More respect for parliament

I share my disappointment with Michael Frendo on the respect that Parliament merits.

Michael Falzon 13 June 2010, 12:00am

2 min read

When Malta opted for five national feasts, the government of the day decided to give each one of them a specific angle. Since the Sette Giugno riots had led – directly and indirectly – to Malta’s first elected representative Parliament, it made sense for the official anniversary celebrations to be linked with the history of our Parliament.

It has now become traditional for the Speakers of the House of Representatives to deliver a speech during the wreath laying ceremony held on that day. I used to think – with some cheek in tongue – that after the first such speech was delivered so many moons ago, the successive speeches were essentially rehashed versions of the first.

This year, with a newly appointed Speaker making his first such address, Michael Frendo was pleasantly different. Basically, he appealed for more respect for Parliament and even referred to his disappointment that there are many who cannot understand the need of a building solely and wholly dedicated to Parliament.

I share my disappointment with him. Apart from the controversies on the exact siting of a Parliamentary building and its architectural style, there should be no reason why Malta should be the only country that has no Parliamentary building. Using some ‘lent’ space in the Presidential palace is not only infra dig but also constitutionally absurd.

Moreover at the Palace, MPs do not have the space for the facilities they need to carry out their duties properly. There should be no objectively sensible reason why any Maltese should be against our country having a Parliament building. This is tantamount to disrespect for Malta’s own democratic credentials.

One must, moreover, distinguish between respect for individual Members of Parliament and respect of the Institution itself. In all countries there are MPs who behave in a way that shows that they hardly deserve any respect. The recent expenses scandal in the UK crops up immediately to mind. Malta is no exception but in Malta there are some who readily transfer their contempt from some particular individual’s act to the institution itself. This is a big mistake.

And since Mr. Speaker has so fervently argued for the respect that our Parliament deserves, is it not time for him to stop the practice of allowing children and others to meet in Parliament and ‘debate’ issues. The other week we even had seven-year olds denigrating politicians in a meeting in the House itself! One could argue that these innocent children were only reflecting what their teachers had taught them. This makes it worse, of course. Respect for the institution implies that such shenanigans should not be allowed.

Michael Falzon is a former government minister who served under several Nationalist admini...

More from Michael Falzon

Ian George Walker •

It seems that Mr Falzon is still feeling sore because (Horror of horrors!) some children dared to criticise the high and mighty demi-gods who sit in the ministerial chairs. The fact that they were 100% right in what they said does not seem to matter at all to him. If Speaker Frendo wants more respect for Parliament, he should start by giving a good example. Something he certainly did not do during the vote following the debate on the Power station contract. In fact, in a long life of avid interest in politics and parliamentary affairs, I cannot recall a more blatant example of partisanship on the part of a Speaker of our House of Representatives.

Luke Camilleri •

I am not the one to reply for ex Labour Prime Ministers, history will take care of that and not the History the P.N. is trying to re-write. That was quick with no mention at all at how Nationalist Party strategists decided to appoint ex-Ministers as Presidents at stages of their careers and not that much by apparent mutual consent besides the classic case of self appointment with a change of name in the deal. If you want to end the debate, so be it. If you have decided that our two-way tit-for-tat (with the Readers of the Maltatoday  ) is repeating old Labour chestnuts , at least Labour Prime Ministers in their day had the chestNUTS to govern and never let themselves having their FIRM Hands ties. Thanks for updates and for the sake of the whole truth some comments on your corrections are in order: 1. I was not that completely wrong in stating that that you were given an appointment with a public corporation and certainly not left out in the cold after not being re-elected as other of your esteemed colleagues. 2. As for Paul Xuereb, John Buttigieg and Joseph Buttigieg being given appointments , these appointments were certainly not given in an atmosphere of “dissent” and certainly not to pay off their silence not accepting dissent as a fundamental requirement of a free society.” 3. The 'mighty' Mintoff , in his Prime, (as Dr. Laurence Gonzi is supposed to be) took on the Ecclesiastical authorities in those dark ages, took on the British Empire in alliance with Nationalist MPs at the time who took the English side against the interests of the Maltese with even Ives Debarro, than Second Secretary at the Maltese Embassy in Tripoli had, in 1971, passing “sensitive” information to D. K. Haskell, an official at the British Embassy, regarding meetings between Maltese delegations and Libyan ministers. By the way I did not not know that you are also the self appointed Chairman of this Debate and just decide when to end it by your mutual concent like a Gonzipn Parliamentary sitting If you want to end it, end it and let the readers dcide if it is ended or not. Have a Good Weekend !

