Guest post
The erstwhile author of Labour programme for 2013-2018, back in the Golden Years with his primus inter pares
This is a guest post written by somebody who prefers to remain anonymous (though I have his name).
——–
I’ve been following the recent resurgence of glorification of the Mintoff era with rising dismay.
This, together with the lie being put about that there was no MLP violence then, is appalling and disgusting.
Some refer to that era as one where we had no chocolate, colour TVs or regular access to water, but these were minor things in comparison to the rest.
I would have gladly given these up if it led to the economic wellbeing later provided by successive Fenech Adami governments, but this was not the case and was made even worse by the loss of democratic freedoms, compared to which, the lack of decent chocolate becomes risible.
What I also find exceedingly galling is Joseph Muscat’s apology delivered very much in the tone of ‘I’m not a racist but’, where he then goes on to liken 1981 to today.
I’m not sure everyone remembers the full extent of what happened in 1981. Lawrence Gonzi and others are right to be indignant when Joseph Muscat compares that situation to the present situation, but they leave out many details which make the comparison even more odious.
I am 45 years old and one of those who come from that ‘lost generation’ who grew up in the 70s and early 80s, and I remember most of it. I remember the build-up to it, and I remember the aftermath.
Perhaps Gonzi and others are reluctant to ‘hurt the feelings’ of people like Evarist Bartolo, he who speaks in injured tones when criticised about the 1981 election, yet who seems perfectly happy to dish it out.
The 1981 result was not ‘a perverse result’ which ‘just happened’ thanks to a loophole in our electoral laws. The MLP deliberately applied a tactic successfully used by the British in Northern Ireland in the early 20th century, to obtain Protestant representative majorities in areas with Catholic majority populations.
The MLP used a deliberate two-pronged strategy which succeeded exactly as planned. When it comes to the illegal and the illegitimate, the MLP is competent, unlike everything else it does. The court cases to disenfranchise voters it considers its opponents are an MLP speciality it pioneered and practises to this day.
The first and relatively simpler/cheaper task was to manipulate (gerrymander) the electoral districts to make sure that the PN had many more ‘wasted votes’ than the MLP.
The way to do this is to re-draw the boundaries, moving a street here and a street there, based on voter knowledge derived from the party’s ‘street leaders’ to ensure that where the PN returned three seats, their percentage of votes would be as close to 70% as possible (the tipping-point to win/lose the 4th seat) and where the MLP returned three seats, their percentage would be as close to 50% as possible. (the tipping point to win/lose the 3rd seat).
Get hold of a copy of the map of districts, if you can. It’s quite edifying. This is how you obtained a parliamentary majority with a minority of votes in our electoral system, prior to the constitutional amendments which now prevent it happening again.
One might say, surely it was an accident? Surely they didn’t know? It just happened? Nobody told them?
Well, that’s not the case.
As you may know, the Electoral Commission draws up, or approves the drawing up, of the electoral districts. The Electoral Commission is nominated by the president on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is a constitutionally mandated commission.
Although not writ in stone, (or writ at all) it is standard practice for the eight members to be largely representative of the parties. Then there is one more member who is the head of the commission who is nominally independent but is a civil servant nominated by the government.
And we know what that means when the MLP is in power, especially then.
When the report detailing the districts was published, four electoral commissioners disassociated themselves from it, refused to sign it, and voted against it. Compare this to the 1996 election, where the districts were unanimously approved, notwithstanding Sant’s later protestations that they were unfair.
They publicly stated that the districts were flawed and that they would produce the result that they eventually did. This fell upon wilfully deaf ears. The districts were approved with the vote of the Head of the Electoral Commission.
The MLP and the government, albeit indistinguishable from each other at the time, were repeatedly warned by all and sundry what the result would be, but the warnings were not heeded, because this was not an innocent mistake.
So much so, that they combined it with a second activity, probably even more effective. They made it a point to step up the property requisitioning process in PN-leaning areas, also building housing estates in these areas and moving their supporters into both. This was not a mistake. This was not an accident.
When the predicted result came to be, they clung on to government until the very last day, perpetrating the worst of their excesses in the next five and a half years.
The corruption, the violence, the intimidation, the human-rights abuse and the utter incompetence at economic management, which clearly is hardly easy against the backdrop of the environment they created.
The claim that they changed the electoral law themselves to stop it happening again is an insult to the intelligence of even the most feeble-minded. They waited five years to do it, and then only because they understood that the mood of the people would not allow them to do it again, try as they might.
If they were genuinely concerned about democracy, they would have convened parliament immediately after the 1981 election, passed the amendments to the law, dissolved parliament and called fresh elections. But we know what happened instead.
Again, the 1981 election result WAS NOT an accident; it was a deliberate, well executed coup which intentionally gave us our first, and hopefully last, home-grown totalitarian regime.
