How dare they?

Gonzi's PC desktop picture

Earlier this afternoon I happened to listen to Gonzi’s address during the extraordinary general council. As expected, this was essentially a long list of reasons why we should all vote for the Nationalist candidates in the upcoming EP elections.

At one point, he made a ‘revelation’ which I found shockingly disturbing. He said that during its last vote in the European Parliament, someone had the temerity to propose an amendment to condemn one of the pope’s recent statements. As if that’s not enough to scandalise the former president of the Catholic Action, a fellow Rocker went a step further.

One of the Labour MEPs actually voted in favour of this amendment while our hero PN MEPs voted against. In view of this, he warned, people should be careful who they vote into the EP as this is also an issue of values. While he stopped short of explaining which statement the EPs were asked to vote against, he also failed to mention which Labour MEP voted in favour. For the record, he also expressed his concerns about Labour’s strategy to attract the liberal vote. Instead of criticising Labour for the huge gap between its progressive claims and its redneck behaviour, he opted to fly the conservative flag.

This kind of behaviour is yet another proof to me that we’re in a sorry state of affairs, and that our Prime Minister’s loyalty lies with the Vatican and not the EU.  It seems that Gonzi was not the only member for the EPP-ED to be offended by the amendment. Their press release on 5 May refers to the Liberals’ proposal to condemn the pope’s claims about condoms as a preventive measure against AIDS as being “totally unacceptable”. This is a good enough reason not to vote for PN candidates.

Ironically, Gonzi himself was reported to disagree with the pope’s claims when he discussed the issue with the Sewedish Foreign Trade Minister, Ewa Björling. So I don’t know what this fuss is all about.

The PN seems to be unaware that the increasing number of liberals on this island tend to hail from Nationalist families, and his utter disgust at liberalism is diametrically opposed to the image of inclusion that he’s been trying to portray for these last two years.

Living happily ever after

Our politicains' approach on family breakdowns

A round of applause for the Today Public Policy Institute for approaching the divorce issue in a very pragmatic manner.

I haven’t seen the report myself, but according to the news report in The Times, it does not only make a case for the introduction of divorce legislation, but it also suggests that this will be based on the Irish model. Incidentally, this means that it will be harder to get a divorce then to get annulment today. Therefore anyone who is concerned about that divorce “opening the floodgates” can rest assured that there are good safeguards to prevent this from happening.

The think tank’s proposal coincides with my suggestion last Wednesday’s where I wrote that “…… instead of discussing whether or not to introduce divorce, it would be wiser to discuss the grounds upon which divorce should be granted……”

The changes that our society has gone through in these last 20 years brought about certain realities that cannot keep on being ignored. In fact, this report also revealed that failed marriages increased by a staggering 160% between 1995 and 2005.There are a number of reasons why marriages fail, and each and every case has its own specifics. However the fact of the matter is that marital breakdowns are on the rise, and the effects of this need to be addressed sooner rather than later. As we’ve seen last Thursday, one of the effects of the absence of divorce is an increasing number of children born outside wedlock. These children are sometimes referred to as “illegitimate”.

At the moment, we have new forms of families and this is creating total chaos in our social fabric. This is a situation that needs to be tackled ASAP, and any politician who insults us with the usual rhetoric about ensuring that marriages last forever should be sent to a reality check.

The objective of divorce is not to fix broken marriages. Divorce is the effect of a broken marriage so anyone who links the divorce issue with the State’s obligation to encourage long lasting marriages is completely and utterly misguided. One good thing about divorce, and which is incidentally always omitted by the marriage-for-life parade, is that it could lead to a new marriage in the future. Thanks to divorce, those who may have been unlucky or who may have made the wrong decision at an earlier stage in life will have a second chance. This fixation with forcing people who hate each other’s guts to live together – especially if they have kids – is completely wrong.

