which appeared in the Times of 4th March 2008 penned by Michael Falzon. It gives details of Cacopardo’s betrayal:

“The preliminary report on the Sant’Antnin plant prepared by Mepa’s audit office was issued by Carmel Cacopardo two weeks ago. The publication of the preliminary report goes against all ethical standards and, according to a legal friend of mine, could possibly be illegal. Here are the facts of the case.

The preliminary report was prepared by Mr Cacopardo himself who at the time was the investigating officer at Mepa’s audit office. On the advice of the Ombudsman, the auditor had not proceeded with the completion of the report because an appeal against the issue of the permit was still pending.

Prior to publication, the audit officer, Joe Falzon, declared his disagreement that Mr Cacopardo should publish the report and said: “I disagree that an internal report to which Mr Cacopardo had access by reason of the post he occupied should be made use of for political ends”. The Ombudsman expressed a similar opinion.

Any self-respecting code of ethics prohibits the disclosure of “official information or documents acquired in the course of his or her employment” even after the termination of the employment. The fact that this was done blatantly for a political end makes the case all the more serious.

Mr Cacopardo defied the advice given by the two institutions and went ahead with the publication because “it is in the public interest”. The fact that this was published just three weeks before an election suggests that to Mr. Cacopardo “public interest” and his attempts to get elected are synonymous.

Mr Cacopardo’s decision to publish the report is all the more serious as it casts doubts on the work he was carrying out when he was investigating officer. Any person’s decision to become an activist in a political party is not taken overnight. More so if this decision implies withdrawing one’s membership in another party. It requires much thought and discussion. I therefore find it difficult to believe that, at the time he was investigating officer at Mepa (until April 2007) he was not already contemplating joining AD. In fact, in a letter to The Times on March 21, 2007 he wrote “… the day is fast approaching when voters will seriously consider selecting a third option; green”.”

FAA the tree huggers make allegations of abuse against anyone and everyone who displeases them. Yet, none of the tree huggers found the time to condemn this blatant breach of ethics. Hypocrites!

Come of, for pete’s ssake – there was no cheating there – just an atempt at intimidation by MEPA.

[Daphne – A professional apologist, are you? She cheated.]

Daphne, I’m getting a server error when I click on the link you provided which says ‘the resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable’.

He is…….fejn tridu kemm tinsew…….qatt ma ghamel xejn ghall-partit Cacopardo?

Have you not heard of GIGO? – Garbage in, garbage out …