The question at issue is not whether Labour did this at all, but when they started working towards it. When did they decide to build a North Korea in the Mediterranean?
It is likely that it was the plan from day one. Their style of government certainly gives an indication of this.
As soon as they obtained power in 1971, the Malta Labour Party started off by dropping the GWU and its demands like a hot potato (they had been on strike at the dockyard for months prior to the election) taking over broadcasting, continued on by stealing the private banks (the engine behind free enterprise), closing down private healthcare, destroying the university (with a student worker system reminiscent of, or modelled on, Mao’s Cultural Revolution), stifling the free press and so on.
Who really believes that the burning down of The Times was an unplanned event? This in an environment where someone was sent to jail for referring to a government minister (Danny Cremona) as a clown.
The list goes on. They attempted to take over or close down all private education, that which breeds free thought and resistance to totalitarianism. They implemented anti-democratic laws in a legal environment with no recourse to contest these laws, and institutionalised torture in the police force, whose head (Lawrence Pullicino) was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison for ‘being an accomplice to the offence of causing bodily harm resulting in death’.
Note that this person did not see the irony in later contesting his conviction before the European Court of Human Rights, on the basis of the lack of a fair trial, both privileges which he did not see fit to accord his victim.
But did the violence start then? No it didn’t.
My first memories of Maltese politics are those of a Labour mob looting the shop windows in Republic Street in 1971, when I was five. This was a typical expression of the Mintoffian ethos, where rather than working to elevate myself to get what I don’t have, I’ll just steal it from someone else who already has it.
For the next 16 years we would see countless repeats of this, of beatings of opponents of the regime, both by the police and by Labour thugs, Nationalist Party clubs broken into, smashed and burned (Valletta and Floriana both more than 20 times each), bombs placed at the headquarters of independent unions, of embassies who spoke out against the regime and of civil servants who attempted to do their job and enforce regulations and the rule of law.
Those who suggest that, because these largely stopped after the PN came to power then the PN was behind them, should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Those inclined to listen to them should be told to take a closer look at the facts and also remember that after 1987 the police force no longer turned a blind eye to these things and was no longer used as a tool of repression.
Torture by the police did not start only after 1981, either. The cases where common criminals were acquitted because their confessions were obtained through torture started as early as 1979, at least the first case I remember. It later also extended to political detainees.
The same goes for the election fraud. We will never really know how many dead people voted in the 1976 elections. And what about the ‘trusted friend’ mechanism? This is further evidence of Mintoff’s anti-democratic credentials, present from the outset.
One of the reasons why the integration referendum of the 50s was boycotted was precisely because of the law of the ‘trusted friend’. Nowadays, someone who is illiterate and who requires assistance to vote does so in the presence of the assistant electoral commissioners so as to make sure there is no abuse.
For that referendum, Mintoff passed a law stating that a voter could be accompanied by a ‘trusted friend’ who would ‘help’ him vote, in private.
This, in practice, meant that an MLP thug could intimidate a PN voter, (or in fact many per thug) illiterate or not, to nominate him as a ‘trusted friend’ and therefore ensure that he voted as the ‘trusted friend’ dictated.
This law was removed from the statute books after that referendum, but I know of at least one incident in Cottonera in 1981 where an attempt was made to put it into practice, so we will never know what went on in 1976, when there was even less scrutiny.
Of course, by 1987 they had degenerated into physically preventing voters from entering the polling station, as happened in Zejtun. Even in Valletta, where I voted in 1987, we were subjected to some abuse and intimidation.
Joseph Muscat needs to go a lot further than saying that the 1981-87 Labour government was morally and politically incorrect in staying on.
There was a time, under Sant, when I might have settled for what seemed to be the MLP’s attempt to sweep their past under the carpet, and perhaps cleanse itself by attrition and sidelining, but if the MLP is going to not only revive its past but also glorify it, then this is no longer acceptable.
Joseph Muscat, or any successor who wishes to be considered part of the democratic fabric of this nation, should not only condemn his party’s past, but must repudiate (rather than embrace and celebrate) Mintoff and cleanse his party of his influence.
He must also expel all traces of that government and its friends Gaddafi, Kim Il Sung , Ceacescu and Breshnev.
That does not only include people like Joe Debono Grech, Leo Brincat, Karmenu Vella (Il-Guy tal-Golden Years), George Vella and Alex Sceberras Trigona, who for all the personal charm in private is the man who signed a secret military pact with the North Korean dictatorship which included the donation of crowd suppression weapons with which to kill and maim us.
It does not only include people like Alfred Sant, who was party president at the time, or Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, who was party secretary-general.
It does not only include Joe Grima, part of the broadcasting takeover in the 70s and active in the same vein today.
