Something else to bicker about
Much that is tiresome is being said about the rightness or wrongness of making Independence Day our one national day. All that is being said in its favour is sensible, logical and dispassionate – that it is the day Malta came into being as a state, and as such is the obvious choice. All that is being said against it is illogical, confused and emotive – that Malta was already a nation before it became a state, that we should choose Victory Day because it commemorates a decisive battle that stopped the Ottoman forces overrunning Christian Europe, that Independence Day is associated with the Nationalist Party and is thought of as a Nationalist (with a capital N) feast, that even though Malta was born as a state on 21 September 1964, il-hakma tal-barrani continued with British forces based here until 1979, so ‘Freedom Day’ is the real deal.
It is a variation on the same old theme of different groups of people wanting to get their own way, without actually stopping to ask themselves why it is so important to them that their will trumps the will of others. Leaving aside elections to parliament, which really do have to be about people fighting so that what they say goes, the last time we saw bickering of this nature was with the choice of design for our euro coins.
It became of paramount importance to have Christ on our coins to show the rest of Europe that we are Christian, or the temples, to attract tourism to the islands and to demonstrate that we are an ancient civilisation, when really we have no links at all with the people who built them because Maltese society is no more than 1,200 years old at a stretch (and what’s more, it was originally Muslim).
Otherwise eminently sensible people have suggested that we compromise on September 8 because that is the one day we can agree upon, seeing that it has not been tainted by the Labour Party or the Nationalist Party, neither of which was around in 1565 to fight off those damned Musulmani or to take sides for and against the Turks.
But the result of a compromise is that no one is ever truly happy with it. Choosing Otto Settembre because the general feeling towards it is apathetic and it arouses no strong emotions either way is nothing short of a cop-out.
Come on, be honest. Exactly how excited do you get about Victory Day? Attempts have been made to make it more relevant to our lives by claiming that it also marks victory over the Nazis, when we all know that it doesn’t, because Victory in Europe Day is celebrated on 8 May and not 8 September.
Yes, it’s hard to feel all stirred up about Independence Day or Freedom Day, but at least they mean something significant in the present, even if thousands – myself included – think it was nothing short of sick humour to name 31 March 1979 ‘freedom day’ because the last Royal Navy ship departed (when the lease ran out, and not because the government said so), given that the Maltese were anything but free in the closest thing you could have to an Iron Curtain country without actually being behind the Iron Curtain.
But then the name was symptomatic of that very Iron Curtain way of thinking.
As for Victory Day, I don’t imagine there are many people who wake up on 8 September and say ‘Thank God and Our Lady that the Torok lost that battle in 1565 because otherwise I would be a Muslim today.’ If anything, that is the strongest and most valid argument against choosing Victory Day as Malta’s national day.
What it says, effectively, is ‘thank God we were not taken over by Islam.’ It is an unpleasant and most unwise declaration in the more enlightened world we inhabit today, and a pointless one too. If Malta had been taken over by Islam in 1565, the people who lived here would not have clung tenaciously to their ‘Christian’ identity as did the Greeks and the majority of Bulgarians. There were too few of them, and they were too accustomed to surviving as best they could.
They would have adapted to exigencies, rewriting their past and ending up more Muslim than Mohammed (at least, on paper). That is how Malta became a Christian society, one which has rejected entirely and refuses to remember its Muslim past. I rather suspect that the situation would have repeated itself in reverse.
Unfortunately, the waters of this particular discussion are being muddied by the leader of the Opposition, with his childish and ill-bred refusal to respect protocol and good manners (but in a country where hamallagni rules, this sort of behaviour is bound to attract admiration). He turned up an hour late to the Independence Day commemoration, though fortunately he wasn’t wearing his much-touted ‘Father of Twins’ T-shirt to remind us all of his pressures on the home front.
Last year, he did the opposite, and butted his way in ahead of everyone else, laying his wreath before the president did. Or to quote last Tuesday’s edition of The Times: “Last year, Dr Muscat had disrupted the flow of the ceremony when he laid a wreath at the foot of the Independence monument before the president had done so. The flowers were then cleared so the president could place his wreath first. Yesterday, the Labour leader said these protocols, which had been laid down many years ago, no longer carried the same meaning and should also be the subject of national debate. Not to repeat last year’s mistake, he arrived around 20 minutes after the official ceremony had finished and President George Abela and Dr Gonzi, accompanied by their wives, had laid wreaths at the monument.”
