“Whoever is this incompetent or mendacious shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the levers of government for the next five years.”
Great piece by Ranier Fsadni in The Times:
Thursday, January 17, 2013 by
IT’S NOT ONLY ABOUT TRUST
We are nearly 10 days into the heated arguments over the Labour Party’s new power plant proposal and the crossfire shows no sign of slowing down. Two former ministers, Michael Falzon and Joe Grima, have said they think that, in the end, people will have to go with whom they trust more.
That may well happen. But it would be scandalous if it did.
Even if the side that’s getting its facts right (whichever it is) wins the election just the same, the electorate would have been let down by Maltese journalism.
There has to be a better way for the media to help us sort out the issues other than just to report what each side is claiming.
The issues couldn’t be more important for our finances, economic growth and the stability of our likely next government (since Joseph Muscat has staked his political survival on the success of his plan). Is there no way to verify some of the claims? Should it really come down to trust?
I understand very well the case for saying that it does. As Falzon said, after only two days of debate, so many numbers are flying about that it can only make people dizzy.
Meanwhile, my argument that some of the key issues can be independently verified seems to be undermined by what some of the experts themselves say. All three of the independent experts interviewed by Reno Bugeja, in the last edition of Dissett, at one point or another claimed insufficient knowledge of one or more of the points of controversy.
So where does that leave the rest of us, especially since several of the expert claims supporting one side have been contradicted by someone else who, at least at first glance, should know?
For one thing, it should leave us unimpressed by anything civil society organisations or lobbies say about anyone’s plan. They’re not in a position to know. Just because they want lower bills doesn’t mean bills will be reduced by the first, second or third proposal that comes along. The wish is potent enough to be father to the thought but bills cannot be lowered by the power of thought alone.
More importantly, however, the public discussion so far should have us up in protest. It’s been conducted far too narrowly. All along, those journalists who have sought to bring in independent expert opinion have assumed that the only experts we need to hear from are scientists, technologists and engineers.
In fact, there are technical issues involving other pro-fessions. First, there is legal technicality. Legally speak-ing, can Labour bypass the tendering process?
The importance of the issue goes beyond law. Labour’s case is that the country needs to embark on a fast-tracked process. It is the key advantage, Labour says, over the pipeline option. But that means that if the project cannot, legally, be fast-tracked, the key advantage would be gone.
Here’s what I mean by scandal: should it really boil down to trust on this one? Are there no independent legal experts who can say who’s right, PN or Labour? What are we waiting for to get established authorities – legal specialists, European Commission officials – to give a considered legal opinion?
The second technical issue, which is not an engineering one, concerns long-term agreements in the gas market. Ten days into the debate, and we’ve only had isolated voices speak about the possibility of making a 10-year agreement that fixes prices in the way Labour would like.
Konrad Mizzi has claimed he can offer examples of such agreements. But do we have to continue to wait for him? Is there no one in the world – if only the energy editor at an authoritative news organisation – who can set us right on this?
Once again, it’s no trivial matter. Acquiring such an agreement is a hinge of the Labour plan. Without it, the plan fails. We won’t even need to sort out the rest of the controversy to make up our minds.
These two issues require expert opinion. But the expert answer involves no numbers, only a few simple words. Perhaps, depending on how the question is asked, no more than a ringing Yes or No.
It’s quite clear that, on each of these two key issues, one side is getting it badly wrong. There is no space for a truth that lies somewhere in the middle. There is no middle, no grey area. Either something is legal or it is not. Either a certain kind of gas purchasing agreement is still common or it is not.
Whoever is getting it wrong is either deeply incompetent or mendacious (or both). Whoever is this incompetent or mendacious shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the levers of government for the next five years.
Shouldn’t our media be helping us find out who it is?
19 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130117/opinion/It-s-not-only-about-trust.453640
‘deeply incompetent or mendacious’. Ranier has got that so right.
Hasn’t history, over the years, proved that this bunch are so useless that the only outcome, if elected, will be another disaster?
”There has to be better way for the media to help us sort out the issues rather than just to report what the each side is claiming”
Perfect observation. Labour will break laws and pockets filled with corruption money. John Dalli will look like a baby. Where are The Times journalists? Their silence is another scandal.
An excellent piece. This election campaign has been hijacked by this one issue. Can someone please put an end to it and answer the questions posed?
Spot on! And another thing, after nearly two weeks (or five years, I’m not sure) from Joseph Muscat all I’ve heard is electricity bills, electricity bills, electricity bills.
Is this the only arrow they have in their quiver?
I’m from Gozo, in his mass meeting here (wrong choice of location, by the way) he didn’t come up with one serious proposal on how he can improve our island.
