Money, money, money

Parliament is currently debating the law regulating the financing of political parties. The saying in Maltese “bla flus, la tgħannaq u lanqas tbus” seems to apply not only to the world of romance, but likewise to politics. At the heart of this regulation is the fundamental principle of equity between political parties.

The Nationalist Party is in agreement with most of the proposed draft legislation, including the declaration of donations with the associated thresholds. As such, the disagreement between the two major political parties boils down to the unfair level playing field in favour of the Labour Party. The PL has, to date, 28 properties being used as political party clubs, 22 state owned and six privately owned. Of the six privately owned, some have been handed over to the Labour Party either through a requisition order, or through some other unethical deal, as in the case in Qormi.

Previous Labour governments excelled in stealing public or private property to hand over to their party. If your property were slapped with a requisition order by a Labour government, you were either made to accept the fact that your property would be handed over to them, to be used as a political club at some miserable rent and have the requisition order lifted, or refuse and have your property damned by being unable to make use of it.

As for the case in Qormi, the ancestors of the private owners who have this week initiated court proceedings against the Labour Party, were polite enough to accept a request by former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff to have their property (as large as a theatre) rented out to the Labour Party as a club for two years. Little did they know, however, that once Labour got hold of their property, it would never let go of it.

The Labour Party holds on to the Qormi club for the ridiculous sum of €198 per year, of which €138 goes for ground rent. That leaves the owners with €60 before tax, which is to be shared among the heirs. Since 2011, the owners were in contact with then Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat. I have seen correspondence sent by the proprietors to Joseph Muscat, asking the Labour Party to give what is due – a fair rent. In their correspondence, they reminded Muscat that in a private meeting, he had promised them that he would ensure that they get a fair compensation. In spite of this promise, the proprietors sent at least five reminders to Muscat.

All that Muscat offered was a ridiculous €50 annual increase. It seems that skipping the power station deadline was not the only broken promise. At this point, the owners were left with no alternative but to institute legal proceedings against the Labour Party. Labour reacts and issues a statement committing itself to abide by the legal proceedings.

How convenient! Labour does what suits it best. In this case, it suits the PL to abide by the legal proceedings. We all know how legal proceedings could turn out to be never-ending. This will give them an opportunity to hold on to a private property for months, possibly years – as if an injustice of 60 years wasn’t enough.

But if the Labour Party committed itself to respecting the legal procedures, then why did the Labour government intervene to drop the Australia Hall case, behind the Lands Commissioner’s back? A classic example of two weights, two measures.

This brings me to the Australia Hall scandal. A 100-year old historical building, downgraded from Grade 1 to Grade 2 by MEPA under Alfred Sant’s former premiership, is ‘taghna lkoll’ no more. A Labour government had awarded the site with over 10,000 square metres in Pembroke to its party in 1979. Back then, they fed us the excuse that this was in return for another site given up for the Marsa shipbuilding.

First, the manner through which Labour obtained the land in Marsa is another scandal on its own. Secondly, other ordinary citizens who had their property expropriated in Marsa, were treated differently, getting in return a meagre financial compensation. This is why Australia Hall should have never been handed over to the Labour Party. Not only was this scandalous, but the fact that Labour went ahead with selling it to settle debts owned to a private company for works undertaken at its Hamrun offices, makes the Labour government morally corrupt.

This is why there is no equity between the political parties in this country. Owen Bonnici and Joseph Muscat may speak as much as they like on party financing, but until they return all the 22 state-owned properties back to the citizens, and the remaining six to their private owners, their talk is just nonsense.

The PL had criticised the Nationalist Party for its debts. Labour seems to hold no shame in criticising others, when it should be criticising itself for its own debt. But while both political parties have debt, something neither one should be proud of, the Nationalist Party is addressing it through hard work, when Labour is going off selling public property. Ah, well. I guess Muscat did keep his promise – Malta is ‘taghna lkoll’, including Labour’s debt.