It also includes so-called moderates like Lino Spiteri (who was Minister Of Finance in the Golden Years), Daniel Micallef, Joe Brincat (who was Minister of Justice) and Philip Sciberras, who later became a judge and felt no compunction sitting in judgement in a libel case brought by Lawrence Pullicino, the enforcer of the regime of which Philip Sciberras was formerly a part.
Those who claim to be moderates cannot somehow detach themselves from the blame. They cannot claim not to have known, or to have been ‘obeying orders’. WE knew. So they must have too. This defence has been tried once before. It did not wash.
It is said that that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. The minimum that good men do is leave the bad men on their own so as not to lend them legitimacy.
This is something that should also be pointed out to people like Anglu Farrugia, a police inspector in Lawrence Pullicino’s police force.
Lest we forget, here is a list those who were ‘morally and politically incorrect’, a list of the bad men and the good men who did not leave. And some who joined later, when others died or resigned.
You can judge which is which yourselves:
Abela, Wistin; Baldacchino, Joseph M.; Barbara, Agatha; Bartolo, Freddie; Borg, Gontran; Brincat, Joseph; Brincat, Leo; Busuttil, Piju; Buttigieg, Karmenu; Buttigieg, John; Calleja, Reno; Cassar, Joseph; Cremona, Danny; Borg, John J.; Dalli, John; Darmenia Brincat, Cettina; Debono Grech, Joe; Debono, Lino; Gatt, George; Grima, Joseph (Joe); Holland, Patrick; Micallef, Alfred K/A Freddie; Micallef, Daniel; Mifsud Bonnici, Karmenu; Mintoff, Dom; Moran, Vincent C.; Muscat, Philip; Portelli, Alfred (Freddie); Naudi, Robert; Saliba, Joseph; Sant, Lorry; Sceberras Trigona, Alex; Sciberras, Joseph P.; Sciberras, Philip; Spiteri, Lino; Sultana, Joe; Vella, George W.; Vella, Karmenu; Xuereb, Paul.
Finally, (and again I apologise for the length of this post) should you wonder why I don’t use my real name; well, we lived in fear then, and I had thought those times were gone, but with the glorification of that past, and with the posts I see on the internet, I am still afraid, or at least, I am afraid again.
62 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
And so say all of us. Truly you say it as it was, and sadly as it will be.
Prosit, very well written.
It should be published in one of the English language newspapers.
Who was the electoral commisioner in 1981 and 87?
The districts still favour Labour. One must also add that this tactic was used by the PN in 1976 election (different districts at that time) in which various vote recounts were taken on a particular district which proved to be the decisive one.
Another matter is the 96 election in which Labour got a strong majority given that districts favoured PN they only elected one more MP that the opposition and everybody knows the rest and the ending of that story. This trick has been used by both sides and our constitution still has loopholes in the cases of having a 3rd party in goverment.
[Daphne – It has since been impossible to use ‘the trick’ because of constitutional changes which assess overall first-count votes in reckoning the number of seats.]
The Labour Party was already in governent in 1976. They were in charge of producing the districts for that election, as in 1987, which had it not been for the constitutional amendments, would have given exactly the same result as 1981, but by this time no-one cared about the seats anymore.
As to 1996, I’ll forgive you for not knowing how to count, but being a maths and physics graduate, Alfred Sant has no such excuse.
In 1996, the MLP obtained 50.72% of the valid vote. When applied to a 65 seat parliament, as is ours, it is 32.968 seats. The one seat majority Alfred Sant had is a perfectly faithful representation of the votes his party got.
You might have missed gianni’s point, Daphne.
The electoral law as it stands, I believe, allows for the following scenario:
Party A 49% 1st count votes 31 seats
Party B 41% 33 seats
Party C 10% 1 seat
Party B GOVERNS
(gianni should have said ‘in the case of having a 3rd party in PARLIAMENT)
Are you joking, john? To get one seat in parliament in a 5-seat district you need at least one-sixth of the votes. Applying that nationwide would require 25 to 30 thousand votes or about 20% but surely not 10%.
It is a myth that Labour has been propagating for the past 15 years: they had a majority of 7000 votes but only got a one-seat majority.
This is false because, in reality, Labour got 50.7% of the votes and a majority of 3770 votes so it was fair that they got one seat extra.
In the EU referendum, Alfred Sant added all the voters and blank votes as if they were in his favour; in 1996 he disregarded almost 4000 Alternattiva votes, most of which were “inherited” by PN candidates.
@ gianni….I think you mean 1971 not 1976. In 1976 the PN could not possibly use such tactics as there was a Labour Government.
This is a factual rendering of what REALLY happened from 1971 to 1987.
The author stated that he is 45 years old so he could not possibly remember the other violent events prior to 1971, namely in the 50s (dockyard strike, burning of police stations etc.), and neither other events leading to the Independence in 1964.