PN must take Labour to task on matters such as the economy, taxation (I’m pretty sure we will have a VAT increase from Labour) and even tourism, such an important pillar to our economy.
We cannot just keep focusing on electricity bills.
Excellent article. And a real debate, with facts and figures is needed, where every claim has to be supported with necessary documents, and proven experts in the field required to be on call.
Should any argument not have the necessary material to prove its feasability, than said argument would be discarded. Words like ‘doable’ and ‘widely available’ won’t cut it.
Likewise, an expert can’t be rubbished, like Konrad did with Dr. Anne Fenech, on the basis that she is a lawyer (I wonder how that went with his friends in his party, infestated as it is with lawyers), as in that case Konrad would have to bring a credible person to support his stand and shoot down the opposing argument.
Actually this concept already exists, that tried and tested American institution, a Congressional Hearing. The trick is to find an independent panel in Malta to adjudicate the Power station Hearing.
And Konrad HAS to appear before said Hearing, as he has to defend his baby. There is no way he can refuse, as that would be the death knell off not only the power station project, but most probably his political career as well.
It’s early days yet.
Debunking the two key issues too early in the campaign will only trigger even more and bigger loads of Labour bullshit to hit the media and be propagated by Maltese “journalism” as fact.
And Fsadni’s advice to steer away from scientific questions is good advice indeed.
Look at Edward Mallia’s scribbles and utterances. Anything this guy says has got to be well grounded in scientific fact, right? I mean, he’s UoM’s most experienced physicist.
His response to Fenech’s advisers’ “What about LNG shipping?” was “Nah, plenty of them ships in the Med.”
His response to an engineer’s blunder in one soundbite on TVM “LNG is cooled to below -200C” was “Bilħaqq, il-boiling point tal-LNG mhux -200C, jekk jogħġbok”, to which said engineer replied “Mela kemm hu? -160C?”. Our illustrious physicist’s comeback? “Lanqas 160. It liquefies at -112C u żżommu at -130. U fil-vapuri jkun -130C għax ikun under pressure. Sewwa Chris? … ħeqq, ħeqq, ħeqq” – vide Dissett, TVM, 12th Jan.
Now the first pertinent bare indisputable scientific fact is that the boiling point of LNG (Methane) is slightly below -160C, meaning that when natural gas is cooled down to that temperature, it becomes liquid (taking up 600 times less space – very convenient for shipping large volumes of gas), and when warmed up again to anything above that temperature, it becomes gas again (this happens at the regasification plant).
The second is that when under pressure, any liquid’s boiling point increases, not decreases as “authoritative” Mallia seems to have implied.
Another point that Mallia got wrong is that there is no scientific need nor economic reason to cool LNG below it’s boiling point for storage or transportation. Aside from the fact that cooling anything consumes a lot of energy and so unnecessary cooling defeats all economic considerations in any argument, the truth is that LNG is transported at just below it’s boiling point of -160C (the temperature at which it is loaded onto the carrier) in heavily insulated spherical tanks to keep the gas from “boiling” or vaporisation without requiring constantly running expensive cooling plants.
So there you have it. Even “science” (the quotes are used advisedly) is full of bullshit. Can you blame the philosopher for arguing to steer away?
By the way, anyone wanting to double-check my claims about the TVM programme or keep it for posterity is well advised to do so by 23:59 tonight (perhaps earlier – the software used to run the website is not that reliable), for come 00:00 Saturday, the day’s programme’s storage lifetime on TVM’s website will have expired.
For the record, Edward Mallia is no longer a member of staff at the University of Malta. He left under less than happy circumstances.
The way he’s being used by Labour is shameful. More shameful still is the way he’s being understood by the audience, including you, FP.
You seem to think he’s a doddering old professor. Remember that he was screwed over badly by a PN administration. They sought his professional opinion on an energy plan. Then they proceeded to ignore it.
They came back to him again, commissioned further reports, and again they ignored the result.
Like most Maltese decision-makers, they were not looking for information to help them make a decision, but for information to confirm a decision they’d already taken.
So he has no reason to be cheery and businessmanlike, as has become the norm with all our experts. I think we should all understand that we’re seeing the husk of his former self. A manicured brown-nosing yuppie he isn’t.
I think nothing of the sort, and I don’t care about manicures, present or absent, HP.
I didn’t know about any of the treatment you mentioned, and I’m glad I didn’t. Goes to show that I have no prejudice against the man.
I took the technical jargon to task, irrespective of who Edward Mallia is, except that he IS of course a (more than) technical person whose opinion people take as fact and base arguments on what he says.