Like everything else Muscat does, this was nothing more than a carefully engineered stunt. First he spoke about the need for unity in celebrating national days, and then he ensured that the television cameras (news crews had been briefed) would pick up footage of him climbing the steps alone, after the red carpet had been stripped away and all the guests had gone.
The message was: “I want to play with them, I am willing to reach out, but they don’t want to play with me. I am the nice guy, but they are the baddies from the cobwebby past.”
He also used the opportunity to show how young and fit he is compared to the old prime minister of the past by putting all those gym work-outs to good advantage and sprinting up the steps when the venue and occasion called for a dignified pace. Perhaps he imagines that presidents and prime ministers the world over walk at a stately pace when laying wreaths because they have left their walking aids at home, and not because the occasion calls for solemnity rather than demonstrations of sprightliness.
Joe Grima, who hasn’t worn himself out yet swinging from side to side, though I notice that he isn’t the only one given the fact that it is human nature to fling oneself aboard the most modish bandwagon of the moment, even at the risk of losing one’s credibility, has posted this comment beneath the relevant online news story.
“This call from Opposition leader Joseph Muscat,” Grima wrote, “shows the man’s maturity and dedication to national unity. Yesterday’s ceremony was an utter disgrace for a government that has used the solidarity card as its political platform over and over again, but falls flat on its face when expected to put its money where its mouth is. To see the president and the prime minister placing their wreaths, surrounded by all the trappings of power, red carpet, armed forces, cheering crowds and then to witness the arrival of the Leader of the Opposition climbing the unusually high steps on his own, alone, as if he represented no one but himself in this country, was a disgrace, a humiliating experience for all Maltese and a demonstration of naked power enveloping a Roi Soleil prime minister. Not only was the red carpet removed for Joseph Muscat and everyone simply deserted the area but even the stools that would have helped him reach the monument more comfortably were taken away. Joseph sprinted up the high steps and reached the monument in a second. My own feeling is that protocols aside, this whole achievement was well and accurately planned to develop the way it did. Shame!”
Yes, indeed – it was planned to ‘develop the way it did’, though not by the prime minister and the president, who were following established (not Maltese) protocol, but by the leader of the Opposition. I rather suspect that both he and Joe Grima fully understand that the president represents the state, the prime minister represents the executive (the government) but the leader of the Opposition represents nothing and no one at state level. The representative of parliament is the Speaker of the House. Once a leader of a political party becomes prime minister, he ceases to represent only those who voted for him, or his party, and becomes the representative of the state.
If Joseph Muscat doesn’t understand this, then he is ignorant. If he does understand it, as I suspect he does, then he is manipulating the ignorance of others to his own ends – and in this he is no different to his predecessor, who regarded the electorate as little more than ‘useful idiots’ and stepping stones in the service of his ego.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
51 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“refusal to respect protocol and good manners (but in a country where hamallagni rules”… speaking of good manners and hamallagni. Remember university last year?
[Daphne – Yes, I agree. The behaviour of Labour’s communications dwarf Kurt Farrugia was abysmal. Imagine hanging over a private citizen with a rolling camera for half an hour, because you don’t like his mother.]
Gianni,
You really need to learn what “hamallagni” really is! Believe me it’s not teenagers booing somebody trying to be clever with them and failing miserably, ESPECIALLY when wearing a very cheap wig!
The weight of that chip never gets lighter, does it?
Hi Daphne
What about marisa micallef leyson? What is your thought about the latest news?
[Daphne – I think that when a twice-divorced woman has a daughter to raise, she is sometimes forced to make uncomfortable decisions to pay the bills, decisions that she may not have made otherwise. Mrs Micallef Leyson asked the government to create certain jobs for her, after her search for permanent employment in Britain did not work out, but was told that this was not possible. She may have believed that she was owed allegiance in return for her own allegiance; she may have been wrong or right in this – I don’t know. It’s not how I see things, so I can’t understand that way of thinking. But I can see the reasoning behind it in a way. She may have found herself in a difficult position financially. Knowing what it’s like to pay the considerable bills that come with running a household and raising children, I must say I find it difficult to pass judgment. Thousands of otherwise decent women the world over resort to being paid for sexual services to pay the bills when they’re really on their uppers and have children to raise, and even then I find it hard to judge. EUR40,000 a year is a lot of money for a single mother to turn up her nose at, and we’re not all lucky enough to be able to earn our living using our own initiative. I must say that selling the Labour Party would be a terrific challenge, and a very doable one, but I do think it is essential to believe in a product/service/organisation so as to be able to sell it to others. Disliking the competition, or as in this case feeling bitter towards it, is not enough; you genuinely have to believe in the politics you are selling so as to be convincing. I wish Mrs Micallef Leyson the best of luck. I’m sure she’ll do a good job. I can’t help feeling amused, though, that the Labour Party ended up having to resort to paying a ‘smart’ columnist to sing its praises, because nobody was doing it out of pure conviction. I think that this is where Mrs Micallef Leyson has made a serious error of judgment. When you are paid to hold certain views, those views are immediately devalued.]