One incident in which I was personally involved happened while driving my car close to a public meeting where Mintoff was addressing the usual mob. Someone recognised me* and before I knew it, and because I was driving cautiously because of the crowd, a bunch of thugs literally lifted my car, spat, banged until the tyres touched the tarmac momentarily and I sped off, luckily without injuring or killing anyone. * At that time I was a member of the NP local committee.
That event happened sometime early 1964.
I come from a family which was bi-partisan but I chose to support the Nationalist Party, not because I was pushed to do so, but common sense led me to decide which Party it was safe to support and to this day I never regretted it one bit.
Those who had no idea what life was like under Labour governments should do some research and arrive at their own conclusion. If they do that with a sincere conscience, they can only arrive at one logical conclusion.
The ‘uncertainty’ Joseph and his cronies should talk about these days is about the uncertainty and instability which nearly wrecked the country between 1971 and 1987 and like when the Sant government froze Malta’s application to join the EU in 1996.
True Nationalists, disgruntled or not and ‘undecided’ voters cannot possibly afford to risk a government which has no sense of direction other than to have the means of abusing power, like they did so well in eighteen of the last fifty years.
The last paragraph is especially poignant for me who experienced the “Golden Years’ first hand.
I could add pages of Labour’s excesses to this post and yet I doubt anyone will be able to put into words the fear that gripped a nation fuelled by a regime hell-bent on repressing any socio-cultural and financial progress on this island.
As long as there is a trace of Mintoff in the Labour Party, I will neither forget nor forgive.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.
I wholly agree with the above post. Once again I feel the fear and despondency of those times.
But I also feel the strength and courage to do my bit. To attend the monthly meetings whilst praying to God that we return safely home.
But the fear of those times seems not only to haunt us but it’s rearing its ugly head again in the writings of the present day blue Labour.
Well done. This article should be given as much publicity as possible.
Thanks for posting it in your blog.
It is history of our recent past which we all have an obligation to remember. Most of the people behind those atrocities are still prominent politicians in the Labour Party.
For Joseph Muscat to be credible it is not enough to dismiss the 1981 Labour Government as immoral. He should follow his statement by getting rid once and for all of all those who held prominent positions either as Labour Ministers, MP’s and those who held top positions in the upper echelons of the Labour Party.
Trust these people with power and history will repeat itself.
What a great read. This should be made a documentary and released viral so the new generation of voters would know how bright the shine of the Golden Years really was.
The sooner we stop going on about the past, the sooner we can turn this country into what it deserves to be.
Remembering the past record of the M.L.P might give us an indication of what to expect if we vote Labour into power.
One might contend that the L.P still has in its midst persons of the old guard, but so what, people change, if not it is the perogative of their leader to keep them in check.
This does not make sense, for after all wasn’t it the P.N.who in the past opposed for example, vote for woman and many other laws that to-day we take for granted?
[Daphne – I don’t think there is anyone alive in the PN today who opposed votes for women, Silvio. The entire point of this post, which you have clearly missed, is that the same people are not just present but powerful in the Labour Party today, and that the party itself is actually celebrating the personality and premiership of the main perpetrator, Mintoff.]
Does this mean we should not trust the P.N. because they might one day go back to their old beliefs?
Surely not, let bygones be bygones. We must give all a chance to prove what they preach.
We can vote anyone in, but we can also vote anyone out when the time comes.
People change my foot.
Min jitwieled tond ma jmutx kwadru.
Of course they do.
Shoudn’t we trust our President?
After all he was one of them, and a very active one.
No Anthony, people change especially if it is in their interest to do so.
Five years can feel like eternity. It is long enough to run a country aground. Bygones be bygones, my foot! The last five years of Labour drudgery is just one example; the previous five years is another. Give all a chance? NO WAY.
“We must give all a chance to prove what they preach”.
Silvio, jekk trid tiehu cans biex tara l-marmalja Mintoffjana fil-poter, hudu wahdek. Wara ikun tard wisq u ghalxejn tghid “mea culpa”.
People change? Should be given a second chance? Are we talking about a little shoplifting here? What rubbish is that?
Was Pinochet given a second chance?
How sad (and scary) it is, that people can actually think this way.
I have just seen Lino Spiteri’s article in the Times today. It is a demonstration that with respect to the 1981-1987 government, there is no such thing as a moderate. He is trying to re-write history.
No, when it comes to democracy, you shouldn’t get a second chance.
What the writer fails to mention is that not only did MLP hang on as long as possible after the perverse result of 1981 but KMB gave away 8000 public jobs in the last few months in the futile hope of achieving the unachievable.
KMB has the gall, now, to say that the Constitution was not amended immediately following the 1981 election because the opposition walked out of parliament. Unfortunately KMB thinks that the population’s IQ is similar to his nickname. Well he is wrong once again!
He should read ‘Politics of persuation’ and soon find out. Another re-writer of history, like his friend Gaddafi changed Libya’s history forever.
