Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1494132
maltatoday | SUNDAY •5 MARCH 2023 9 INTERVIEW dissenters, more at the time of the contract; and because –as Prime Minister since 2020 – he could always have taken action to annul the contract himself. Do you agree, then, that this ruling has impli- cations for the Prime Minister's own credibility? Yes, I think it does. Recently, I uploaded onto my social media stream – because I know that not everyone follows Parliament – the entire debate on a motion, initiated by Dr Adrian Delia in 2020, to take back the hospitals from Steward. And you can see, in that clip, how both [Health Minister] Chris Fearne, and Rob- ert Abela, defended the contract in Parliament; and if they voted in favour of the motion, in the end... it was only after amending it (thanks to their Parliamenta- ry majority), to remove the part which said: 'Government is NOT seeking the best interests of the country'. Looking back at that parliamen- tary session, today: you can easily see the irony. The court has now vindicated the PN's position, in 2020. And what was said public- ly in Parliament, back then, may well return to haunt government in future. At the moment, I see Mr Fearne's position to be politically more 'fragile', than it was before. Bear in mind that he defended Steward healthcare as 'the re- al deal'; and – unfortunately, I might add – he was behind the project, every step of the way. Now: there is no denying that Mr Fearne is hugely respected, for his work as a paediatric sur- geon. I'm not contesting that in the slightest. As a politician, however: I think he missed a few opportunities to 'stand up to be counted'. He chose to play ball – and was a great team player, for the Labour government – but at a cost: the cost of his own cred- ibility. And it was the same with the motion of no confidence in Kon- rad Mizzi [in 2016]. Mr Fearne always toed the government line. Now: you may well argue that this is understandable. I myself lecture about parliamentary pro- cedure; so I know that the role of the Government Whip is precise- ly to give instructions to MPs, on how to vote. Unless there is a Free Vote granted, MPs are generally ex- pected to 'toe the party line'. And besides: I can also understand that MPs – who don't even have any research assistants, by the way – do not necessarily read every clause, of of every legisla- tive bill that they vote upon in Parliament. To be perfectly frank, it isn't even humanly possible: and in most cases, it shouldn't even be necessary. But what we are talking about here is... big. Huge, in fact. It will probably go down in history as one of the greatest frauds – or 'swindles': call it what you will – ever perpetrated against the Mal- tese people. And for politicians like Mr Fearne to have to look at themselves in the mirror, and say: "I was part of that"... it doesn't go down too well, I should think. Bear in mind also that many of the conclusions of the court verdict, had previously been ex- pressed by the Auditor General's report. There was, in brief a huge 'doubt' – a huge 'shadow' – hang- ing over this deal, right from the very start. Am I to understand, then, that when this contract was first brought to the attention of Cab- inet... not a single member of Parliament actually stood up, to challenge it? Even if there were so many unanswered questions: when the identity of Vitals was shrouded in mystery; when it turned out that they had no ex- perience whatsoever, in running even a small clinic (let alone, three State hospitals)... in view of all this, am I to understand that no one in the Cabinet of Ministers saw anything remote- ly wrong, with a contract they themselves were approving? You seem to be apportioning a lot more blame to Chris Fearne, than to Robert Abela. Is that how you feel? Well: let's just say that Mr Fearne disappointed me. I ex- pected a politician of his cali- bre to show more 'spine', over the years; and to stand up to be counted. Because my impression is that Joseph Muscat simply steamroll- ed this contract through Parlia- ment; and – more damningly – that he was allowed to. And that is something that should never have been simply 'accepted'... just because it's the 'party line'. Coming back to your point about 'Labour starting to show cracks': right now, at least one Labour local councillor – Gzira's Conrad Borg Manche – is going head-to-head with his own par- ty: accusing Labour president Ramona Attard of 'betraying socialist principles', by sup- porting a project to build a pet- rol station in Gzira's only public garden. Would you say that this, too, is evidence of an ideo- logical 'rift' opening up with the Labour Party? One thing I have observed in the past few months, is that: we had almost gotten used to the 'hegemonic' behaviour that La- bour exerts. The Labour Party has its own fair share of 'great thinkers': people who are in- spired by left-oriented politics; centrist ideals; liberal-or-con- servative politics... whatever the case: Labour has those thinkers, within its fold. But in the past, we had grown accustomed to the idea that – whereas within the PN, expres- sions of dissent are always more 'visible' –you would see a lot less of that, in Labour. It seems to me, then, that the PL enjoys more 'loyalty', among its members and supporters. The diversity of views is still there... but then, 'loyalty to the leader' tends to remain supreme, in all instances. In the last few months, however, I have seen people who are tradi- tionally Labour – and will proba- bly remain Labour – coming out strongly against their own party. You mentioned one example, but there are many others: including Xaghra mayor Dr Christian Zam- mit, and Qala mayor Paul Butti- gieg. These are all Labour Party mayors; and they're all fighting their own battles, related to sus- tainability in the environment. Hondoq ir-Rummien; overdevel- opment in Xaghra; and now, the Gzira public garden... these are all battles for the same cause. But let's stick with the Gzira example: to me, it is simply in- conceivable that the government – having only just launched 'Pro- ject Green', aimed at creating new open spaces in urban environ- ments – would be steamrolling ahead with plans to convert part of a public garden, into a petrol station. That runs totally counter to any form of logic: as such, peo- ple can hardly be blamed for as- suming that, whoever owns that petrol station, must be 'pulling strings behind the scenes'. Even more unbelievable, though, is the fact that Conrad Borg Manche is not even finding the support of his own party, in his efforts to stop it. Quite the contrary, in fact: the Labour Par- ty is behind this project, all the way... And this shows, I think, that there is an element of resent- ment, towards the neo-liberal economic model – whereby con- sumption, and expenditure, are used to justify economic activity – that is starting to be felt within Labour, too. Apart from disenchantment with the neo-liberal model: since 2013, the Labour government has also implemented massive 'deregulation', across the board. This is something that has par- allels in the United States: where Republican President Ronald Reagan had famously said, 'Gov- ernment is the problem, not the solution'. It's a very popular view, in the USA: 'the less government you have, the better'. And this is the approach that is now being adopted in Malta, too. Just look at the way the Planning Author- ity functions, for instance: it's not just a 'popular perception', that the PA is not serving the interests of the people... but rather, the in- terests of certain individuals; or 'special interests'. And I think that people who traditionally militate within La- bour – one might call them 'Old School'; though it's not neces- sarily the right term - have now decided to... 'call a spade a spade'. This country is not directing itself towards a sustainable fu- ture... and everyone can now see this: including the Labour party's own people, who are beginning to speak up. And I welcome that, because – like I said earlier - there are bril- liant thinkers, within the Labour Party: and we need to hear them more.