Or we could simply call Marisa a first-class opportunist. She is not the first and will certainly not be the last.
Just before the elections, Marisa Micallef actually resigned from a well-paid job as chairman of the Housing Authority well before her contract expired. There were rumblings that she had fallen out with the PN and with the Minister responsible for Housing. She had also written a couple of pieces critical of the Government before she resigned.
It does not look like an opportunistic “conversion” to Labour, nor the vindictive behaviour of an embittered woman. Perhaps Ms. Micallef is simply someone who, rightly or wrongly, actually genuinely believes the PN government is now well past its sell-by date, and is willing to do her level best to bring about its demise in four years’ time The fact that she might be earning a very good salary is not necessarily the primary motivating factor, either.
[Daphne – Forgive me if I sound arrogant, but I’m just being honest when I say that I’m much better placed to know the facts of the matter. It’s odd how Labour supporters run me down for being a ‘midhla tal-partit’ and then assume that they know more through speculating than I know through asking the people involved directly. For all sorts of reasons, I would prefer to be discreet. I don’t even wish to criticise Mrs Micallef Leyson, who has made her own choices, just as I have made mine. I think she was unwise, and not because of the damage she is causing to the Nationalist Party, but because of the damage she is causing to herself. The older we grow, the more important it becomes to take a long view. Bad moves in one’s 20s can be fixed usually. Bad moves in one’s 50s are rather more perilous. But then maybe it isn’t a bad move for her; maybe it’s a good move. That’s why I say I can’t really criticise her for doing it. Her life might change for the better as a result.]
I would call her an ‘ intellectual whore’ and not be mealy-mouthed about someone who is ready to sell his/her age-old convictions at the drop of a coin (or rather, a lot of coins).
Funny how both Joe Grima and Mintoff did not ‘lose credibility’ with the Nationalists in the late 90s. So much so that the former was rewarded with his own chat show on NET and the latter with interviews during the height of the political crisis in 98.
[Daphne – You’re a little confused. Joe Grima and Dom Mintoff would have had to gain credibility with Nationalist supporters, not lose it. And they didn’t do that, either.]
I was never a fan of either, but if we’re going to say that people changing their minds leads to them losing credibility, then we might as well revert to that odious habit of the past were being a floating voter was, in the eyes of many, equivalent to being a ‘pinnur’.
[Daphne – We’re not talking about people changing their minds here. We’re talking about people allowing personal bitterness and vindictiveness to send them veering in the opposite direction. You know how some people rant on and on so horribly and hatefully about a spouse who has rejected them, and how they want to hurt that person, and instead of moving on and making a new life they become stuck in their obsession of getting their revenge? Don’t you think there is more dignity in keeping silent while you look to rebuild your life with somebody else? Deciding to vote for another party is a whole lot different to deciding to campaign against the party you once campaigned for. People who swing in this way in their 50s, which is a whole lot different to changing your mind or experimenting in your 20s, are exposed to accusations of psychological instability at worst and of cheap foolishness at best.]
The possibility of changing your mind is the prerogative of every voter and is essential in a well-functioning democracy. That’s one way how the ruling class is kept on its tip-toes and how we all ensure that there is a healthy change in government every once in a while.
[Daphne – I can’t understand how you equate changing the way you vote with swinging between extreme poles in campaigning. While I could conceivably change the way I vote, you will never see me campaigning for Labour and against the Nationalist Party. It wouldn’t be just unseemly, but would expose me to the suspicion of having an unstable personality, given that unlike Mrs Micallef Leyson I do not need the job. To be honest, however much Mrs Micallef Leyson needed the money, I think she would have been much wiser to take something that paid less so as to retain her credibility for when a better opportunity comes along. She has being doing enough damage to her reputation by writing against the prime minister in letters to The Times after years of writing paeans of praise to him; taking payment from the Labour Party for writing against the Nationalist Party will reflect even worse on her integrity. Quite frankly, I think it’s a shame. I find it painful to watch somebody doing themselves in like that. One should never act on the instruction of bitterness. It is a negative, destructive emotion, and such a poor adviser.]