Now that I know more of Mallia’s fate, my opinion does not change one iota. It is evident that he should heed his own advice he gave to politicians that “għandhom jinfurmaw ruħhom aħjar” before he himself lays down the technicalities.
Keep in mind that in this instance, he was correcting an engineer. And the latter, with the respect due to a person like Mallia, took the humiliation thinking that surely Mallia must know better.
There lies the risk.
Your “They sought his professional opinion on an energy plan. Then they proceeded to ignore it.” makes one think, doesn’t it?
Was it really that simple? Did they ignore him, just like that? For no reason? Did they, perhaps, find obvious flaws in his plan?
I have no idea about the hows and the whys, but recent events make me think that there was more to it than a simple “then they proceeded to ignore it”.
What more was there to it? What are you thinking of?
I’m talking of stuff that happened in the 1990s and early 2000s. I can’t write a whole report about what happened because this isn’t the right place, so I have to turn to literary language.
I must correct you on one point. Edward Mallia never presented “plans”, so it’s not a question of flaws in the plan. Like any other consultant, he presented facts, options and recommendations. Those recommendations were ignored time and again. So what was the point of consulting him in the first place?
You seem to have taken a dislike to Edward Mallia, along with most of Malta. I can see why. In Malta you’re allowed chirpy optimism, or loudmouthed anger, but never sad disillusionment.
I am thinking of nothing other than the facts I presented earlier, which at the very least bring Mallia’s competence into question.
Whether plans or consultancy, my point is one and the same. Competence. Liking or disliking a person does not feature anywhere.
If you get your facts wrong, then, yes, your competence comes into question, whether you’re a car mechanic or a physicist, manicured yuppie or not. Personal appearance and likability does not come into it at all.
I enjoy discussing anything technical with anyone, be it a Sandra Bullock or a Quasimodo. Wherever Mallia sits along that scale is immaterial. Please stop measuring me with that yardstick.
What makes the LNG incident serious for me is not the error in itself. Everyone is prone to that, and it comes with the job of being human.
But correcting an error made by someone less competent than yourself with an even greater error, and being convinced of what you’re saying to boot, then it’s not a question of human error anymore.
It becomes a question of competence. And the higher your profile, the worse it gets.
It always amazes me how Joe Public wakes up one day and suddenly becomes an expert on issues ranging from IVF to abortion, adoption, divorce and including Power stations.
If you were populist enough to rely on people’s emotions to make public decisions you would end up with capital punishment and deportation of black people and burning witches and gay people.
As for getting outside expert opinion, someone is bound to say foreign interference in national elections.
The problem with single issue elections is that they could end up being a referendum on a power station.
Ranier isn’t read by those who will determine the outcome of the election
It´s time the media – especially the two main English language newspapers – moved from the pure and sterile reporting they’re engaged in at the moment to actually providing a fuller picture, pointing out the contradictions made by one and the same person/party, providing historical information relevant to the discussion, performing independent research (don’t they have any trainee journalists in the house?).
At the moment their added value over the party media channels is nil.
Ah, in ideal world yes. But Maltese politicians are not used to being grilled, and would have a fit if this would occur.
Have a look at how Lou Bondi is demonised by a section of the media, just because he tries to corner a spokesman on some point or other. Elsewhere he would be admired.
I’m sorry, most interviewers or journalists either resort to heckling (that offensive lady who seemed hell-bent in shoving a mike up Simon Busuttil’s nostril when Simon was leaving the TV studios is a prime example), or else you get a journalist who has to appear independent, as per editorial policy, and knows that if he asks awkward questions, his head will roll, if not today, certainly tomorrow.
That said and done, we have made some progress from when a person (I can’t use the term lady in this case, as not enough sarcasm can be implied by the use of apostrophes) tried to use her admitted attractiveness to put a speaker off his stride (I’m sure quite a few can remember that particular episode).
[Daphne – No, I can’t.]
They are hedging – just in case.
They will not press Labour for answers just in case they win.
They fear a repetition of what happened in the 80s.
They don’t need to press the NP because they get most answers most of the time.
Research and expert opinions cost money and it takes time to do either (or both), properly.
Well, amen to that. Why does expert opinion always sought within the confines of our tiny islands?
Why not try contacting the editor of this publication:
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article1314226.ece
How to contact Upstream
Editorial – For all editorial issues please email [email protected]
The Editor-in-chief is Erik Means
telephone: +47 2200 1314 email [email protected]
I think this should be enough:
http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/ghubbard/Articles%20for%20Web%20Site/Natural%20Gas%20Contracting%20in%20Practice.pdf