The ‘role model’ aspect
Published:
January 22, 2015 at 4:07pm
A letter to the editor in Times of Malta today
This is a good point. I hadn’t thought of it in those terms but yes, I suppose Simon Busuttil is a role model of what constitutes the educated view.
Muscat is not a role model in that respect. He is a leader of the ignorant, which is different.
The ‘role model’ aspect would be the reason why so many people I know were shocked at Simon Busuttil’s stance and felt unbalanced by it.
38 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaMdrjDHENw
Yes and yes. Cast your mind back to the “aquarium” incident. What did Busuttil’s canvasser say to the insistent Ramona Attard? “Dak ghax bravu. Simon bravu.”
That’s the view among his core vote supporters. If “Simon” is voting Yes, then there must be a good reason.
Hopefully it is not the case, Baxxter. If people vote according to their leaders’ opinions then we are truly a lost cause.
If? They always do. And we are a lost cause.
Sometimes it feels like Busuttil is still thinking of himself as just another MEP.
Did he actually say these words? It wasn’t reported like this on Times of Malta.
“…ma kienx ghaddej bhar-rih”
http://www.tvm.com.mt/news/sewwieq-tal-incident-fatali-jghid-li-ma-kienx-ghaddej-bhar-rih/
When three Nationalist MPs prefer to remain anonymous and the ex-Nationalist MPs Franco and Jeffrey speak out for the Yes vote, it’s not Daphne who’s “damaging the PN”.
I find myself in perfect agreement with Raphael Vassallo in Malta Today. Busuttil needs to understand that when it’s a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t, maybe it’s better to do.
But that comes when the entire PN subscribes to the fact it is not in government AND what matters is a future for everyone.
The message instead boils down to an apologetic ‘vorrei ma non posso’. And that is not representative let alone democratic.
In other words, a castrated, scared PN. Exactly the kind of message it should seek to avoid. Gonzi II and all that. Vorrei fire Jeff and Franco ma non posso.
Why didn’t he keep his mouth shut and let people decide for themselves?
If he did the PL would lambast him because he did not take a stand.
If I truly loved animals, I would stick to my guns and say NO irrespective of whatever the PL and its supporters say.
Admittedly Joseph Muscat was extremely cunning and it is about time that Busuttil saw through him and adopted the same kind of cunning while being true to his opinions.
It is a difficult situation, I know, but if an army general cannot see through his enemy then he has already lost the battle.
In other words, he shot himself. Hunters must be very happy.
Simon Busuttil can vote whatever way he likes, and it won’t affect my voting NO one tiny bit.
The person who wrote that letter has a very good point though. I personally have lost some respect for Dr. Busuttil after his declaration that he will vote in favour of the killing of birds.
I will still remain a PN voter (for general elections only) simply because Dr. Busuttil is still IMO 100,000 times more credible than Gowzef.
I cannot but disagree. I would have been worried if Busuttil had stated otherwise.
Uneducated or otherwise, the Maltese electorate now know without any shadow of a doubt that Busuttil is consistent in what he says and what he does.
He was involved in the dealings with the EU over the hunting derogation. What would he be accused of today U-turns, inconsistency, dishonesty. Maybe people here really want our leaders to take a position on any given subject today and practise the exact opposite when it suits them.
I read it in a different way.
Had Simon Busuttil taken an opposing stance then the issue would have been strongly politicised.
MLP support would have gone towards the ‘YES’ vote and PN support would have gone towards the ‘NO’ vote.
Because the overwhelming pro MLP vote is still close to what it was in the last election it would stand to reason that the ‘YES’ vote would have proportionately overwhelmed the ‘NO’ vote.
With both leaders voting the same way the issue is rendered neutral from a political point of view. This leaves the public with a chance of making up its own mind.
There will always be a number of people in both camps who do not have the capability of forming an opinion and while that appears to be loaded towards the MLP I feel that by voting in favour of keeping the derogation, Simon Busuttil gave the ‘NO’ side a stronger chance of winning.
Is the insult to members of the Nationalist Party as forming part of the “uneducated classes” intentional or is it actually a Freudian slip inadvertently disclosing a hidden agenda?