“Joe Grima, who hasn’t worn himself out yet swinging from side to side, though I notice that he isn’t the only one given the fact that it is human nature to fling oneself aboard the most modish bandwagon of the moment, even at the risk of losing one’s credibility….”
Exactly, that’s the name of the game – credibility. It is the same with what is happening to Marisa Micallef. No matter what she writes and says from now on – it will not be credible. (Maybe she will get a copy of her past articles and just change Gonzi to Muscat and publish them again. Only this time it will be in it-Torca and she has to translate.)
Joseph Muscat needs to understand that in order to get more votes from the PN side, his party needs to change its soul and not just its clothes. Does he think that because he has Marisa Micallef on board he is going to attract the votes of the Nationalists? I don’t know if he knows but she wasn’t popular at all. She came along as haughty and a snob to most people.
It is not just a question of image. Even the GWU is launching a new corporate image next Friday. It is just a face-lift. They are even inviting the President. I wonder how comfortable Tony Zarb is going to feel.
I am worried by the new buzzword of the PL – gvern instabbli – are they really aware of what they are saying and what it means to prospective investors in Malta ?
Apart from the victory over the Ottoman Turks in 1565, the 8th September marks the surrender of Italy announced on 8 September 1943 and not VE Day as you erroneously imply (the armistice had been signed on the 3rd September though announced on radio on the 8th). As the birth of the Virgin happens to be celebrated on the 8th September, the date acquired, through the usual Maltese penchant for ascribing miraculous intervention for anything which ends positively, a religious significance (just as the arrival of the convoy in August 1942 did).
As regards the Leader of the opposition, he represents the Opposition and not, as you state, nobody.
[Daphne – The leader of the Opposition does not represent the state. That’s what I meant. The president does, the prime minister does, the opposition leader does not. The representative of parliament is the speaker. Therefore, at formal occasions which demand that the state be represented, the leader of the opposition can have no possible role. His role as leader of the opposition is purely parliamentary.]
His role is recognized by the Constitution and by a number of laws which make it mandatory for the Prime Minister to consult the Leader of the opposition before making certain decisions. His role is essential to democracy.
[Daphne – The Constitution recognises the role of the leader of the opposition in the context of parliament and not in the running of the country. The country is run by the prime minister. And we are not talking about running the country here, but about representing the state. If you cannot separate the two functions in your mind with a nickname like yours, then perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that the opposition leader and Joe Grima can’t do it either.]
All of the above is stated without entering into the merits of which day should be the single national day of Malta. In my opinion, it should be Independence Day (when rule by the Colonial Office became impossible) as it is with most ex-colonies. The other four days should remain public holidays which, in itself, implies a degree of celebration.
In my view, any day selected to be the national day should be celebrated by the State in a totally secular fashion without the usual High Mass at St. John’s as if it was Providence who got us independence from Britain or proclaimed Malta a republic and so on and so forth. All authorities in this country should get it into their heads that we are a secular State and not a vassal of the Holy See. We are the last country in Europe where feudalism still prevails. Have we obtained independence from Britain to rush headlong into the imperial arms of the Pontifex Maximus, the successor to the Roman emperors, to surrender our independence into his hands?
You forgot the other, best suggestion of the lot, the day when “Maltese citizens” protesting ever so peacefully were gunned down to be shown who’s the boss by uninvited evil colonists.
[Daphne – I am one of the fortunate few who was able to hear a description of that day’s events straight from the mouth of eyewitnesses, so I don’t have to rely on myths and political legends. My family is from Valletta. My grandmother had a rather interesting description of how some protesters came out onto the balcony of a private home they were ransacking, with large bloomers stretched wide between their hands, showed them to the angry mob below and yelled: “Ara xi qliezet ta’ taht jilbsu s-sinjuri! Tal-harir!” Some things never change.]
“Once a leader of a political party becomes prime minister, he ceases to represent only those who voted for him, or his party, and becomes the representative of the state.”
How come nobody ever told Lawrence Gonzi about that?
[Daphne – That’s exactly how he operates, Twanny. And that’s the main reason why Mrs Micallef Leyson, who caused him maximum embarrassment with her public adulation over the years, is now working for the Labour Party. She expected to have a special job carved out for her in return for services rendered, but was told to apply through the usual channels like everyone else. I can understand why she got upset, but imagine if everyone came calling for their pound of flesh in that way.]
