|
The ‘monster’ that evolved from all the good intentions was quite different than what was envisaged at its embryonic stage
The Romans realised the problem quite some time ago, hence the origin of their expression: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardsmen? This poser comes to mind when we hear of senior police officers being accused of receiving ‘protection money’, or of allegations of bribery that were levied at two senior judges. All the persons concerned have resigned from their office, even though in the absence of a definite court judgement, they are still presumed guilty in the eyes of the law.
The same question could be made about the numerous regulators and authorities that today seem to be multiplying at a dizzying rate. MEPA, for one, has been accused by all and sundry, especially because of some obviously blatant unexplainable inconsistencies.
It does seem that once a system of control is launched, the system takes off and develops into a creature – some would say monster – that lives on its own – apparently beyond anybody’s control – without any need of sustenance or encouragement.
This is exactly what happened with the local wardens system. The idea was that undisciplined people needed a deterrent – apart from some education. The system was originally set up so that once a citizen’s name was inputted in a warden’s hand held computer there was no damn way how to get out of the list. No friend – or saint – could do anything about it and this was thought to be just what this clientelism infested country needed to put everyone in his place. In line with this thinking, the Tribunal chairman that heard the cases that were challenged by the ordinary citizen had to decide whether one was guilty or not. If one is guilty, the fine has to be paid and no one could be reprimanded or warned, not even in cases where there were mitigating circumstances. If a driver stopped in front of his house to get a deliver a heavy packet and drive on – a matter of a few seconds – there was no way how this ‘breach of the law’ could be excused, once a stupid warden had issued the dreaded ticket.
The system was so watertight that not even the President could give a pardon. So while murderers, thieves and drug traffickers can – theoretically – be pardoned by the President, anyone issued with a parking ticket did not have such a possibility!
The system was also privatised with companies to run warden services being set up by enterprising citizens. The system was self-sufficient. The money collected in fines went to the warden companies and to the local councils. A perfect solution – or so it must have seemed in the beginning.
The ‘monster’ that evolved from all the good intentions was quite different than what was envisaged at its embryonic stage. The system became a cash cow for both the warden companies and local councils. Law and order ceased to be the reason why the system existed; this notion had to give way to the exigencies of the profit motive. The success of the system was rated by those who operated it not by the increase of people observing the rules but by the increase of tickets issued to those who ‘broke the law’!
Wardens suddenly became ‘driver trappers’, hiding behind corners and billboards to nab unsuspecting drivers. The mandatory use of lights in tunnels, for example, became another excuse for wardens to hide at the exit of tunnels and stop drivers without their lights on, irrespective of whether they had just switched them off. Hundreds of letters must have been published in newspapers complaining about unreasonable wardens and describing incidents in which wardens acted in the most silly of manners. Local councils directed the wardens to dedicate most of their energies in the peripheral areas of the locality so that tickets are issued mostly to people passing by rather than to the locals! In one case, a local council decided to lower the speed limit in a particular road where speed cameras were then quickly installed… drivers are supposed to remember that the speed limit in that particular road is lower than in the rest of the country!
The ‘funny’ thing in all this is that while the warden companies and the local councils were dishing in the money, most people’s irritation-induced anger was directed at the government!
The system was working on its own in a perfect manner as originally planned – except that there was nobody to guard the guardsmen and the system degenerated into a continual abuse.
Some time ago, the government, realising that something had to be done, changed the law and set up a ‘Petitions Board’ to consider extenuating circumstances. Anyone who got a ticket could make a petition in writing explaining the circumstances of the case and submit reasons why the fine should be waived. The number of petitions that have already been favourably considered indicates the extent to which well-meaning citizens were being victimised by the system.
I was therefore not surprised to read a recent report saying that PN secretary general Joe Saliba was egging government to take stock of the warden set-up and take steps to ensure that no one continues to abuse the system. Surprisingly, in a full-page article in last Tuesday’s l-orizzont, the Labour mayor of Hamrun, Luciano Busuttil, took Joe Saliba to task over what he had told The Times.
In typical MLP fashion, Dr Busuttil faulted the government for setting up the wardens system and at the same time stuck his neck out to gratuitously defend all wardens from any wrongdoing! In this way, he must have calculated, it is only the PN that loses votes about the issue, while the wardens keep on filling the coffers of the local council that he heads. How long does the MLP think that it can keep having the cake and eating it?
Fascinating
I find the reactions to my last contribution in MaltaToday as both uncanny and fascinating because they actually confirm much of what I wrote that provoked these reactions. Apart from the numerous instances where my detractors went off at a tangent and replied vehemently to arguments that I did not make, it does seem that some people cannot take a dose of their own medicine.
I make no claim – implicit or otherwise – to infallibility and omniscience, nor do I insult people and then feign surprise and horror when I am the butt of insults.
The only surprise was Prof. Edward Mallia recalling an incident which, frankly, I have completely forgotten. I have no reason not to accept Prof. Mallia’s word and belatedly apologise unreservedly for the incident – more so as I seem to have been responsible for his hair turning completely white, thus giving him an air of maturity.
I take the opportunity to thank MaltaToday for giving me the opportunity to present the other side of the ‘debate’.
|