If a couple-that-is-no-more has kids, they should leave each other for the sake of the kids as this would spare them of countless shenanigans, insults and other kinds of abuse. Needless to say, one happy parent is better than two angry ones.  And what kind of message do parents who sleep in separate rooms – not separate beds, but separate rooms – give to their children?

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless other anecdotes that ‘family members’ have to face on a daily basis. Like any other relationship, when a marriage is over and beyond reconciliation, then the best thing to do is shake hands and agree to go separate ways.

We have been told so many times that the time is not ripe for divorce legislation to be considered. When is it going to be the right time? Is it when the official marital breakdown rate hits 50%?

The numbers are screaming

Do something . . . . FAST

There is another nail in the coffin of this country’s illusion, or shall I say delusion, of us being holier than the pope.

However before I get started, I think that it would be prudent to look at the facts first, and then draw some conclusions accordingly. The facts, as revealed by NSO today, are these:

• 25% of the children born last year were out of wedlock
• this is an almost 9% increase on the previous year
• 34% of the mothers fall under the 25 – 29 age group
• 31% of the mothers fall under the 30 – 34 age group
• 35% of the fathers are aged 30 – 34
• 24% of the fathers are 25 – 29 years old

Since 65% of the mothers are over 25 years old, we’re not talking about teenage pregnancies here. The 25% of children born out of wedlock are definitely not all born to teenage mothers. Hence, they’re born to mothers, or parents, who are old enough to get married but for some reason they’re not. These children are born to people who fall into one of these categories:

• One or both members of the couple choose(s) not to get married
• at least one of the parents cannot get married because s/he is separated or going through a separation
• the pregnancy is a result of a secret extra-marital affair
• the child is born to a couple that no longer exists

For sure, any of the cases mentioned above goes against the Catholic doctrine. This is another point in the long list of the Catholic myth buster, and if I hear one other person claiming that this is a Catholic country, I’ll hit them on the head, tie them up, cover their head with a black bag, and drive them to the NSO offices. Then I’ll lock them in a room with a stats geek who will explain to them in monotone why they’re wrong.

If people are having babies out of wedlock, it must definitely mean that something may be wrong with our social fabric. If 1 out of 4 people are having babies outside marriage and, especially, if there’s an increase of 9% in just one year, then something is terribly wrong.

I think that the Social Policy Ministry must investigate the reasons behind these numbers and suggest possible remedial action. If the government decides to keep burying its head in the sand, this situation will keep getting worse and worse until it gets out of hand.

This is like a terminally ill person who doesn’t want to talk to doctors about treatment. The longer the malady goes untreated, the weaker the person becomes.

Our society is sick, and someone needs to diagnose the causes, effects, and possible remedies.

NO to a referendum on divorce

An example of non-partisan messages in Ireland, 1995

Claudette Abela Baldacchino wrote a letter to The Times yesterday calling for a referendum on divorce. While I am pleased to see that the number of politicians arguing in favour of divorce legislation is on the increase, I don’t know why they seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for this much needed civil right.

Jeseph Muscat is promising a parliamentary debate followed by a free vote, and Claudette Abela Baldacchino is calling for a referendum. As she put it “we have a moral obligation to respect and support those who live in non-traditional family units. This is a question fundamentally based on the notion of the respect of the individual person and one’s fundamental human rights.”

One may argue that some countries introduced divorce by means of a popular vote. True, but Italy held the divorce referendum 35 years ago, and Ireland held a number of referenda until the YES vote won in 1995. The realities in these two countries are completely different to ours. Italy was already a secular state in 1976 and Ireland is more cosmopolitan than this island. The separation of powers in Ireland is much clearer than it is here. Hence, we’re not comparing apples with apples.

The MEP candidate suggested a “non-partisan referendum wherein both sides of the debate can put forward their views and leave it in the hands of the people to decide on divorce legislation”. Even if all political parties will agree to stay out of this debate, it will be dominated by the church and its army of chest thumping splinter groups, namely the Charismatic and Neocathecumenal movements, the Legion of Mary the MUSEM, and others. I will bet my head that they will be promising eternal damnation for those who vote YES. Needless to say, the priests will have a field day on the pulpits. If there is one thing that the Catholic religion is surely good at, it must be guilt feelings. This is the right platform for the Monsignieurs to excel in what they can do best.

