Some words on which the Prime Minister and Austin Gatt should meditate
Published:
June 4, 2011 at 10:21pm
C S Lewis - one of the most prominent Christian thinkers and writers of the 20th century
To say nothing of Beppe Fenech Adami, Adrian Vassallo and Mother Theresa of Coleiro Preca:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
– C. S. Lewis
54 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What do you think of Mario de Marco as PN’s next leader?
I think Mario de Marco is probably the best candidate for the job on the present stage.
It appears that no-one is noticing the chess game which is being played. I’m ready to bet on Gonzi not being PM by the the time the divorce bill is up for voting in Parliament.
That will spare him the embarassment of voting in favour of the bill and that is why he is not commenting on how he will vote.
That seems to me the best way out for Gonzi. PN would have a new leader at the next elections and, at this stage, that’s the only way it can have a decent chance of winning it. I know Gonzi is considering his chances and knows that it would be better to bow out now rather than after a general election defeat 20 months down the line from the parliamentary vote on the divorce bill.
Daphne, what do you think of Mario de Marco as PN’s next leader? Hope that you upload my comment.
[Daphne – Why wouldn’t I? I don’t hypothesise on the leadership of either party and only say what I think when candidates have put themselves forward. You’ve seen me do that with both the Nationalist and Labour leadership. I’m not going to change my policy now.]
P Borg, the next thing you will be suggesting is that Gonzi should go straight to Joseph Muscat and hand over to him the keys of Castille. No general elections necessary.
Joseph can then form a government with the help of JPO, who will replace Adrian Vassallo, who will not resign from Parliament. Marie Louise Coleiro Preca will resign and Deborah Schembri will be co-opted in her place.
I do not think so.
The PM is entitled to make no comment about his vote. He has a free vote. If he declares his vote, he will surely influence his colleagues, and that would not be fair on them.
If I were one of his colleagues, I too would not have commented about my vote.
[ciccio2011 – The PM is entitled to make no comment about his vote. He has a free vote].
Legally, yes. Morally, I don’t think so. We have a right to know whether each of our representatives, including the Prime Minister, respect the will of the electorate.
[ciccio2011 – If he declares his vote, he will surely influence his colleagues, and that would not be fair on them].
That’s the whole point of being a leader/Prime Minister.
Kenneth, I am of the view that, although as Prime Minister he is the leader, Dr. Lawrence Gonzi should not declare his vote intention in this instance because a free vote has been given.
Since a free vote has been given, there is no purpose of leadership.
The matter has been declared, rightly or wrongly, a matter of conscience.
And moreover, this is not the PM’s bill. This is JPO’s bill. We are not post-2013, when Joseph Muscat, in a position of PrimeMinister, was planning to present his own private member’s bill on divorce.
I find the media’s obsession with knowing the individual votes unnecessary, and if anything, it should be regarded only as a process of curiosity. It is not telling us much about any MPs’ conscience, and I wouldn’t want to know anyway.
And let us face it, until the bill and its amendments are put in front of the House and discussed, how can a member decide on his vote?
I personally have not seen the Bill, so I cannot comment about its clauses.
[ciccio2011 – Kenneth, I am of the view that, although as Prime Minister he is the leader, Dr. Lawrence Gonzi should not declare his vote intention in this instance because a free vote has been given].
He is Prime Minister, but he is certainly not a leader. A free vote should not have been given, and in any case, if he were truly a leader, he would have declared his intentions a long time ago. Eddie Fenech Adami was a leader. Lawrence Gonzi isn’t. And I’m not speaking of leadership as in “leader of the Party”. I’m speaking of leadership as in personality and skill.
[ciccio2011 – Since a free vote has been given, there is no purpose of leadership].
There’s always purpose for leadership.
[ciccio2011 – And moreover, this is not the PM’s bill. This is JPO’s bill].
Wrong. Since the referendum result, it is OUR bill.
[ciccio2011 – I find the media’s obsession with knowing the individual votes unnecessary, and if anything, it should be regarded only as a process of curiosity].
Gravely wrong. The media is acting on what it believes the public wants. The public wants to know how each MP will vote. The media would be abdicating its duty if it did not press for answers. We have a right to know.
[ciccio2011 – It is not telling us much about any MPs’ conscience, and I wouldn’t want to know anyway].
I’m not interested in anyone’s conscience. I’m only interested (by right) in knowing how they will vote.
[ciccio2011 – And let us face it, until the bill and its amendments are put in front of the House and discussed, how can a member decide on his vote?]
Do you honestly believe that’s what’s bothering their “consciences”?
Kenneth, I see you do not take NO for an answer.
I am expressing my opinion, based on the bigger picture as I see it (I may tell you later about it).
So tell me, what, according to you, would be the IMMEDIATE effect on the PN government if Gonzi did not give a free vote but imposed a Yes vote instead?