Both, along with Mintoff shall be thankfully deposited into the dustbin of history.
It was hell living under the socialist regime of Dom Mintoff. All the names mentioned above are accomplices, if not directly responsible forf the atrocities carried out in the name of Mintoff and his Labour Party ideologies.
Labour has not changed and this fact alone brings fear and shivers in all who have lived those terrible years.
My plea is to those Nationalists and floating voters. Do not be deceived by the apparent benign and demoocratic presentation of the Labour Party.
It is only a means to an end.
Our trouble is that we forgwt easily. Some time ago there was an important event involving Joseph Muscat and the RTK heroine. The PN should at least keep the fame going on this, or have we already forgotten?
Here are two further observations.
1) The gerrymandering of districts was so perfect in the 1981 election, that even had the PN polled 54% of the vote, it ng would not have got a majority of seats. To put this into perspective, no party has ever won 54% of the vote since Independence.
2) Joe Grima, who hosts the One TV show Inkontri, with semi permanent guest JPO, had publicly stated that he would resign from the (illegitimate) 1981 government “over his dead body” – so much for his democratic credentials.
I will never ever forgive the Labour Party for its disgusting behaviour of the years 1971-1987. I lived the best years of my life worrying about the violence, corruption, filth and gerrymandering in my country.
I am 39 years old and I do recall most the facts mentioned in this post.
Today I am afraid for a different reason, because people take our life today for granted. But I am sure that with the old Labour guard still very active we can expect nothing but incompetence, less freedom of expression and economic stagnation.
Time will tell if I am right or wrong, but I shall not give Labour a chance.
Well written. Should be an eye-opener for the so called ‘floating voters’. I suggest that this should be sent to the Great Gandalf Laviera, leader of the Elves on thetimes.com or to his assistant Frodo Privitera.
Manuel, Victor Laiviera’s father was Speaker of the House between 1976 and 1978 so he knows all about the atrocities that were committed by the regime.
I honestly don’t know how such people can live with themselves.
Wow, thanks for reminding me. I am 35 years old and yes, I do remember the Labour glory days – and unfortunately for Malta, those same people are still high-ranking members in the party and hoping to govern this country again.
I would love to say it does not matter to me who is in power, whether it is PN or MLP but unfortunately after having lately seen the MLP crave power at any cost and remembering what we had gone through as young children literally terrified when seeing a policeman or having to hide in order to be taken to school at the private residence of a teacher (as the schools were closed) I must say that yes, I will vote PN and that I hope that the MLP will not govern until is thoroughly cleaned of those people.
I totally agree with the analysis in this post.
If Joseph Muscat wants us (the Maltese citizens) to truly believe him that he is being honest, then he should publicly ask those persons who were involved during the 80s to immediately resign from the PL and should not be allowed to retain any official post within PL or stand as candidates for the PL in the forthcoming general election.
Mere words mean nothing. Joseph Muscat needs to distance himself and his party from these people to be believed.
I know this will not happen.
I say it is too late for him to ask them to resign now, the fact that he accepted them in the first place shows him for what he is. He himself has admitted to being a Mintoffian, they should dismantle the labour party and start again.
The electoral district boundaries for the 1987 election where not changed from those of 1981.
Three members of the 1987 electoral commision presented a minority report asking to revise the boundaries which produced the 1981 result.
George Abela was one of the Labour representatives of the 1987 commision who shot down this minority report and the boundaries remained unchanged, producing the same results.
It was only because parliament amended the constitution, after Raymond Caruana’s murder, that the PN obtained enough seats in parliament to match its votes. Definetely not because the electoral commision did its democratic duty.
Today George Abela is calling for constitutional reform and is playing the saint. He is acclaimed as a uniting force only because once a year he jogs from San Anton to Valletta and hosts l-Istrina.
We all know where he stood when it really counted.
Finally, somebody said what needs to be said. I always wonder how quickly we rehabilitate people, here in Malta.
It is as if George Abela is not the same person as the one who formed part of that electoral commission. It is as if the Lino Spiteri who pontificates on the newspapers today isn’t the same Lino Spiteri who was a Labour Minister. We can go on and mention others like Anglu Farrugia, Alex Sciberras Trigona and many more.
For somebody to change and be believed and forgiven, he must show true and undeniable repentance for his past. It is not enough to change hairstyles, suits, colours and occupation.
He is seen to be a uniting force only because the average Nationalist voter accepted him without question. Would a Labour voter accept so readily somebody coming from the opposite camp? I don’t think so.
We also remember where he stood in relation to Malta joining the EU in 1996. He should be ashamed of posing in front of the EU flag. Franco Debono may be wrong in many ways but he is surely right on one thing, in this country no one shoulders responsibility for his/her past actions.
And we all know where he stands now and only his office prevents him from giving a public push (palata) to the Labour Party.