Please tell me you are joking. We have never had a PM who puts party ahead of country like Lawrence Gonzi does. And latterly it’s not just the party, but the inner party.
[Daphne – I must disagree with you there, having lived through the years 1971 to 1987. The interesting thing about Labour leaders Mintoff, Sant and Muscat – but not Mifsud Bonnici – is that as party leaders they put their personal interests before those of the party and as prime ministers, the first two put themselves before the interests of the country, and so will Muscat. It is quite evident that what drives him is naked personal ambition and not the need to bring about change for the better. That wasn’t the case with Fenech Adami – even his enemies couldn’t accuse him of naked personal ambition – and it isn’t the case with Lawrence Gonzi. That’s why I like them, and why I didn’t and don’t like the others, among other reasons. Mintoff was a ruthless sociopath. Alfred Sant had a series of personal obsessions which he wanted to achieve. And Muscat comes across to me as a barrow-boy on the make, who doesn’t waste his charm if he thinks he can’t make a sale. I have to hand it to Muscat: like me, he’s pretty sharp at summing people up (I recognise that in him), which is why he has systematically targeted those with vulnerable egos but won’t even think about approaching me with a barge-pole because he has no time to waste on fruitless endeavours.]
I agree 100% with Daphne about LP leaders putting their personal ambition first. What I disagree with you is that LP is targeting those with vulnerable egos. You surely cannot say that about Manwel Mallia.
[Daphne – I surely can. Manwel Mallia is a grotesque toad-like man in his 60s who has just produced twins with a very young and very attractive woman from one of the more economically unfortunate parts of Europe. No doubt he has convinced himself that she is with him for his personality.]
Daphne, like many others you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into believing the fallacy that Malta became truly ‘free’ on March 31, 1979. This is factually incorrect, since the ‘hakma tal-barranin’ ended at midnight of that day, along with the day itself. ‘Freedom’, as the ignorant and politically biased call it, only arrived AFTER that second was over – ON APRIL 1st. Need we say more?
Is this guy telling the truth? I don’t think so. Marisa Micallef Leyson didn’t ‘keep mum’, on the contrary, she has been licking Dr Gonzi’s a*** for many years. Here is the comment for your delectation:
godfrey grima (5 hours, 12 minutes ago)
I can understand the dismay of some, the shock of others, and the consternation of yet a few more but not the vitriolic with which some of your readers pelt Marisa Micallef. Her move is a coup, the sort we expect young, clever political leaders with a vision and no hang ups like Joseph Muscat to net when they take over political parties. I have known Marisa for countless years. Her disenchantment with the nationalist party goes back decades but she kept mum. It explains her decision to give up the chairmanship of the Housing Autority- nobody fired her , she went away. She is no turncoat. She is a very decent lady with an acute civic sense. That’s the objective way readers should read into her joining Joseph Muscat”s team. I for one wish her well.
[Daphne – Godfrey Grima did the same thing, unfortunately, the difference being that it was Alfred Sant and not Joseph Muscat who flattered him back to Labour. The strange thing is that Mrs Micallef Leyson and Mr Grima – and others – appear to believe that to support a political party one must be completely in love and adore everything about it, else one should run off and seek love elsewhere. I hope they do not apply this principle to their marriages, or they are bound to be disappointed. I am quite happy to support a political party warts and all. I look at them, work out which has the fewest warts, and go for that. I do not expect perfection or a prime minister I can hero-worship. I just want someone sane to run the effing country so that I can get on with my life.]
Godfrey Grima is that type of person who believes that he can take people for a ride by presenting himself as a free thinker with objective ideas and thoughts. His comments, to the discerning, are hilarious.
Hi Daphne, I read Marisa’s appointment on The Times, and some Labourites are mixing your identity with hers, and they are even more angry that their beloved Joseph has chosen you as his adviser.
[Daphne – Please don’t provide me with further evidence that lots of people vote Labour because they have nothing upstairs. It’s just too painful being reminded that in the referendum of 2003 my sons’ future was in the hands of people like this. Marisa and Daphne. Both are women and both write for a newspaper. Therefore we must confuse the two, because like Chinks and niggers, all women look the same.]
On a second note, Toni Abela/Cuschieri of Labour always say: “ahna nigbru ftit minghand il-hafna”; now they can add: “Nigbru hafna ghall-wahda.”
[Daphne – Actually I think EUR40,000 a year is fair remuneration for a job like that. She deserves it.]
What a mind-numbing, long, senseless article.
Yes, your mind is probably easily numbed!