Let me tell you what I think (just a few quick ones).
1. Joseph Muscat will come out claiming that the Prime Minister has made a U turn of divine proportions; He will accuse the PM as “bla kuxjenza” or “kuxjenza tal-konvenjenza”; Joseph will also claim a major personal victory and will claim that since the Yes have a clear majority in Parliament, then he is the Prime Minister. He and his new cabinet will therefore pocket the salary increase approved by former PM Gonzi.
2. Austin Gatt will have no option but to resign. That is what he said in February. He will spend the rest of his life selling Arriva bus tickets to tourists at twice the price for locals.
3. The Minister of Finance, who saw the Lady of the Dollars (Madonna tad-Duluri) in tears, will have no other option but to resign like Dr. Gatt. He will spend the rest of his life at Borg-in-Nadur, with Angelik.
4. The Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg will set up his own “Yes to divorce? I wouldn’t say so!” party in parliament. He will be joined at once by Adrian Vassallo.
5. The Minister of Gozo will claim that since her constituency voted “no” she cannot vote “yes” and will set up her separate party. She will declare herself the PM of Gozo.
6. The Bishop of Gozo will set up the Gozo Independence Confessional Party and will publish a secret report commissioned by the Gozo Diocese which shows that a tunnel between Malta and Gozo is not feasible.
7. The conservative faction in the PN will resign en bloc from all the structures of the PN. There will be no one left at the Dar Centrali except for JPO, who will vote Yes even if the Party issued instructions to vote No, and the PM.
I do not think that Dr. Gonzi will have any problem with voting NO in parliament.
He can do so after a consultative referendum. Examine what has happened in other democratic countries after a consultative referendum. With due respect to everyone, get your facts right before trying to influence someone to vote against his conscience.
I think if proper research is done, the Nationalist Party should be mobilised to vote No. The Nationalists can then go on to concentrate on winning the next elections, if……….
[Daphne – With a strategist like you on board, how could they fail to win?]
“before trying to influence someone to vote against his conscience”
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory…
“The Nationalist MPs who will vote ‘Yes’ have every right to do so, indeed, it is their duty to vote Yes once they have so decided in their conscience,” Dr Gonzi said.
“I will defend the right of every MP to reach his own decision in the circumstances to safeguard the common good, whether the vote is for a Yes, a No or an abstention” Dr Gonzi said.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/local/pm-gonzi-nationalist-mps-have-a-right-to-vote-yes-or-no-to-divorce.368892
“We are the Borg (Not Tonio). You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.”
“Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco, the only member of the government who has so far declared he will vote in favour of divorce in Parliament, has explained the reasons for his decision.
“Whilst I have my personal reservations on the concept of a ‘no fault’ divorce, I recognise and accept that as parliamentarians we should now concentrate on putting through a Bill that reflects the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum,” he said.
“It was indeed us parliamentarians who opted to put the matter before the people to voice their opinion to us. In the circumstances, therefore, the result of the referendum cannot be ignored and must be respected.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/local/de-marco-explains-his-yes.368891
David Agius has also declared so, hastily I must add. He is the whip…… he must be careful. If Dr. Gonzi decides to direct his party to vote no…….
…then it’s political suicide.
So Mario says. But he is wrong. See what happened in other countries. Once it is a matter of conscience and a free vote (sometimes referred to as a conscience vote) is given, the MPs are allowed to vote according to their conscience.
They may vote against the result of a consultative referendum.These are the facts.
Yes, they may commit political suicide, and ensure at least a decade of Labour government.
“Beppe Fenech Adami, the son for the former Prime Minister, is to vote No when the Divorce Bill comes up in Parliament.
“I will vote No as I choose to be consistent rather than popular,” Dr Fenech Adami told timesofmalta.com.
He said he was comforted by the fact that there appeared to be a majority for the Bill to be approved, in line with the outcome of the referendum.
“There is no need for unanimity for the Bill to be approved, the referendum result was not unanimous either,” he said.
He said that had the majority in parliament been in danger, he would have had to consider his position and resign from Parliament, because he could not vote for something which he considered to be wrong.
He said he also drew comfort from the fact that the majority within his own district (the eighth) had voted against divorce.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/local/beppe-fenech-adami-to-vote-no.368890
Beppe. You can vote no and remain in parliament. It is a consultative referendum. Vide what happened in other democratic countries.
Yes, it pays to govern against the wishes of the electorate. Mintoff did it. I’m not sure Beppe holds him in very high esteem.
A consultative referendum cannot be compared to a General Election. It has nothing to do with governing.
[Daphne – “It is nothing to do with governing”: take a break. You need it.]
“Michael Gonzi, the prime minister’s brother, has confirmed that he will vote Yes during the divorce debate in Parliament.