If he truly follows his conscience and does his duty fairly, he would have at least urged the Commission for the Administration of Justice to update the general public as to what action if any, was recommended/taken in regards to a certain magistrate whose brother happens to be a Labour MP and possibly a future minister of justice.
George Abela’s reply to a close relative of mine a few days after the result, delivered with a F* you grin, was “U iva, issa mhux hemm qeghdin”…..
There is a serious lack of pro-Labour posts to this thread. Maybe because they know it to be true… though, more likely, its just too long for them to read and understand (and there are words with more than two syllables.
I run a small business and fully understand the author’s wish for anonymity – with all the hatred and bitterness and will for revenge that is rising to the surface as the Labour termites smell possible victory, I too am getting increasingly frightened.
I’ve never been able to find a map of the Electoral Districts for the elections in ’76, ’81 and ’87. Even the Maltese example of gerrymandering in Wikipedia doesn’t have a source. Would anyone be kind enough to upload them?
Why have successive parliaments dragged their feet to change the electoral law and lower the current inflated national threshold to realistic levels.
Both the Galdes and Gonzi’s own commissions had proposed to lower it – even to 5% – but still nothing happens – cause I believe it is not in the interest of either the PN and PL to change the status quo of absolute governments.
Does it really need a Franco Debono to kick up a fuss and get them overdue changes enacted – albeit possibly for his own ‘less honourable’ reasons?
We look back at the lack of democracy we had a quarter of a century ago, and still we remain oblivious of the flawed and unproportionate so called ‘democracy’ in EU Malta.
Then to get the PN whip and some of his peers proposing to add up some three extra parliamentary seats to ensure (blatant excuse) governability – makes one wonders what this bloke would have come up with a quarter of a century ago.
This post should be compulsory reading for all before the next election. Please have it translated for the mono-linguists of the population.
I don’t think it will ever be possible for the PL to rid itself of an anti-democratic streak. We’ve seen a repeat in 2003, where a referendum result was ridiculed and the electorate’s sacrosanct power was put into question, again.
We’re seeing it now, where the selfrighteous cries for the democratic right of an MP to an individual opinion have turned into a collective demand for early elections, and to hell with a government’s valid right of incumbency when it manages to compensate for an absent opposition.
What Labour cannot, (I’ve given up on the won’t), understand is the public’s right to know the terms of a contract, with the period of time required for it’s correction. Unless Labour, at the very least, puts forward its intentions, we shouldn’t be coerced into an irrational decision. It is objectively incorrect and a source of aggravation.
It becomes suspicious when the same people are brought forward again. The resulting fear isn’t the PN’s spin, it’s what we know.
The electoral districts in 1981 were so utterly bizarre and ‘creative’ that if my memory serves me well, Floriana and Dingli were in the same district.
I’m sure there were other imaginative districts which I cannot recall which further illustrate the guest writer’s excellent article.
For those who are unaware, constitutionally, all areas in any given district must be linked geographically so to link many of the districts, one single road would be used to satisfy this constitutional requirement.
And they have the nerve to liken PN today to those awful, awful times. What an insult.
This post sends shivers down my spine, not because I forgot, I can never forget, but becasue of the ease with which people compare the present government to the government of “The Golden Era” because of minor issues they feel they have suffered, completely ignoring the fact that today they have something to lose only because the PN brought back the freedom to have something when all had been taken away.
Even today, 25 odd years later, on the eve of a general election, some have started to show their concerns only in private because fear has once again gripped all those individuals who have truly suffered during MLP governments.
No one is afraid to call Lawrence Gonzi anything on any platform, the media, a bar, on the street etc, but commenting or even raising concerns about the MLP has already shifted underground.
Where I come from, the idea of an MLP government is chilling, and threatens the core of all that we have worked for; and I do not use the word work lightly, we worked damn hard because we finally could.
“We will be safe for business, we will let you work”: just the idea that they had to spell it out is enough to give anyone a clear indication of what is yet to come.
Floaters beware. Joseph has retained the abusers and glorified the master abuser in order to attract the hard core MLP (yes MLP) voters. He also needs us floaters, but once he is in power he will have no other alternative but govern in the way the hard core want, and that will not be much different to what has been highlighted in this great article.
Didn’t read the article as its way too long, but did get the drift.
[Daphne – Well, yes, this kind of thing is heavy going if you’re accustomed to brief 20-word status updates on the Facebook walls of random psycho MPs.]
OK, so let me see if I get this right. We should, now and in future, even through our children and children’s children, and their children too, vote PN thereby ensuring we never return to the “terror” of the 70s and 80s.
Long live Gonzi, now and always. Amen.
How’s that to address your fears?
Labour will never rid itself of the Mintoff legacy whether you like it or not. Unless the Labour Party is transformed the Maltese would do well to stay away from voting Labour into power.
