Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/866589
14 Dr Said, this is to all appearances an unusual PN leadership race. So far, two of your three competitors have had to contend with a separate, private campaign aimed at discrediting their candidature. Portelli now claims the election is 'rigged'; Delia talks of a 'hidden hand' working against him. You do not have the same problem. Doesn't this place you at an automatic, unfair advantage? But it is important that I don't have that problem, when I've been involved in politics for 30 years. It is not normal for someone to be in politics for so long without in- curring that kind of problem. The fact is that, at every level I was in- volved – as mayor [of Nadur], as parliamentary secretary, minister, secretary-general, an MP... all im- portant positions within politics – I was only motivated by one in- terest: to serve. Not to say I didn't make mistakes... I did. But when I made mistakes, they were genuine mistakes. Not 'mistakes' aimed at favouring certain people. So it is a big satisfaction for me, that when I entered the leadership race – which naturally means ex- posing myself to more scrutiny – there was nothing I could be criticised for in my political past. Not to say I am not being criticised over certain things... but I have no serious political baggage of that nature. If I win the leadership, the Labour Party will not be able to fire heavy artillery against me: they already used that artillery when I occupied those positions. So I can put everyone's mind at rest, that I won't have to defend myself for my past actions... but instead can look to the future. But it also means that, if you do win, it will not be on your own merits, but because of the shortcomings of others? I disagree. In these last 33 years, there was not one day when I was not a politician, during which time I was constantly under scrutiny. So I think I do have some merit, in the sense I've worked hard all these years and there still isn't anything in my record to attack me over. Nonetheless, the impact of those attacks was to clear the way for you to have a clear, unopposed path to victory. It's becoming a trial by elimination; and as the old Latin saying goes: 'Cui bono'? Who benefits from that, if not you? I am pushing forward my own campaign, and from the outset I wanted to focus mainly on my ideas for the party and country. At the moment, the party is the higher priority, because whoever wins will be leader of the PN. But he will also occupy the important Constitutional post of Opposition leader; so it is important for voters to know what vision the new leader has for the country. I have a lot of respect for the other three candi- dates, my colleagues, who like me, were not afraid to step forward at one of the worst moments in the PN's political history. In so doing, they created a choice. The party councillors and members have a choice between four candidates, with all their advantages and de- fects. Because I have defects, too. Some people say they don't like the way I talk, or how I relate to peo- ple... ... or that (like me) you wear spectacles... [Laughs] That, too. Who doesn't have defects? That is why it is im- portant that four people stepped forward at such a difficult time. It is not an adventure to go out for the party leadership, you know. It's not a case of getting fed up of what you're doing, and deciding to go for something more adventurous. No, the post of party leader is no adventure. It's a great responsibili- ty. This is true at all times, let alone the times the PN is facing right now, after a second large defeat. There are organisational prob- lems, financial problems, prob- lems of internal tension arising from various issues... so at the mo- ment, the responsibility that will have to be shouldered by whoever wins this race is enormous. I have never been afraid of challenges: four years ago, I took on the posi- tion of secretary-general. Nobody wanted that position. I ran for it uncontested. I knew what I would find, like I know what I will find if I am elected leader. I gave two years of my life to that position, without any self-interest: I didn't take a cent for the job, and I don't regret that at all. I wanted to be of service to the party... and not just to the party. When I worked to put the PN on more stable foundations, and to ensure that the PN could survive – because that was the threat: that the PN would not con- tinue to exist – I was trying to be of service also to the country. It is important for the country to have a strong Opposition. You say the PN faced a threat in the past... but it arguably still faces that threat today. Indeed it is more insidious, as the issues back then were of a financial nature. Today, they are at the level of identity. I was expecting fresh, innovative ideas to emerge from Thursday's debate. Instead, we heard all the same old platitudes (in the same words): 'reaffirming our core beliefs', 'getting closer to the people', etc. Where is the 'vision' in any of that? Until a few years ago, the Nation- alist party always had a vision that was steps ahead of what was hap- pening within society. In the 1980s, it was the vision of a free and dem- ocratic country... later, to have an economy based on the open mar- ket... then the European Union... In that time, the PN won election after election because it had a vi- sion. The PN led on the strength of that vision... the people followed naturally. Eight or 10 years ago, our vision stagnated. Society kept evolving, and overtook us. And the PN ended up reacting instead of leading. Reacting late, and at times ineffectually. I want the PN to once again be the party which has a vi- sion that is steps ahead of its time... Then how do you explain your unprompted statement – the first you made in this campaign – that you want to change a law that you yourself have only just approved in parliament, and reinstate the words 'mother' and 'father' to the Marriage Equality Act? Isn't that a step backwards instead of forward? I don't agree it was the first or most important thing I said. I also gave a press conference about se- curity, I spoke about the impor- tance of an economy for every- one... that, when the economy is doing well, it is important that the benefits are felt by all, especially the most vulnerable. I spoke about pensions and the elderly, making various proposals... about local councils, about the environment. And I also spoke about the use of the words 'mother' and 'father' in legal terminology. There is nothing to be ashamed of in repeating that, yes, if I am Prime Minister, I will reintroduce 'mother' and 'father', 'man' and 'woman', 'husband' and 'wife'... along with 'parent' and 'spouse'... to the law. So you want to turn the clock back... No, I want to give a choice. To- day's government removed that choice. Let me be clear: I will re- move nothing from the rights and obligations that were given to LG- BTIQ people through these laws. None of those rights or obligations will be touched. All I will be do- ing is reinstating a choice that was removed by the present govern- ment... ... upon consultation with various experts and members of civil society. The government was acting on professional advice when drawing up that law. The government was given a lot of conflicting opinions by NGOs and civil society, and it chose to ignore most of them. But the thing that hurts me most is that, when legislating on such sensitive issues, the government never consults the Opposition. When I passed sensi- tive legislation as justice minister – for instance, the Embryo Pro- tection Act – I spent six months consulting the Opposition before publishing the draft bill. Before there was broad consensus over that bill, I didn't publish it. This government, on all sensitive is- sues – because it is not acting out of conviction, but out of political convenience – just publishes the bill, and tells us: 'we will be dis- cussing this in three days' time'. I don't think this is the way politics should be done in our country. If the government consults the LGB- TIQ community – as it should – I think it should also consult other entities, as well as the Opposition... But the legal terminology in the bill will have no effect on anything outside strictly legal matters. You seem to be making a big issue out of what is ultimately a minor technicality. Why is this such a major priority? No, it isn't. You are prioritising it... I was talking about a broader vision for the party and country, and you homed in only on that one issue. Which I have no prob- lem with at all. But earlier, I said the PN needs to be a party which leads by means of a vision. Easier said than done. How do we achieve this? First of all, by reaffirming what we believe in. What does the PN believe in? What is its identity? What makes it the party that it is? We cannot become a photocopy of Labour, as some people argue. Some people within the party say that, to win an election, we have to become like Labour. We need to find a Joseph Muscat. We need to adopt the 'me, today' attitude: 'what I can get, for myself, today'. God forbid we go down that path. It would be the beginning of the end of the Nationalist Party. So we must reaffirm our beliefs. Our Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 27 AUGUST 2017 I want to give a choice. Today's government removed that choice. Let me be clear: I will remove nothing from the rights and obligations that were given to LGBTIQ people through these laws. None of those rights or obligations will be touched. A vision that is ahead of its It is not an adventure to go out for the party leadership, you know. It's not a case of getting fed up of what you're doing, and deciding to go for something more adventurous. No, the post of party leader is a great responsibility. ADVENTURE 'MOTHER' AND 'FATHER'