Anyone who followed the divorce debates on all the different local media throughout these past 10 years or so can point out one single common argument in the NO camp: the religious argument. Many people quote the bible’s claim that “what god has joined together, let no man put asunder”. This is completely out of point. Divorce is a civil issue and therefore any reference to religion should be left out completely. Adultery is a perfect example of how ridiculous this argument is.

Adultery goes against god’s law as stipulated specifically by the 9^th commandment. Yet, in this country, it is not illegal (although it was until the mid 1970s). I’m sure that many people would agree that if we had to make adultery illegal again, it would be ridiculous and unacceptable in today’s society (this would be akin to Sharia law, and incidentally Rockers look at Muslims as being so backward because of this law). The same can be said on the absence of divorce. Its absence in today’s social reality is as ridiculous as the enactment of adultery law in today’s society, and for the same reasons.

I am drawing these parallel examples to illustrate the fact that issues concerning civil law should be debated on social bases only. I would love to point out further arguments on the issue of god-glued marriages, but then I would be going off at a tangent. I’ll point them out some other time.

Back to the issue of a referendum on divorce. Marital breakdown and its consequences are a personal issue, not a national one. Therefore it would not be fair to leave the fate of those who are in need of divorce legislation in the hands of those who don’t give a hoot about the issue.

The last time we were called upon to voice our opinion in a referendum was about a national issue. EU membership is a bread and butter issue for all the people who live on this rock, and for future generations who will inhibit it.

In my humble opinion, instead of discussing whether or not to introduce divorce, it would be wiser to discuss the grounds upon which divorce should be granted. This kind of discussion should be led by politicians, social workers, and family law experts, and the former should not shy away of their duties and responsibilities towards the people they were elected to represent.

Politicians have procrastinated enough on this issue, and the victims of their lack of courage are the same people who voted them in. It is their responsibility to legislate, and in this case they should not pass the buck on. A politician’s gotta do what a politician’s gotta do.

What took you so long?

As my great mentor alfred Sant put it: "NO REGRETS"

Can someone give me a tranquiliser please? I’m suffering an adrenaline rush and my testosterone levels have gone up to dangerous levels. My blood pressure is soaring and I’m feeling dizzy. I’m angry. No, I’m actually livid. I’m trembling, I’m sweating, I’m foaming, and my pupils are dilating. Somebody stop me.

I just read the news that Mr Issa Daqshekk has finally admitted that EU membership wasn’t such a bad idea after all. This silly fools antics could have jeopardised all the advantages that he himself mentioned yesterday while he was presenting the union’s proposals to prospective MEPs.

In other places where normal things happen quite often, people would do the right thing and resign as a form of apology for the prospective damage they would have caused. If it were up to Tony Zarb, Alfred Sant, Joey Muscat, and their lackeys, we wouldn’t be an EU member state now. We would be some isolated banana republic somewhere at the bottom of the old continent. If these ‘visionaries’ would have had it their way, we would have been terribly hit by the current economic climate. And they call themselves “the workers’ shield”. Yeah, and I’m Gandhi.

How do these people have the gall to face us with a straight face? Worse still, how can they claim to have no regrets about their actions? They’re so misguided. Do they think that we’re goldfish in a bowl with a memory that’s as short as Alfred Sant’s term in government?

This is not a shirt colour we’re talking about (oh yes honey, you were right, that colour actually looks good on you; sorry, I was wrong). The GWU had a number of reports claiming that EU membership is actually beneficial for the country and especially for the gainfully employed, but since Alfred Sant was against it, then the union decided to dance to his tune. Political loyalty took precedence over workers’ interest. We should thank our lucky stars that the majority of people didn’t buy into their hallucination.