The Labour Party is unfit for purpose but also unable to guarantee real economic growth, wellbeing and liberty.
Malta will be impoverished under Labour, both physically as well as spiritually.
Mandango, no not forever, only until the MLP apologises for it’s past horrific reigns of terror and the MLP gives the bye-bye to all those abusers who rendered our life a misery in the “golden years”.
Only then can the MLP gain the respect and votes of many a floating voter.
The hope of most Maltese is to face elections without the fear that the word Labour brings to many of us. We hope for the day when election day is a normal day knowing that who ever wins, life will go on and move forward withou any untoward upheavels.
“no not forever, only until the MLP apologises for it’s past horrific reigns of terror and the MLP gives the bye-bye to all those abusers who rendered our life a misery in the “golden years”.
Jo, that statement confirms that the Mintoff/Muscat Labour Party might as well be mistrusted for eternity. To them, apology equals revenge, acknowledge means rewrite history and getting rid of the old-timers means getting them back and giving them a red carpet treatment.
Mandango cannot bear reading the whole article. His brain will overheat after the first paragraph and for the rest he will have to refer to a good dictionary to figure out all the words with more than two syllables.
Have some patience and read the article in its entirety. People who just want to read five lines means that they are not particularly interested or could not be bothered but they try to be witty as per your last sentence. You do not fool me.
I have always voted objectively and am a strict non-partisan voter wherever I live. I must say this is the strongest possible message for all potential floating voters. I do not have the vote for the Maltese elections as I reside in Australia (and nor should I). If I did, however, I was, until recently, very much floating towards the PL in my imaginary dream at the ballot box. For all their foibles and tiredness, inlcuding the threats and grumblings by a few from the back bench, and the madness from one particular one, it is as clear as day that the PN is still the only reasonable path for the future prosperity of Malta. Apart from the risk of “history repeating itself” – potential floaters now need to think about not only the bad old days of the 70s and 80s but also the recent past of Sant’s short stint at government. What real achievements did his administration produce? You really have to think hard about this – and realise it was an 18 month hiatus of wasted opportunity. Result: nothing but confusion and uncertainty. So we have an old history of thugs coupled with totalitarianism and a recent history of total confusion. On the other side of the coin – the PN has proven without any doubt their democratic credentials with still a strong dose of clientelism. Clientelism is inherent across all political parties in Malta since time immemorial. Malta’s political system is such that that an asymmetric relationship exists between the patrons (party in government) and the clients (the electorate who voted for them). It is based on the principle of take there and give there and goes back to ancient Rome. The reality is that whichever party is in government it is going to take a few decades to eliminate this practice. So apart from the more or less correct perception that the current government practices this historical clientelism, there is a guarantee that any government will continue to adhere to this practice. So bad marks on this point to both parties which therefore equalises them on this alone. On any other level – based on old and recent history – and the fact that several of the old historical and now geriatric participants are very closely involved to the current oppostion and have the potential to gain considerable power; they now have the temerity to offer themselves up for representation because “its time”. Well, on any objective non partisan analysis there is absolutely no contest. The PN is the only choice, there is actually no sensible alternative. The downside of this of course is that we will continue to have a tired government and the risk of hubris is greater – a far better outcome of course than confusion, uncertainty ( new labour) and the risk of totalitarianism (old labour). The upside would be that the new PL (what do call them NEW NEWPL?) will realise that they are still not good enough, have the courage to get rid of all of the old wood and start again. If they do this there may be a chance for them in 2018 (or earlier). Hate to repeat myself. On any objective non partisan analysis there is no contest. This is a pity and if the floaters ignore this logic and the Pl are elected into Government, then based on old and recent history, thats an iron clad guarantee for the PN in 2018. If on the other hand, logic prevails and the PN reatin the government benches than surely their first priority must be to think very hard about leadership sucession within the first two years of its government together pick and implement some of the logical grumblings from those who could not sit still. Once done, get rid of those who could not sit still. Tthis will ensure and work towards momentum for 2018. Bye the way, in case you were wondering – I am 5ft 3inches tall, slightly overweight, nearly bald and very average looking. I think you could call that the typical maltese male.
Mandango. Nobody is saying that the PN should be there forever. But it is a fact that what Alfred Sant managed to do in a small way was to get rid of some of the most ”dangerous” people in the MLP. Now Muscat has reversed this situation and has invited them back. They are all very quiet and keeping a low profile but i can assure you that the moment they smell victory they will be out for revenge.
I happened to be in the counting hall in the last elections mixing with the labour representatives. They were behaving well until there was a sign that they might win. Their attitude changed and the ”hdura” started coming out and so did other men who were not seen in the counting hall before.
So do not kid yourselves that they have changed. I have been attending the counting of the votes since the eighties and I can assure you that they are and shall be as bad as they were then.
