They didn't want less money. They wanted all pigs to be equal.
I am astonished to see that even luminaries of the political and media scene, interviewed in The Times today, are talking out of their bottoms about Jean Pierre Farrugia, salary increases and the public mood.
The only two accurate comments were by anthropologist and The Sunday Times columnist Mark-Anthony Falzon, who said that the whole thing has been a public relations disaster for the government and the Nationalist Party, and by Carmen Sammut, who teaches media at the university, who said that she doesn’t know enough of the facts to form an opinion.
For the rest, Jean Pierre was a hero, the prime minister had made a U-turn, the Labour Party was victorious, and the salary increases have ben scrapped. Oh, and the public mood has been read.
I despair. If even people at this level – albeit their political beliefs might get in the way – can’t marshal the facts before putting them into perspective, what hope is there with Cetta ta’ Bubaqra? Or perhaps not, because I often find that Cetta ta’ Bubaqra has far better insight into such situations than those who try to be too clever by half.
So let’s marshall those facts, shall we?
Fact No. 1
We are dealing with two salary increases here: the salary increase for ministers and the salary increase for MPs. They are two different animals and should not be confused or amalgamated.
Fact No. 2
All MPs get the MPs’ increase. MPs who are also ministers get the MPs’ increase AND the ministers’ increase.
Fact No. 3
Ministers began to receive their pay increase as ministers in 2008. At the same time, they also began to receive their pay increase as MPs, but other MPs did not. All other MPs – Labour and Nationalist, an MP is an MP whatever the party – were about to start receiving their pay increase now, but then discovered that their colleagues had been receiving it for two years already. So they began to spit blood. They weren’t angry because they were given a pay increase (but commonsense should have told us that); they were angry because they didn’t start receiving it two years ago like the others.
Fact No. 4
Jean Pierre Farrugia was not objecting to the MINISTERIAL salary increase. He was objecting to the fact that ministers began to receive their salary increase AS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT two years ahead of him and all the other members of parliament. To redress the balance and make all the pigs feel equal again, the state would have to give all the other MPs two years of backdated pay increases (expensive), or make those MPs who are ministers refund what they have received so far (around 14,000 euros each).
Fact No. 5
Jean Pierre Farrugia was content with the second option – making MPs who are ministers refund what they have received so far – because this would put all MPs on an equal footing. Now, they will all begin receiving their salary increase at the same time. BUT THEY WILL STILL RECEIVE THEIR SALARY INCREASE.
Fact No. 6
Meanwhile, ministerial salary increases were not discussed at all and have remained untouched, despite all the smoke and mirrors about victory and climbing down and how Muscat has handled the matter brilliantly.
Fact No. 7
Ministers have to give up the day job. MPs who are not ministers do not. This is why MPs who are not ministers can afford to talk about donating their salary increase to charity: they are still working as doctors, lawyers, architects, consultants or, in the leader of the Opposition’s case, have a family fireworks business. Ordinary MPs are not obliged to publish details of their income. Ministers are obliged to do so. This has no direct bearing on the argument, but it gives some context.
Fact No. 8
When Joseph Muscat announced that he would give his salary increase to charity and that his parliamentary colleagues (Labour) would do the same, he jumped the gun because he hadn’t discussed the matter with them and did not have their consent. While a few of those who are well off or just competitive, like Anglu Farrugia, announced that they would donate theirs to charity, the rest argued that nobody could tell them what to do with their salary. Muscat then backtracked and said that his MPs would only donate as much of their salary as they deemed fit.
Fact No. 9
That’s going to be a big pile of euro-coins.
Fact No. 10
Joseph Muscat and Jean Pierre Farrugia did not read the public mood. The first created it and the second helped wind up the public.
Fact No. 11
Jean Pierre Farrugia was not upset because he meets ‘the little man’ as a GP and knows that there are financial problems about. He was upset (rightly) because some of his parliamentary colleagues began to receive their salary increase two years ahead of the rest.
Fact No. 12
His round-robin email, press interviews, personal invective, open threats to vote against his party and appearances on Super One should have been screamingly loud clues as to what he was really angry about, and should have been interpreted correctly by media observers, just as they were interpreted correctly by the prime minister.
Fact No. 13
Several political pundits, like those quoted by The Times today, confuse ‘reading the public mood’ with ‘acquiescing to the public mood’. The first is essential. The second must be approached with caution. The public mood is not necessarily correct and giving in to it can have disastrous consequences. There are public moods and public moods. Skilled politicians should know how to distinguish between the sort of public mood that prevailed in Tunisia over the last few weeks (justified and real) and the sort of public mood which, in the most notorious example of all time, led Pontius Pilate to take his decision to have Jesus Christ executed.
Fact No. 14
Had all MPs begun to receive their salary increases at the same time, whether now or two years ago, none of this would have happened. And believe me, there would have been no public mood to read. Or hadn’t you noticed that, in Malta (because it is still an evolving democracy), it is not the public who shape the views of politicians, but politicians who shape the views of the public.