If you read Daphne’s crap, you really have nothing better to do with your life.
Daphne………..you know why your so special and shine.
Your constant insults to PL, you hate 60% of the population who now sides with TAL LABOUR.
Otherwise your nothing, your voice would have been ignored. keep up with your insults. you convience me more to vote this time for the FIRST TIME LABOUR.
WILL YOU DARE TO PUBLISH THIS COMMENT. DONT BE COWARD.
Darba ohra ikteb bil-Malti profs…..forsi xi hadd kien jifmek.
Hawn Ray Spiteri hi. Why you still read Daphne hi, if she is nothing and she ignored ? If you want vote first time labour hi, you very welcome hi because we democratic. u akcwali they are welcome to you and your like.
U by the way don’t be coward hi, give us your real name and then mur saqqi l-hass.
Donnhom mahruqin tal-Lejber….. min jaf ghaliex? Nofshom jifirhu li ghandhom lil Marisa, u n-nofs l-iehor ihokku mohhhom jahsbu jekk Joseph tilifx rasu! Kompli aqlalhom, Daphne. Kliemek jinzilli ghasel meta nara cwiec bhal dawn.
tajba lipp…
What an idiot!
@Daphne: Who said that the ceremony was only for those representing the State?
[Daphne – I’m sorry if I sound impatient, but really. These are not things which are ‘said’. They are things which are. Do you eat with your hands at table and then challenge people by asking who said that one should use a fork and knife? State ceremonies are precisely that, state ceremonies. Memorial/commemorative wreaths at state ceremonies such at this one – which calls for representation of the state only, are laid by the head of state and/or the prime minister. There are other commemorative events which call for representation not just of the state, but also of parliament and the opposition, like the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day, for example, during which both David Cameron and Gordon Brown laid wreaths in London, but which the Opposition leader in Malta chose not to attend, sending Joe Debono Grech (ghax veteran, ha ha haj) instead. I feel like a school teacher or parent explaining these things, and a bit foolish too, because I expect fellow adults to understand them in the same way they understand how to use a fork and knife. But then what am I saying? The vast majority of Maltese do not know how to use a fork and knife.]
Mr. Muscat does not need me to defend him and I have no inclination to do so either but, perhaps, he was representing the Opposition. If the Speaker, an officer of the House, has the right to place flowers or whatever, the Leader of the Opposition is equally an officer of the House.
[Daphne – The speaker represents parliament, making the presence of the leader of the opposition redundant. The prime minister is there as the representative of the state, and not of the ‘government’ benches in parliament.]
The Speaker would have precious little to preside over if there were no Opposition. Being part of Parliament, an organ of State, the opposition carries out an important function in an organ of State. Everyone has the right to put wreathes there – the place is public. The Prime Minister, strictly speaking, represents the Government not the State even if the Government (Executive) is one of the organs of State. A clear indication of this is that a visit to a foreign country by the Prime Miister is an offical visit and only that by the President can be a State visit. If YOU cannot figure this out in your mind, we’re truly in deep doo doo…
[Daphne – I think you are the one who can’t understand the distinctions. The president is the head of state in the same way that Queen Elizabeth II is head of state. But neither of them has executive powers. The executive representation of the state – in negotiations with other states, for example – lies with the prime ministers of both those states. The leader of the opposition does not exist where the purposes of the British state and the Maltese state are concerned. He/she does not represent the state and cannot enter into negotiations on behalf of the state.]
Daphne said: “I think you are the one who can’t understand the distinctions. The president is the head of state in the same way that Queen Elizabeth II is head of state. But neither of them has executive powers.”
Either Ms. Caruana Galizia is wrong, or the Constitution of Malta has been amended.
Constitution of Malta
Chapter VII – The Executive
78. (1) The executive authority of Malta is vested in the President.
[Daphne – For certain formalities only. It was the prime minister who signed for Malta’s EU accession in Athens and not the president, for example. The leader of the opposition could never have signed on Malta’s behalf.]
The PM signed the Acession TREATY. And a treaty with another state or group of states is considered to be an administrative, not executive, act. It could, just as legally, have been signed by an ambassador or anyone else duly delegated to do so (yes, legally even the leader of the opposition, though unthinkable in practice).
On the other hand, no law – major or minor – can come into effect unless and until it is signed by the President. That is what is meant when the constitution says “The executive authority of Malta is vested in the President”. Under normal circumstances, he signs whatever is put before him – but it is by no means automatic. For example, Fenech Adami declared he would not sign any law introducing divorce. I have no doubt he would have carried out his threat (or kept his promise, oif you like) which would have precipitated a constitutional crisis.