He wrote “especially among the uneducated masses” (not classes), so he’s neither saying that everyone who sees Simon Busuttil as a role model is uneducated, nor is he insulting anyone.
In fact, the letter falls flat precisely because the uneducated masses do not use Dr Busuttil as their role model – and this has been amply proven in the last two electoral tests.
Dr Busuttil has done no harm to the party he leads.
The way things are going, it’s useless to deny that the largest chunk of the Maltese population is truly uneducated and is not aware of what really matters to run a country or to preserve all good things inherited from our ancestors.
Maybe he wants to lull that uneducated share into thinking he is one of them to the point that they vote for him next general elections.
Only then will he be in a position to show his true colours.
Isn’t that what Joseph Muscat did?
What worries me most is the attitude that prevails amongst the local electorate epitomized during the divorce referendum.
A sizable group used to argue on the lines, “I do not favour divorce. But who am I to tell others what to do? “, making little effort to use their heads and qualify convincingly to themselves why vote “yes” or “no”.
The same argument is being brought forward today: “I would never contemplate shooting a bird. But who am I to tell others what to do?”
I fear that this is the reasoned decision that will ultimately decide the referendum. After all this was the level of thinking that led to the result of the last general election.
Dr. Busuttil had no way out but to declare himself as he did for obvious reasons since if the IVA vote won the day, without him joining it, it would have meant that Muscat would have won single-handed again.
As regards the diatribe over the referendum, the decree by the European Court of Justice of itself clears the way for the obvious use of the spring hunting season, since it permits it solely to Malta and in full sustainability of bird conservation in general, which by itself defies the biggest argument by Birdlife Malta that the birds are going to breed.
In declaring the sustainability within the season, which also Birdlife International endorsed too, the only option for an IVA/YES vote by consequence.
Mirroring Labour is a death wish.
Absolutely.
Fair observation but simplistic. Elections are won by majorities, not a niche of educated few, period.
If Busuttil (stop calling him by full name – avoid using ‘Simon’ altogether) went for the No vote, then good luck persuading the the hunting lobby to vote PN in the next general election.
In contrast, it is possible to persuade the educated few to vote PN, despite Busuttil’s declaration in favor of spring hunting.
I guess Busuttil wasn’t ready to face another loss against the PL and, for now, I don’t blame him.
I would guarantee, so far, that the PL would beat the NP when the referendum takes place since unfortunately this referendum was turned into a political issue.
I am very much against the shooting of birds since this is too much a cruel sport but in my opinion the animal lovers should also protest against the cruelty of keeping horses et al kept in stables 24 x 7 less about an hour a day when they are taken out, not only for the benefit of the horses but for its owner to enjoy a ride on the back.
Brian, have you listened to Dr. Busuttil’s consistent reasoning for stating that he will vote in favour of limited and controlled spring hunting? I accept his stand but will still vote NO.
Why all this fuss because Simon Busuttil showed consistency in his decision – something that couldn’t be said about Joseph Muscat.
During the Divorce referendum campaign Dr. Gonzi and the PN were against divorce yet PN supporters voted Yes. And so should they do now – vote No to spring hunting.
To be consistently wrong is not an honourable thing.
I think you got Brian’s message the other way round – he was referring to the UNeducated masses. ‘Educated’ people would never consider Maltese politicans as their role models.
Not really. The word “especially” has a precise meaning and shows that he was not referring only to the uneducated masses.
Sadly, I must agree.
Simon Busuttil, during the press conference, was speaking as the leader of the PN.
He declared that personally he is not for spring hunting.
On the other hand, as leader of the PN, which party is merited of getting Malta in the EU and as one of the key persons involved in the negotiation process, the logical action is to defend what was negotiated. This stand was taken after an internal discussion within the PN.
In my book, this reads consistency, diplomacy and a strong character.
What absolute rot. I am speaking here, of course, not as myself but as Sheena Queen Of The Jungle.
Your example does not hold. Simon is an individual who is leader of the PN. If you have to impose your opinion on a group you lead, that is dictatorship.
Democracy demands otherwise.