I would like to ask Tony Zarb whether he would be saying the same thing had Labour retained its obstinate position on the EU. Worse still, if the new Labour leader decided not to pose in front of the EU flag for his official photo, and promise to take the country out of the bloc instead. I somehow think that it may just be quite different.

Tony Zarb and his sycophants wilfully deceived thousands of individuals by preaching doom and gloom for years before the referendum.

The real question is: did it take him five years to realise that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or did it take him five years to publicly admit that he was wrong?

Fascism is all around me

Wouldn't you escape from a war-ridden country where even uncontaminated water is a luxury?

Generally speaking, I consider the Italians to be good at vocalising and articulating their thoughts, but poor at taking action, if they take action at all. In their own words: parole si, fatti no.

As an example of poor or no action, I usually cite the huge problem they have with most of their stadia every Sunday where families of avid supports spend the whole afternoon wondering whether their siblings will be coming back home at all, or if they will receive a phone call from hospital or the police.

The problem of violence in football is rampant, and they have been discussing it for as long as I can remember. From time to time, they pass some laws through parliament, but they never managed to tackle the issue properly. A complete opposite to how the UK eradicated hooliganism.

Unfortunately, as from today I will be citing a tragic example. In his petty little mind, Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said that today is an “historic day” in the fight against illegal immigration as boat people were returned to Libya before they could have even set their foot on Italian shores. This follows other incidents where people were treated like toxic waste by Italian government as they didn’t want to rescue people stranded at sea. Most probably, if the boats were full of dogs and cats, they would have obliged. This leads me to conclude that Mr Maroni considers the poor boat people as creatures that are inferior to dogs. This is anything buy an achievement. It’s a tragic day for humanity.

I was more than sure that this news will shock our catholic country as these kind of actions are diametrically opposed to Christ’s teachings. However, most of the comments beneath the story on The Times website were hailing Italy’s actions.(http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090507/local/italy-cheers-direct-repatriation-of-migrants).

About two hours ago I posted the following comment, and for some odd reason they didn’t publish it. I wonder why!

I’m amazed at the short-sightedness of most of the people who commented! First of all, this approach goes against the Christian teachings that most of the inhabitants of this rock were flaunting a few weeks ago during lent.

Secondly, on a practical level, this is akin to sentencing someone before putting him on trial. What if some of the people on the boat – even if it was only one person – is eligible for a refugee status? This is akin to a doctor who drives a sick person home without treating him/her after finding him/heron his/her doorstep asking for help. I hope that Italy’s behaviour will be condemned by the rest of the civilised world. but then again, I may be a dreamer as some countries that form part of the civilised world are directly responsible for the mess in many African countries.

So the Times is happy to publish xenophobic and fascist comments, but it seems to be censoring comments that are not congruent with its apparent Fascist agenda. How can people possibly be so cruel in their comments? How can they possibly think of writing that kind of hogwash? How can Maroni be so irresponsible with his actions?

This is where MEPs should come in. This is their job. They should lobby the EU institutions to condemn Italy’s behaviour as it sets a very dangerous precedent both on a humanitarian, and on a political level. With this move, Maroni has broken the basic principles of the rule of law. He acted as the enforcer, the prosecutor and the executioner of these people in just one move. He created the role of a sort of legal trinity for himself. Who does he think he is? Judge Dredd?

I reiterate that these people may have been breaking the immigration laws, but the rule of law in a civilised society dictates that they should have had the possibility to explain the purpose of their actions. This is sheer savagery. Does he plan to eliminate the trails of whoever is caught red-handed in a criminal act in Italy by sending them directly to jail? Essentially that’s what he did today.

Sadly, Maroni’s thinking is purely Machiavellian. He’s only focusing on looking good in the eyes of his electorate while seeming to be teaching a lesson to those who intend to take this dangerous trip in the future. He’s ignoring the terrible conditions that these poor people live in, the traumas they may have gone through, and the implications that his actions may have on future cases. As a fellow citizen of Niccolo` Machiavelli,  he doesn’t give a flying hoot about the human implications of his actions. Why should he? The ends justify the means, right?

