‘The national interest’ raises its ugly head again
IIn his spare time, Chris Cardona does a lot to protect the national interest.
Those of my generation and older, who know this through experience, and well-informed people who are younger, have alarm bells triggered by the repeated use of the term ‘the national interest’ as justification for all manner of abuse.
Muscat and Mallia have used it already as justification for planned human rights violations. Now here is the thinner end of the wedge, as reported in Times of Malta today:
Economy Minister Chris Cardona yesterday admitted altering the criteria for a call for proposals to give legal assistance to the Privatisation Unit, but said he had every right to do so in order to protect the national interest.
A cabinet minister abuses of his position to over-rule the decision of an adjudication committee and give a Privatisation Unit job to a law firm he has chosen personally.
And he says that he did it to “protect the national interest”.
It’s going to be a long, long five years.
26 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130716/local/-I-had-every-right-to-overrule-privatisation-unit-minister.478143
National interest? How does that come into it. He means personal interest.
Cardona was really arrogant, especially when he said to a journalist that his brother agreed with the previous way of running the Privatisation Unit.
The funny thing is that he could have easily issued a direct order to the law firm in question. That would have spared him a lot of embarrassment.
What national interest? ‘Personal interest’ is more like it!
He’ll be the one to bring the economy to its knees.
He also mentioned something about ‘ opening up to companies which never won a tender’.
Maybe because they’re rubbish, Dr.Cardona. Trust you to square the circle.
Interestingly, the PL apologists do not interpret the Minister’s action as a ‘direct order’. How direct must it be for their blinkers to fall.
Back to the 80s, Lorry Sant style.
It’s important that he “had every right to overrule the privatisation unit”. It’s like basically saying “Oh look a police officer just gave me a ticket but I’m going to decline it because I have every right to do so.”
What national interest? Was in the national interest to threaten the use of vetos, “stamp our feet” whilst “standing up to be counted” so that the EU “would smell the coffee”?
Protect the national interest is as much of a cliche as all the rest!
You can justify anything in the name of the “national interest”. The question is, how do you know what the REAL national interest is?
What if two issues are both in the “national interest”, but are opposed to each other? Who decides which one takes precedence if not the laws of the land?
Has Konrad Mizzi assumed, Cardona style, the role of ultimately himself personally choosing to whom the power plant deal goes?
Out of 176 countries surveyed by Transparency International in the 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index, Malta ranked 43rd with a score of 57: not exactly lily-white, but a darn sight better than Italy (72nd with a score of 42) or Greece (94th with a score of 36).
A score below 50 is said to indicate a very serious corruption problem, including a lack of transparency in public spending and contracting. See: http://www.transparency.org
What with blatant political interference in this particular procurement project, where the goalposts appear to have been shifted in mid-game, one wonders where Malta will rank in the 2013 CPI index. Sadly, Cardona’s shameful performance during yesterday’s press conference did nothing to shore up confidence in the process.
The alarm bells have already become deafening.
Perhaps it’s because I remember the old times even better than you Daphne, seeing that I am older.
Isn’t this illegal? I would assume there is some law which states that you cannot overrule something like this.
Basically every tenderer can sue the minister.
I would.
When he stated he personally intervened during the closing stages of the selection process, changing the criteria of adjudication, who wouldn’t?
The Privatisation Unit should be dismantled, seeing that their decisions are not required.
And where is the Leader of the Opposition in all this?
Yes, as he said on Sunday, the PM must explain, but that hardly constitutes an example of the checks and balances that a proper opposition should ensure.
As you say “It’s going to be a long, long five years.”. Actually, I’m afraid it’s going to be longer.
A man who is very used to observing and scrutinizing the intimacies of pole-dancing positions is eminently suitable to scrutinize the finesse of legal assistance, isn’t he now.
I almost didn’t recognise Chris Cardona’s rotund face.
This would have been a resignation matter under any Nationalist government – hell, it should be one under any government whatsoever, full stop.
Labour would have rightly made a whole fuss about this if they were in Opposition.
But the Nationalist Party now remains silent on this matter, and Labour get away with murder scot free instead. Incredible.
What national interest? They mean national socialism.
Maybe somebody can help on the following. Hopefully this somebody would be a Government official or a journalist asking some informed question to a Government official who in turn may give us some more informed answers than what we have been getting so far on various issues.
There are 2 ways how to adjudicate offers: either through the MEAT (Most Economically Advantageous Tender) or Cheapest Offer (subject to the offers satisfying the selection criteria).
An offer can be a tender (over 47,000 euros) or a quotation (up to 6,000 euros). There are also other names for offers such as expression of interest, request for proposals, direct orders (which have to be justified). However, in all cases, the tenderers have to know, IN ADVANCE, what method is to be used, that is either MEAT or cheapest offer. Changing rules AFTER the offer is submitted raises more than one eyebrow.
The Prime Minister’s apologetic stance that ministers are still learning is extremely weak since the civil service is the entity that should guide the minister in procedural issues (assuming that the Minister wishes to be guided). If the top heads of the civil service themselves are still learning then it is the prime minister’s doing since he decided to remove almost all heads of the civil service making it vulnerable to mistakes that should never take place. It was the Prime Minister who had stated that in removing permanent secretaries he was following the Constitution. This is totally untrue. The Constitution is clear on the matter. So if the Prime Minister does not know how (or does not want) to read the highest law of the land, that is the Constitution, then I am not surprised that his ministers cannot read other lesser laws.
Qabel jew wara, mhux xorta?
‘It’s going to be a long, long five years.’
At least we’ll have you around here to keep us amused and informed.
Issa kollox f’isem l-interess nazzjonali…imma bħar-revoluzzjoni Franċiża, f’isem il-libertà kemm tħanxru rjus.
Afraid as usual.