“I voted against divorce in the referendum, but following the result, my conscience is telling me to vote yes, ” Dr Gonzi, a popular doctor in St Paul Bay, told timesofmalta.com.
“I spoke to my brother and he told me to go ahead and vote according to my conscience.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/local/prime-minister-s-brother-to-vote-in-favour-of-divorce.368882
Desert wind. We can read The Times.
[Daphne – I imagine that was an attempt to get us discussing the contents, though.]
Archbishop Gonzi must be spinning in his grave!
“This morning, PN whip David Agius, speaking on radio, said the passage of the Divorce Bill through Parliament was guaranteed and if the PN saw that there was a danger that the Bill would not go through, its MPs would either walk out of the parliamentary Chamber (and thus not be counted for the calculation of the majority) or they would vote in favour. However, at present at least four government MPs had declared they would vote ‘yes'” – timesofmalta.com
Desert Wind, I’m curious. What is the point of pasting so many chunks of text without making any comments of your own?
What conscience? I do not think that these MPs truly understand the meaning of the word conscience. They do not even understand the difference between a vote on government business and a conscience vote on a private member’s bill on moral issues.
What the Prime Minister said today of the right of MPs to vote Yes or No or abstain on divorce left me speechless.
The MPs who vote against the divorce law or abstain should be ashamed of themselves as they are in parliament because the people elected them and so they cannot ignore the clear message the Maltese people sent last Saturday.
They had a right to vote according to their conscience on the 28th May but now they have to vote according to the mandate of the people who elected them.
Those who don’t should resign as they are not representing the people any more. Why was so much money spent on doing the referendum when some MPs are ready to ignore it?
Well said, Mario. The message being passed by Daphne,you and many others is the logical way to act.
Some members of parliament feel they are being pressured to vote Yes. They’ve only themselves to blame.
They cannot escape their responsibility – they represent us and not their conscience. They handed down the decision to the people because – I think – they hoped that the No vote would win.
Well they are well served now and should vote Yes – or otherwise resign. They could have had the option to vote according to their conscience in the first scenario since they forfeited that option they have no choice now.
If Malta Today is reporting him correctly (The Times did not quote this bit), The Prime minister has stated as follows: “I will defend the right of every MP to reach a decision that he or she believes to be the best given the circumstances that ensures the common good, whether the decision is to vote ‘yes’, to vote ‘no’, or to abstain”.
Now, if the PM has guaranteed that the bill will become law anyway, I fail to see how voting ‘nay’ or abstaining is going to ensure the common good as the end result will be the same, a law on divorce. To me, this statement (assuming it has been quoted correctly) is deficient in logic.
Re my earlier comment, I was wrong, The Times did report the same part I quoted from Malta today, as pointed out by Desert Wind.
MP’s should also meditate on these words by a prominent Catholic who fought dictatorial regtimes:
“The Church and every Christian must be the light of the world: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5,16). Jesus´ words have a special application today to the indissoluble nature of marriage. It could perhaps seem that divorce is so firmly rooted in certain social sectors that it is almost not worth continuing to combat it by spreading a mentality, a social custom and civil legislation in favour of the indissolubility of marriage. Yet it is indeed worth the effort! Actually, this good is at the root of all society, as a necessary condition for the existence of the family. Its absence, therefore, has devastating consequences that spread through the social body like a plague — to use the term of the Second Vatican Council to describe divorce (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 47) — and that have a negative influence on the new generations who view as tarnished the beauty of true marriage. …
Resolute opposition to any legal or administrative measures that introduce divorce or that equate de facto unions — including those between homosexuals — with marriage must be accompanied by a pro-active attitude, acting through juridical provisions that tend to improve the social recognition of true marriage in the framework of legal orders that unfortunately admit divorce.”
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264xh.htm
Love the C.S. Lewis comment, Daphne. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Why can’t our political and religious leaders be more like him? Is it because he was Anglican while ours are Catholic? I hope not.
[Daphne – Is it because Anglicans tend to be English and rabid Catholics tend to be southern Mediterranean?]
Daph
Where on earth did you unearth that wonderful CS Lewis quote…………prosit. It’s perfection!
[Daphne – A kind and generous friend emailed it to me because yes, it suits the situation perfectly. ]
I’m sure the vast majority of the contributors to this blog won’t agree with me.
Could those Nationalist MP’s going to vote No genuinely be against Divorce BUT feel that in their constituency there are large numbers who are also against divorce and would give them the No. 1.
I say this because some of my friends are all out against and are already saying that if one of the MPs from their district votes No – that’s where their vote will go. They also insist they will never vote for who votes Yes.
That is possible, but I don’t think that applies to all of them. Many of them simply don’t understand the simple democratic fact that they are there to act on the will of the electorate, and not their “conscience”.