11 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
So it all boils down, as usual, to envy and “lanzit” (can anybody suggest an English synonym)?
“Resentment”?
What a total fiasco. No winners, all losers.
What a totally irrelevant issue and waste of time.
Let’s stay focused on the real issues: low unemployment and economic growth. As long as the country has both, it can afford to pay its ministers, MPs and everyone else better salaries and wages.
You don’t hear Labour make so much noise on those matters, do you?
Go on and think that JP Farrugia’s action is all lanzit and envy. Feel the pulse of the workers. They cannot make ends meet, and that is the truth.
Truth is that this is going to loose us the next general election. I agree that consultants are losing money when they become ministers, but at a time when Air Malta workers have had their pay frozen for years and cannot get a decent raise to meet the expenses of the free economy, which is becoming worse by the day, unlike DCG.
[Daphne – ‘DCG’ did not go off and find a job with a parastatal company for security of tenure and a reliable pay-cheque. DCG is self-employed and works in the highly volatile private sector, where you have to run to keep up and nobody guarantees that there’ll be any money at the end of the month to pay those bills. I find it incredible that Air Malta employees expect a pay rise when the airline is so heavily over-staffed and redundancies have to be made but will not be made for political reasons. Do you realise that the airline is technically bankrupt and should have gone the way of so many others had it not been kept alive by artificial means? And then you want a raise?]
The Government is telling the workers that there wont be pensions for them in the future and that they have to make sacrifices, while at the same time hiding the salary/honoraria raise for the MPs, together with builting an unnecessary Parliament House destroying the only square in Valletta, and wasting money on building a roofless theatre instead of a public project for the general public like a one stop shop for all government business, this is truly madness. The PM is out of touch with reality.
[Daphne – No, actually I think you are. You work for an airline that has been haemmorhaging millions and not only do you take it for granted that you will never be made redundant (heaven forfend! you work for a parastatal) but you also want a raise by right. You don’t even seem to know that the airline you work for would have folded if it had not been saved by a whisker by the European Commission granting a special exemption to allow the state to bankroll it to the tune of a further 50 million euros of taxpayers’ money so that it doesn’t have to sack you and shut down the airline and leave us all stranded and dependent on Ryanair.]
I’m sorry for him he’s truly a nice guy but alas, he is resting on his close tight advisors who dont give a damn whether they will be in government next time round. We care that the PN will be given the mandate to govern once more. There is no credibility in the Labour party. They done even have one good damn policy on anything. And they will be in government by default because of all the autogoals the Government is committing. A shame. But that means that the PN needs 10 years in opposition to get it’s house in order. The first one to fall will be the PN Gen Sec who is just a hopeless case.
A right rat-screw, from start to finish – whichever way you look at it – handled in a pretty poor fashion. And incredibly bad timing too.
Even though I tend to agree with most of your points Daphne, may I remind you that 2008 was the year of catastrophe. A chapter in history, when all the markets went down and the western hemisphere was rolling into a massive recession.
We were asked to observe the approaching thunderstorm on the horizon. It was the year that Iceland went broke and powerhouses like Germany and France were feeling the pinch.
May I also remind you that it was also the year when a hefty surcharge was imposed on utilities. While I am not envious of the fact that MPs should be adequately compensated for their responsibilities, the burden should be shouldered by all and sundry not simply us common folk.
One other fact is that Joseph Muscat was either lying when he intimated that news of the salary increases, effected a good two years ago, took him by surprise, or else his party machine is as useless as it was prior to the election.
The prime minister insinuated that it is the former when he replied to Muscat’s questions in parliament, and I can’t agree more.
It is clear that he was waiting for the right ‘public mood’ and with a little help from a friend (Leo), let loose. Politicians shaping the views of people, and how!
“When asked whether the Nationalist Party is the same party it was in the past, Jean Pierre Farrugia replies with a painful and emphatic “no”. – Malta Today interview, January 9, 2011.
[Daphne – And thank God for that.]
When asked whether the Labour Party is the same party it was in the past, I would reply with a PAINFUL and emphatic “yes.”
Once again you have to read Daphne’s blog to get a true insight of the issues.
What concerns me is not the increase to MPs, which was long overdue, (or ministers’ increase in salary, for that matter) but why on earth did someone sanction the ministerial increase two years ago and not the rest.
I find it incredible that this went on for two years and nobody raised the issue. None of this crap would have hit the fan if everybody got their money on time.
A public relations disaster it may have been, but I still hang on to my view that as soon as one single Labour MP accepts the increase, Joseph Muscat’s argument falls flat on its face.
Most of his MPs would love to get their hands on that increase but he went ahead and put unbelievable pressure on them not to accept.
The man is a twat and in their own little circles his own MPs hate his guts.