Hanzir taqtalu denbu hanzir jibqa
@ silvio: No Anthony, people change especially if it is in their interest to do so.
That is the great commandment: their interest. Bravu silvio.
@ Mandango.
No! You did not “get this right”. If Muscat could persuade the electorate that his LP is truly different from Mintoff’s MLP and that it is not still being manipulated behind the scene by the ogres from that nefarious past regime, then, and only then, it should be possible for Malta “now and in future, even through our children and children’s children, and their children too,…” to revert to a democratic alternation of governments from two (or more) political parties.
P.S. If I were you I would make the extra effort to read the whole article even though it is lengthy. Couldn’t be otherwise and still do justice to the long catalogue of political crimes truly committed by Mintoff-KMB and that should scare to death our intelligent children for generations to come and as as long as that era is promoted as the “glorious days” of the labour party.
‘But I am sure that with the old Labour guard still very active we can expect nothing but incompetence, less freedom of expression and economic stagnation.’
And with people like Anglu Farrugia, Silvio Parnis. Joe Mizzi, Toni Abela and all the others what do we expect?
Min kiteb dan l-artiklu haqqu vera prosit u naqbel ukoll li jidher fil-Gazetti kemm bl-ingiz kif ukoll bil-Malti.
Tant kemm hemm xi semmi li anke jekk tikteb lista thalli hafna avenimenti tal-wahx barra, bhal per ezempju, tkissir tal-karrozzi tal membri parlamentari tal-PN fejn il-parlament quddiem il-Pulizija, attakki fuq il-persuna ta’ membri parlamentari gewwa l-parlament stess, swat fuq guralisti minn nies laburisti li kienu jkunu fil-gallarija tal-parlamet apposta, swat fuq l-istudenti, it-tkissir tad-dar ta’ Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami, tfieh ta’ gebel u sparar anke waqt semplici corner meeting, sewqan ta’ karrozzi ghal fuq partitarji Nazzjonalisti, attakk fuq l-arc Isqof gewwa Rahal Gdid, Frame -ups, bombi anke gewwa l-bini tal-kazini tal-PN, bombi mal-Ghasses tal-Pulizija u nibqghu sejrin u ma’ niefqu qatt. Pero, is-sabiha li qatt ma’ kien jinqabad hadd. Anglu Farrugia staqsa lil Dr. Tonio Borg fuq Bondi + xi jrid jghidlu fuq id-Depot tal Pulizija meta Dr. Anglu Farrugia stess kien parti mid-Depot ghax hu qal li Dr. Ugo Mifsud Bonnici. Dr. Louis Galea u Dr. Guido Demarco kienu jqabdu lilu biex jinvestiga. Dr. Anglu Farrugia, ahna mhux dik il-mistoqsijja irridu nisimghu u kemm kont fdat, imma x’solvejt.
Jekk ppruvajt iddahhaq b’Dr. Fenech Adami ghax int ghid li mar ikellem lil-Zeeppi l-Hafi taht il-pond, kun ghaf li rnexxielu jsolvi kaz ta’ attentat ta’ qtil u marru n-nies il-habs. Il-Partit Laburista li dejjem kont taghmel parti minnhu int fil-kaz ta’ Raymond Caruana ghamel frame-up fuq bnieden innocenti u int kont fil-korp tal-pulizija u qatt ma’ tkellimt x’kien qed jigri gewwa id-Depot. Dak missek ghedtlu lil poplu Malti Dr. Anglu Farrugia u mhux taqoghd tilabha tal-innocenti.
Riya, hallieh bi kwietu lil Anglu ghax dak kienet qabditu depression miskin u kellu johrog mill-korp, izda b’xorti tajba lahaq sar avukat.
Issa sar deputy leader tal-PL u jekk Alla jrid Joseph ma jilhaqx PM l-elezzjoni li gejja dan jilhaq l-almu tieghu u jsir leader hu.
Hemmek Gadget ikun lahaq il-quccata tal-karriera brillanti tieghu.
I read this post over and over again with mounting alarm for I bet my bottom dollar that the MLP will resort to the same tactics when they are in power. Those who reason that we have the EU framework to protect us have not lived during the Golden Years. We know that they will stop at nothing.
GOLDEN YEARS, ghalihom u mhux ghall-poplu.
The golden years will return soon for their “klikek” if next year the Labour Party will be in power.
A load of fairy tales, paranoid ideation and lies, conspiracy theories, and no proof only circumstantial evidence if you can call it that. Nothing that hold in court of law.
Reminds me of fairy tales, communist Mintoff, russians in the Grand Harbour, one chinese for 6 chocholate bars, Korean secret treaties and the politian who flew on a broomstick in 1920, going to hell if you vote for labour, the coup by Lorry Sant, secret photos, Harry Potter and and the magical buckle and the claims go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and I am fed up really, so you may ask why am i reading this blog? no idea.