Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/961209
maltatoday WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL 2018 News 7 have a dubious reputation, but because in itself the scheme creates two categories of mi- grants; those who can buy citizenship and asylum seek- ers who may at best qualify for humanitarian protection or refugee status. In fact, there was no need to tie the donation to the IIP scheme. It may well have come directly from the govern- ment's surplus. So, this raises the question on whether the donation is an attempt to le- gitimise the scheme. Still in this case the same qualms of conscience should apply to monies derived from lotteries and gaming to the Good Causes Fund adminis- tered by different administra- tions. After all this sector has also attracted dubious compa- nies linked to organised crime. L'etat c'est moi Whatever one thinks about it, the IIP programme is actu- ally generating public funds which have to be spent. It is this fact which makes the PM's direct intervention in a charity show somewhat problematic. For although all was done for the benefit of a good cause, the PM has chosen to lend his own face to a donation financed from the public coffers. One can cynically observe that Muscat opportunistically used the same set up exploited by private companies to use charity events as PR opportu- nities. This list of donors in- cluded speculators who have repeatedly shown disregard for the law of the land. But unlike these businesses who are donating from their own funds and profits, the PM was effectively dishing out public money. Muscat may have behaved like a benevolent monarch dis- posing of public wealth at his whim, fully knowing that any criticism for doing so would backfire on those who make it. In this sense a Saturday morning tweet by Finance Minister Edward Scicluna which was later removed, is very revealing. For it suggests a degree of discomfort with the way the donation was made. In this tweet the Finance Minister denied that the funds were derived from the IIP fund even if this further helped in confirming the impression that Muscat's action was more of a personal action than a col- legial one by government. For how on earth can the Fi- nance Minister not know the provenance of the funds allo- cated to charity? Scicluna also suggested that these funds derived from the budget and were being spent on a deserving project. In this way he inadvertently proposed a more sober mech- anism for channelling public funds to worthy causes. If IIP funds are used, it may make more sense to establish a percentage derived from such funds, which can go to char- ity. The choice of beneficiar- ies should than be made by an independent board and not determined by the PM. Yet this is unlikely to happen. For many last Friday's Xara- bank served as the epitome of the big society where the state, private donors and NGOs work together for a common goal. Only a few cringed. Acclaimed author Alex Vella Gera expressed this sentiment on his facebook wall noting that "Muscat used €5 million from the Maltese coffers to strengthen and do mainte- nance for his image." A political own goal The few critical voices also included Simon Busuttil, Beppe Fenech Adami and Ja- son Azzopardi. The inevitable backlash they faced raises an important question. Could they have foreseen the backlash or did they consciously speak out ful- ly knowing the consequences? The lack of tact shown by the MPs in question suggests that they either have a poor po- litical judgment or have little regard on the political conse- quences of their actions on the fortunes of their party. This in itself raises the ques- tion; don't MPs also have a moral duty to voice concerns which may disturb the na- tional consensus? This would make sense if the protagonists involved were backbenchers or third party exponents, not party spokespersons who are expected to weigh their words. This is because any expo- nent of a party aspiring to win political power has to weigh his words before expressing a view which may be out of synch with that of Maltese so- ciety. In fact, one is led to suspect that the PM's PR stunt was also meant to solicit the kind of reaction expressed by the Opposition MPs. Such comments have put the PN spokespersons on collision course with exponents of the voluntary sector. ALS sufferer Bjorn Formosa took to his Facebook wall to express his uneasiness. "Many may argue that the Government may take politi- cal advantage from the Live Announcement on Malta's most followed TV programme but that's not really impor- tant," he noticed. "The only important thing is that there are kids with can- cer and families who will find adequate care and accommo- dation to deal with their im- mense suffering. Important is that when you and me will be in need, we will find the ad- equate care". In this case it was PN lead- er Adrian Delia – who also stands most to lose from the reckless comments of his MPs – who came across as moder- ate and reasonable in his criti- cism. He did so by first identify- ing with public sentiment say- ing, "We must bind ourselves to build these apartments in London so that cancer suffer- ers will have a place to stay in during the worst of moments." Than on a more critical note he called on government to give space to civil society. "Let's leave charity to those who know it and value it the most, the thousands of volun- teers, NGOs, people and big- hearted citizens who give all they can." In contrast Jason Azzopardi went as far as singling out Peppi Azzopardi "for allow- ing the PM to send a message that to cure cancer patients we need to sell passports" and he went even further by likening the PM's action to the Italian Mafia boss Toto Riina's own donations to charity money obtained through crime. This criticism directed at the presenter was reminiscent of Alfred Sant's recrimina- tions on L-Istrina, which he boycotted for the simple rea- son that it was produced by Where's Everybody, a compa- ny he accused of being sympa- thetic to the PN. All three MPs also chose to focus their criticism on the IIP scheme, something that their own party has not yet com- mitted to remove if elected in office. Nationalist MP Beppe Fene- ch Adami, a cancer survivor, said he was "insulted and dis- gusted" by the donation, label- ling it an attempt to justify the way the money was collected in the first place. He said the implication was that passports need to be sold to the "corrupt" and to "crimi- nals" in order for cancer pa- tients to receive treatment. Simon Busuttil insisted "we don't have to sell our souls and our citizenship for you to do your duty and provide full health care to cancer pa- tients." In many ways this episode sums up well the state of the nation; which is one where the Opposition's exasperation and confused response to Muscat's artful antics simply results in more egg on its face. maltatoday WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL 2018 fortunes of their party. This in itself raises the ques- tion; don't MPs also have a moral duty to voice concerns which may disturb the na- ing with public sentiment say- ing, "We must bind ourselves to build these apartments in London so that cancer suffer- ers will have a place to stay in during the worst of moments." Than on a more critical note he called on government to give space to civil society. "Let's leave charity to those who know it and value it the most, the thousands of volun- teers, NGOs, people and big- hearted citizens who give all they can." In contrast Jason Azzopardi went as far as singling out