As far as I know, the Sheena Queen and yourself are not connected let alone the same individual.
The example holds in the sense that Busuttil the individual and Busuttil the leader of the Nationalist party are not two separate persons, but one and the same.
Therefore, for him to declare that he is voting Yes as leader of the party when he is not personally for spring hunting is nonsense.
If it were a case of the common good (as Gonzi should have done with divorce – he is against but the common good demands that he should have voted for it) then that’s another thing.
But Busuttil never said that spring hunting is the common good (and in any case, it’s quite the opposite). He only explained his voting choice in terms of a misguided and peculiarly PN form of loyalty (to a lesser evil and a desperate measure when circumstances were desperate).
If this site allowed slang, this would call for lolling. Needing a ‘role model’, at that age! It is hilarious.
Even when I was young, though a fan of many a musical and sporting personality, I never looked at anyone as a ‘role model’. Role model is an infantile concept.
Perhaps this is what parents need to tell children who start to show an unhealthy ‘role model’ attraction towards any personality.
These people are human beings, and can make mistakes, and in that case they are liable to punishment or criticism accordingly.
Otherwise, we will still have ‘adult’ people like the author of this letter, who still need to grow up out of the role model concept.
That’s a good epitaph: “Joseph Muscat – Leader of the Ignorant.”
Ma min se tivvota, ma’ Simon jew mal-kaċċatur tal-filmat, Jeremy Portelli.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX7UELG9Y5E
Tgħidli jekk Simon qal li se jivvota iva, u probabbilment Jeremy se jivvota iva, għaliex qiegħed tistaqsini ma min se nżomm?
Simon se jivvota għal-kliem preċiż u il-legaliżmi tar-referendum fuq it-tneħħija ta’ deroga.
Il-poplu se jivvota jekk fil-prattika iridx jibqa’ jiġi imkeċċi u imgerrex mil-kampanja fir-rebbiegħa minn nies tosti bħal-Jeremy li jibqgħu iridu iktar kull meta tasal elezzjoni.
Li kieku ma kienx hemm deroga, kieku din il-“laqgħa sorpriża” qatt ma kienet tkun.
Jekk tivvota IVA se jkollok titqanna b’dawn ix-xenati kull tant żmien:
http://www.newsbook.com.mt/artikli/2014/9/21/l-appogg-tal-kaccaturi-lejn-joseph-muscat-%22miet%22-ilbierah.22405/
Daphne – your interpretation is not what I said. It always amazes me how you manage to paint every view with a partisan shade of blue.
The educated masses, whatever party they chose to vote in the last election, are the ones that vote with their brains rather than according to some leader of a party edict. Busuttil’s statement has created an edict, and the uneducated masses will as always dutifully follow. Hence, the unexpected act of irresponsibility from Busuttil’s side.
[Daphne – That is why it is so important to write well, in a manner that leaves no scope for ambiguity. If I failed to understand you, the fault is yours and not mine. I can hardly be accused of not knowing the language. And there really is no need to be so hostile and touchy.]
Others, as is reflected in the above comments, seem to have understood perfectly well, my dear Daphne .
It mystifies me how you interpreted that Joseph is the leader of the uneducated masses, and Simon of the educated rest. My statement was just about Simon Busuttil – I did not even mention Joseph Muscat. Your interpretation of my statements are a result of a bipolar blue and red state of mind.
[Daphne – No mystery at all. And it is fact, not speculation. Serendipitously, it emerges from Malta Today’s fabled surveys: http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2015/01/joseph-muscat-top-choice-of-those-with-primary-education-only-simon-busuttil-top-choice-of-those-with-university-education/ ]
I did not mean that Simon is the leader of the educated and Joseph of the uneducated. I did not mean the opposite, that Simon is the leader of the uneducated and Joseph of the educated. I meant that those who vote according to the edict of a political party leader, will unfortunately follow Simon’s irresponsible statement and vote Yes.
It stands to reason that you will be voting Yes.
[Daphne – I will be voting No. Not only have I said so clearly, but anybody who has been reading me regularly for the last 25 years will have been able to use reason to work that one out. And my vote is based on reason and conservation, not emotion.]