[Daphne – No, it wouldn’t have precipitated any such crisis. He would have had to resign, so that a president willing to sign could take his place. The president cannot overrule the will of the people as expressed in legislation enacted by parliament.]
“Daphne – No, it wouldn’t have precipitated any such crisis. He would have had to resign, so that a president willing to sign could take his place. The president cannot overrule the will of the people as expressed in legislation enacted by parliament.]”
As an example in Belgium: when the government introduced abortion, the king (basically same constitutional role as our president) refused to sign the law. He stepped down for a day, the law was passed and he was reinstated.
Don’t you think that the resignation of a President due to disagreement with parliament on a point of principle qualifies as a constitutional crisis in itself?
[Daphne – No.]
To prove your point, Daphne, if you have a look at the ‘protocol’ for state events you will find that the the Leader of the Catholic Church in Malta i.e. the Archbishop has priority over the Leader of the Opposition.
[Daphne – I don’t have to prove my point. The general deficiency in civic education, and its results, are not my personal problem. It’s a shame, though, that so many people, the leader of the opposition included, can’t distinguish between the representatives of the state, parliament and yes, the Catholic Church and the representatives of political parties.]
Daphne, it’s great you’re back. This is definitely the best column on the island. After a brief silent period I was becoming worried that there might have been a change of plans, but thank goodness you’re back. I never miss this column. Keep it up.
The more defectors join the Labour Party, the more the party image becomes that of a flea market – selling second hand wares. You get what you pay for and going for second hand ideas from recycled brains is never the wisest thing to do.
[Daphne – It’s not the ideas they’re after, Jomar.Mrs Micallef Leyson never helped sell the Nationalist Party, so she doesn’t have the experience required to help sell Labour. Her function is that of a decoy duck – placed in a pond to attract other ducks. The idea is to make it socially acceptable for people from Mrs Micallef Leyson’s sort of background to openly support Labour and make it seem modish and contemporary. It’s what Tony Blair did in the run-up to 1997, by targeting what in that country are known as the chattering-classes. I find it all quite fascinating, particularly since lots of these decoy ducks (there are others, but their faces are less public) are the most atrocious snobs who are riven by fastidiousness. The ultimate test of how comfortable they are with Labour still lies ahead. These are the people who despise the prime minister and his advisers because they regard them as lower-middle-class (and therefore with the values and attitudes of the socially inferior) and intellectually beneath them. It is not astonishing that they should feel more comfortable with the sort of people who run the Labour party, but the opposite: they are most comfortable in environments where their evolutionary superiority is openly acknowledged – you know, sort of bossing the drop-jawed plebs around.]
I can almost see the next n line – Kenneth Zammit Tabona as consultant on etiquette and the arts. But seriously, what Joseph Muscat is doing has its own disadvantages as well. He will be adding more factions within the party and there are those who argue that it is better to confront one’s ‘enemy’ of the opposite camp rather than deal with inner factions. I do not want this to sound like sour grapes but I know some PL supporters who haven’t seen the move as something positive.
I can’t wait to see Micallef Leyson at the first Labour mass meeting. I am sure she will fit right in among the crowd should she go for the typical Labour look. You know, the ‘couple of sizes too small’ hot pants and T-shirt, the Torca neckerchief round her neck, contemplating her hero, Joseph, with a misty look in her eyes, screaming Viva l-Labour, viva l-Labour……
I wonder where that picture was taken, looks like Paola.
Looks more like Il-Ħamrun, to me.
It’s more like Hamrun’s High Street… kantuniera ma’ Mile End.
You are right, guys – there is the street name in the top left corner: it is Hamrun.
Once again Daphne you manage to leave flabbergasted. For weeks there has been nothing in the news worth writing about … that’s because all the news of unemployment levels rising, falling numbers of tourists and deficit going through the roof … only confirm that the world is in a recession. In my opinion all the above point to an unsuccessful government but everyone’s entitles to his/hers opinion … even you Daphne!
Then out of the blues like a drowning man clutching at a straw, you show us all that you’re still on the ball (of politics) and throw at us this bombshell.
Muscat … this man is full of tricks. He goes late to the ceremony to make us all believe that the government does not want Labour to celebrate “l-Indipendenza”, that it is only a feast for PN supporters etc…
Come on Daphne, I believe you can do better.
On the issue of credibility this article does not help yours that much … I can assure you.