They honestly haven’t the slightest idea of what democracy really means.
THE MEANING OF CONSCIENCE:
Michael Gonzi: I will vote Yes. What else can I do, given that I am the one who will be facing Deborah Schembri on the St Paul’s Bay district (her home turf) in 2013?
Beppe Fenech Adami: My only assest is that I am Eddie’s son. Can I go against his convictions?
Giovanna Debono: 70% of my SUBJECTS voted against and I will be soon needing their votes. And what about Bishop Grech? I need him on my side.
The prime minister: I have to tread very carefully. It is not so easy to forget that John Dalli is waiting for me to make a mistake.
Austin Gatt: I have nothing to lose. I will not be contesting the next election and I have to live up to my reputation. Bugger the majority.
Edwin Vassallo: I come from the town with the second biggest unsupported dome in the world. We have to impress the tourists with our faith.
Did these MPs really give these reasons for voting NO? How the standard of MPs has gone down. They should be inspired by what Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami has said in The Sunday Times. What a difference!
[Daphne – God forbid… to use your preferred choice of judge. Because then we would really be in a mess.]
Demarco hit it spot on. Parliament passed the buck to the people and the people – rightly or wrongly – sent in their reply. There is no going back now – MPs, as I see it, have to vote “Yes”.
‘those who torment us for our own good’
It’s the old story of the power blocs in society telling us what is in our interest. Gramsci wrote about this and Steven Lukes called it ‘ the third face of power’ whereby power is exercised on you without you even noticing and if you do notice, they tell you it is in your best interest.
Something to divert attention away from this, and not picked up on in Malta yet by the press:
William Hague – Benghazi visit from The Guardian
After the talks, Hague wrote on Twitter: “In Malta, returning from Benghazi. The work and hope of many Libyans for freedom is inspiring, as I’ve now seen for myself.”
It’s a sad reflection of the mindset of some of our representatives in parliament that, despite the clear mandate given to them by the referendum result, they keep insisting that they will vote according to their conscience.
If they are unable to differentiate between their personal moral choices (no matter how noble) and the democratic imperitive of respecting the will of the majority as expressed in a referendum, they should not be in parliament in the first place. I wonder what would have happened had these same representatives stated their positions publicly prior to the referendum?
An example of this ‘tormenting us for the common good’ mindset, from The Malta Independent, 13 Feb:
“……The PN’s executive committee yesterday unanimously voted in favour of party Secretary General Paul Borg Olivier’s motion declaring the party in favour of family unity and against the introduction of divorce – a decision Dr Gonzi described as “in favour of the common good”. The motion was then endorsed by the PN’s parliamentary group…..”
Where was JPO?
Whatever CS Lewis writes, we have to sympathise with Dr Austin Gatt’s problem with his conscience on the approaching parliamentary vote on divorce legislation.
How can we ignore Dr Gatt’s claim that he has discovered he has a problem with his conscience. Perhaps he doesn’t have one.
All this sounds very Pravda….”PN’s parliamentary group” ergo Politburo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pimenov_SvadbaOnTomorrowStreet.jpg
[Daphne – It just means ‘Nationalist MPs’ as opposed to ‘the Nationalist Party’ or ‘the government’.]
I presume all human beings have a conscience so did Hitler, Saddam, Gaddafi.
[Daphne – Do psycopaths have ‘a conscience’? I thought a factor was the absence of empathy.]
And I also presume that what they did had the approval of their conscience. I take it that at the end of the day, it’s up to us how to interpret what it tells us.
So how about stopping this hogwash and stop using our conscience as a way out from doing one’s duty or as a cover to protect our interests.
You might think that you are getting away with this one, but we will remember how you comported yourselves when the time comes. Ask Alfred Sant, he too tried to misinterpret the results of the referendum. We all know what good it did him.
I am sure you read about the Nazi trials. Most of the accused defended their actions by saying “I obeyed orders”and their conscience guided them not to question orders.
Yes psycopaths have a conscience but a dirty one.
Il-kuxjenza mhijiex xi xkora patata. Hu d-dawl ta’ Alla l-Imbierek biss li jdawwalha. Hu Kristu biss li jiffurmaha. Naghmel dak li tghidli l-kuxjenza ghandu jfisser naghmel dak li jrid il-Mulej tieghi, is-sid u s-salvatur ta’ hajti.
Mela d-deputati taghna jmisshom saru kollha sacerdoti, mhux izzattu johorgu ghall-politika.
So according to you, it is only the followers of Christ who have a conscience.
Jigifieri ateista m’ghandux kuxjenza?
Hekk qal Eddie llum.
It is a pity that your commenters went off at a tangent and ignored CS Lewis completely. If CS Lewis were read more by all, we would live in a much better world.