Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/860911
23 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 13 AUGUST 2017 Opinion that the above, on its own, already qualifies as some sort of instant human rights violation. Probably because the story also made reference to a very public incident involving Bajada and his ex-wife (i.e., the PN leader's sister)... not to mention the police, the law-courts, a certain f lower-pot, etc. Never mind that this same incident was splashed all over the papers only last year... quite understandably, as the facts had emerged in what was, after all, a very public court case. Suddenly, it has become 'taboo'. To so much as allude to this factual event, even in passing, is somehow to also launch a 'malicious' and 'unacceptable' attack on 'Simon Busuttil and his family'. Hmm. Well, if this sort of thing now constitutes a 'malicious attack'... how would Adrian Delia describe all the smear campaigns his own party media have so lovingly indulged in over the years? I've already given a couple of examples, but there are plenty more to choose from. Or do these things only ever qualify as 'malicious', when they happen to involve Nationalist politicians and their entourage? But, to my mind, the bigger question is another. What on earth was Delia expecting, anyway? He did, after all, choose to step across the threshold of political activity of his own accord. And I'm assuming he wasn't living on the planet Zog all these years, either. Surely he would have been eminently conscious of the full implications of taking that decision. So did he seriously expect to be exempt from all the inevitable consequences... faced by all other people, across the full spectrum of political parties, who have ever done the same thing in the past? I mean, we're more or less getting used to megalomania as a prerequisite for political involvement these days... but isn't that taking things a little too far? Does Adrian Delia really expect everyone else to share his belief that the rules of political engagement exist only for all his rivals – in all parties, including his own – but not for himself? If so, it is not a very auspicious start to a political career. Because there is another small factor that seems to have been overlooked here. The questions asked by this newspaper cannot, by any extent of the imagination, be defined as 'criticism'... still less 'malicious attacks'. On the contrary, they are precisely the sort of questions that have to be asked of someone whose ultimate goal is to eventually become Prime Minister. What are his business interests? If that is not a perfectly legitimate question to ask in politics – and more to the point, if a possible future leader of the PN doesn't immediately recognise the legitimacy of the question – then we really are up the proverbial excrement creek without a paddle. Last I looked, it was failure to declare such interests that actually precipitated the whole Panama Papers scandal last year. And if we've been talking about 'transparency' and 'accountability' at all this past decade or so... it was precisely because of a culture of 'omerta' surrounding the grey area between 'political' and 'commercial' interests. So how on earth could it suddenly be off-limits to quiz Adrian Delia – and no one else, it seems – about his own undeclared assets? Not to mention his undeclared liabilities. Another perfectly legitimate question to ask at this stage is: how much does he owe? And to whom? Later, if he ever becomes Prime Minister, the question will no doubt have to be rephrased slightly. Upon which invisible business interests will our future Prime Minister be dependent? To whom will he (and therefore, by extension, his government) owe a real or perceived debt... be it in the form of money, of allegiance, of political obligation, or of all three? These are all questions that have been asked of Joseph Muscat before, you know. Admittedly, his answers may not always have been to everyone's utmost satisfaction... but I don't recall anyone (Labour or Nationalist, for that matter) objecting to the line of inquiry in itself. For the fairly obvious reason that such questions fall naturally within the realm of the permissible: they concern issues of clear and immediate public interest. But no: I guess prospective Nationalist party leaders are subject to entirely different political 'rules'. We all have to make a little extra effort to ensure we never offend their ultra-vulnerable sensitivities. In a word, we have to stop prying into the intricacies of their complex, secret commercial networks... and just mind our own business. My, what a marvellous alternative option that would make... to a Labour government we criticise over precisely the same attitude. How would Adrian Delia describe all the smear campaigns his own party media have so lovingly indulged in over the years? Adrian Delia - Rules of engagement not for himself?