•

This is turning into a boring two-way tit-for-tat with 'Thorny' just repeating old Labour chestnuts instead of making an intelligent discussion. For the sake of the truth some corrections are in order: 1. I was appointed Chairman of Water Services Corporation, not Enemalta and I was not a backbencher then. 2. When the people mentioned by 'Thorny' were appointed Ambassadors they were not backbenchers. 3. When Paul Xuereb, John Buttigieg and Joseph Buttigieg were appointed Bank Chairmen they were also MPs - backbenchers. 4. The 'mighty' Mintoff was a backbencher only under KMB and under Alfred Sant. Under KMB he was in charge of bulk buying and had a freehand with the Central Bank Reseves. Under Alfred Sant he just twiddked his fingers, until... 5. After he brought the House down, Mintoff did not dare contest another election - end of his politcal career. And this is the end of our debate.

Luke Camilleri •

The role of backbenchers in a situation where there is a tight majority of seats should not be a controversial issue for a Prime Minister that should be in Control and instead of having firm hands , has his hands tied due to pre-electoral promises, a Prime Minister who SMS ministerial positions tohis MPs. Backbenchers face the 'Samson' dilemma: if they bring the house down, it will be the end of their politcal career which seems to come quite before the elctorate that voted them in and can just vote them out. Are you that sure that the Mighty Dom Mintoff could survive such a move in his Prime, the Dom that took on the Maltese Church in the 60’s and the Britain in the 70’s? . A wise Prime Minister would avoid letting beackbenchers feeling as if they are just there to rubber-stamp whatever he and his Cabinet decide and different opinions would not bedealt with under the public gaze. Who says we have a wise Prime Minister? The current Prime Minister, moreover, had to pay a price for having a record amount of former Ministers and parliamentary Secretaries on the back bench, besides the usual 'pretenders'. Pay the Price? He paid them off , a case in point - ex. Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is being paid €13,000 per year as chairman of the MCST. Mintoff used to give extra posts to his backbenchers (e.g.bank chairmen) in order to deal with the problem of rivalry between Ministers and backbenchers. Solution looked good from his point of view but in the end democracy suffered. Didn’t EFA do the same, If I am not mistaken he even offered such a post to you at ENEMALTA AND Ambasadorial posts to various other ex-Ministers that did not make it, Bonello Du Puis, Richard Muscat, Borg Olivier de Puget, not to mention offering and taking the Presidency . If Parlaiment gives the people respect, especially to their well-being it will in turn be respected . The longest denigration of the institution of Parlaiment was made by the boycotting of Parliamentary sittings by Nationalist MPs to gain power and nor for Democracy’s sake but just to grab all and what do we have to show for it today? Nothiong but a resounding Deficit of payments and no National Assets with the country’s administration giving out slices of land to foreign specuilators and not having the gall and vision to truly invest in Malta and it’s people.

•

The role of backbenchers in a situation where there is a tight majority of seats is always a controversial issue. Backbenchers face the 'Samson' dilemma: if they bring the house down, it will be the end of their politcal career. Not even mighty Dom Mintoff could survive such a move. A wise Prime Minister would avoid letting beackbenchers feeling as if they are just there to rubber-stamp whatever he and his Cabinet decide and different opinions would not bedealt with under the public gaze. The current Prime Minister, moreover, had to pay a price for having a record amount of former Ministers and parliamentary Secretaries on the back bench, besides the usual 'pretenders'. Mintoff used to give extra posts to his backbenchers (e.g.bank chairmen) in order to deal with the problem of rivalry between Ministers and backbenchers. Solution looked good from his point of view but in the end democracy suffered. In Malta there is a dilemma between the role of MPs as part of th legislative arm of the State and the role of the Prime Minister and Ministers as the executive arm of the same State. Frankly, because of our two-way almost balanced Parliament the checks and balances between these two ams of the state have become weakened. All this does not mean that people should denigrate the institution of Parlaiment as so often happens.

Luke Camilleri •

Why doesn’t Michael Falzon comment on the suppressed freedom of speech imposed by Gonzipn to silence the Nationalist MP’s especially the back-benchers? What has Michael Falzon to say about the Gonzipn Consultant’s offer of new positions and status with the related remuneration offered to the P.N. Back-Benchers for their silence on the electorate's pleas especially about the Delimara Power station extension? Disappointment? Yes, and not only disappointment but disillusion at the attitude and arrogance being shown by the Gonzipn MPs who are more concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong

Luke Camilleri •

More of an apologetic excuse and promo for spending millions on the Gonzipn parliament, which the country can in all honesty, do without. It's not the building that makes the Parliament; it's the Members of parliament, their code of ethics and their supposed respect and wishes to the electorate that elected them, respect which is not even shown between the members. A case in point is the frame-up and lies told by Gonzipn MPs and are on record on Dr. Justyn Caruana “Yes” vote. No wonder there is overall disappointment, in other times there would have been a REVOLUTION not just a show of disappointment!