[Daphne – I was on holiday.]
Out of the BLUE.
78 (2) The executive authority of Malta shall be exercised by the President, either directly or through officers subordinate to him, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
The Constitution deliberately distinguishes between the terms “vested” which it uses in Art. 78 para. 1 and “exercised” which it uses in Art. 78 para. 2. Although it vests what is termed “residual power” in the office of the President as Head of State, actual power is exercised by the Cabinet.
@Daphne: thank you for the lesson about what is a head of state. I was just waiting for you for some education on constitutional law. Tarax?! The PM represents Government not the State, the Leader of the opposition represents the Opposition not only in Parliament but also outside it. Your contention is wrong.
[Daphne – The government of Malta is the executive arm of the state. To put it in simplistic terms you might understand, think of the country as a corporation. The president is the chairman, but the prime minister is the CEO. The leader of the opposition is an employee who has no legal authority to act on behalf of the corporation.]
The Opposition is not confined to parliament in a democracy. In a two-party system, especially, the role of leader of the party in opposition is indivisible from that of leader of the Opposition. Can you fathom that?
[Daphne – I can’t understand what you’re trying to say, sorry. The leader of the opposition is a constitutional role. It has nothing to do with political parties. The constitution does not mention political parties.}
The thing is you’re wrong but you believe that where it concerns your opinion about the leader of the opposition or anything else connected with the PL you just cannot err, you speak “ex cathedra”, so to speak… I beg you to carry on like this and that more readers will read your pieces .. you’re a good example of Nationalist arrogance which is convincing more people like me to change sides and to go PL. Xi trid taghmel? Kien hemm min ighid li poplu jkollu l-gvern li jisthoqqlu.
[Daphne – Your problem is that you assume the leader of the Opposition is inevitably the leader of the Labour Party. As far as I and the Constitution are concerned, the leader of the opposition is the leader of the opposition. In four years’ time, the leader of the opposition will be the leader of the Nationalist Party, and it won’t change my view. Will it change yours?]
I really can’t understand why anyone who tries to make a point and to stick to his/her guns is labelled arrogant. I have a feeling that we have lost the true meaning of arrogance. Arrogance is, for example, when you are invited to a state event and don’t turn up so that you can do something irrelevant instead. Arrogance is when you believe you are something you are not. You are arrogant when you think you are the prime minister when you are still in opposition. You are arrogant when you do not listen to what the other person is saying – trying to keep an open mind – and just continue an argument until the other person gives up. Arrogance is when you give public land to your party and not give two hoots about the rest of the population. Arrogance is when you try to rewrite history and rubbish the facts. An arrogant government is one which does not allow newspapers to use the words ‘nation’ or ‘Malta’ on their masthead. This is not to say that there are no elements within the PN and the government that are arrogant; on the contrary, there are a few and the party and the government must rethink some of its policies. Failure to respond shows incompetence or arrogance.
Bye, bye, Marisa – Hello Marisa!
Bye, bye Jason – Hello Jason!
Didn’t see this last one coming!
Joseph is so full of….surprises!
What’s in store for Anglu and Toni? I wonder.
Someone touted Zrinzo to replace Jason! From President to Secretary?
Hawduni ha nifhem!
If the changes that Joseph Muscat is making will lead to a change in government and eventually this will lead to better policies on the economy, environment and all that is falling apart on these islands, unfortunately, I do not care if it is Marisa advising Labour or even Daphne.
As an ordinary citizen my interest is in seeing improvements in our islands, not that everything is bad – however, in these last 10 years or so there has been a huge neglect of this country and no matter how genuine Gonzi might be, the PN are not in a position to continue to offer solutions and sound policies.
That’s what an ordinary citizen should look forward to. Hopefully Labour will be a better government than the current deteriorating administration. Time will tell….
And this is the problem – where are Muscat’s policies on the economy, environment and all that is falling apart on these islands? Can we trust someone who asks for a blank cheque?
OK, let’s turn this into something constructive. Give us ten things that you expect Labour to do much better that PN when in government, with at least some evidence that the PL leader has what it takes to make those changes.
For example –
1) Better roads – Joseph Muscat will improve our roads by investing an additional EUR100 million over five years, and requiring that each project be completed in not more than three months, with the majority of works being carried out at night to avoid traffic delays. Joseph muscat can do this because he has the managerial traits that he has shown in XYZ.
You cannot just hope that Labour will be a better government. You need to be pretty sure if you are going to trust your country in its hands. I for one am still not convinced.