If Italy is led by short sighted politicians like Maroni, then I shouldn’t be surprised that the country is in such a mess. No wonder they can hardly get anything right. But then again, why should I be surprised when the Italian Prime Minister constantly makes a fool of himself and shows “compassion” to his own citizens by inviting them to pretend that they’re camping in their car just after they lost everything they had because of the earthquake in l’Aquila?

People truly get the government they deserve.

Lowell for precedent?

From now on please call me "Mr Precedent" qed tifheeeeeeeeeeeem?

After I posted my comment yesterday about Norman Lowell’s nomination for EP elections, Fausto Majjistral – one of my favourite bloggers – commented beneath the said post.

Our brief exchange of ideas led him to post the following comment which is quite interesting and to the point. I am producing it lock stock and barrel as it is quite interesting. Here it is:

The Electoral Commission decided that Norman Lowell, convicted of racial hatred and sentenced to a two-year jail sentence suspended for four years, is eligible to stand for the EP election:

An Electoral Commission spokesman confirmed that Mr Lowell could stand for the June 6 election and said that the 2007 amendments to the electoral law made it possible for people who were handed down a suspended sentence to be eligible to vote.

Once your name appeared on the electoral register, you were also eligible to contest the election, he added.

The Times erroneously reported yesterday that Mr Lowell is not qualified to take part in the euro parliamentary elections.

That’s when my crap detector went off. In none of the elections held in Malta — general, local and European — are qualifications for voting the same as qualifications for candidature. Which is why in the Constitution, the Local Councils Act and the European Parliament Elections Act these matters are covered by different sections of the law. Thus, for example, members of the Electoral Commission itself are obviously not allowed to stand for election while (obviously) enjoying the right to vote.

Then I dug into whatever legal amendments were enacted in 2007. And, indeed, I did find that Act XXI of 2007 at section 5 amends the Constitution so that a suspended sentence (as opposed to an executed sentence) is no longer a disqualification for standing for election.

There’s only one problem though. The Constitution regulates general elections. For the European Parliament election you’d have to refer to the European Parliament Elections Act which, as I pointed out elsewhere, at section 19(1) still states:

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, no person shall be qualified to stand for election as a member of the European Parliament or, if elected, to remain a member thereof if, whether in Malta or in any other Member State -
[...]

(e) he is serving a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) exceeding twelve months imposed on him by a court in a Member State or is under such a sentence of imprisonment the execution of which has been suspended;

The relevant section has not been amended either in 2007 or at any time since the law was enacted. Meaning that a suspended prison sentence, while not disqualifying you from being a candidate in the general election, does not allow you to stand in a European Parliament election.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and I only have access to stuff that’s online. It would be helpful if the Times journalist were to press the Electoral Commission spokesman to quote which was the amendment in question. But you can’t expect a Maltese journalist to show some curiosity and dig a little deeper, can you?

I can’t say I’m terribly unhappy at the probable consequence of this: Norman Lowell taking votes from National Action. But if the law indeed prohibts Lowell to run, it’s truly appalling that honest, law-abiding citizens get struck off the electoral register while, when it comes to candidature, where the criteria should be tighter, a convicted criminal can stand for election.

http://malta9thermidor.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/which-amendment-is-that

Well, what can I say? Fausto’s point about the legal issue is quite clear. Both Fausto and I are not Lawyers, however, common sense dictates Lowell’s nomination to be rejected.

I must admit that this is one of the few times I found Lowell’s action interesting. It will be interesting to see how the Electoral Commission will treat this case. Any action or inaction will result in a precedent with clear consequences in the future.

Norman Lowell: PRESENTE

The only thing he can offer is 'irritainment' - as a friend of mine put it

According to a report in today’s The Times, Norman submitted his nomination for the European Parliament elections to be held next month.

His name was included in the list of nominations issued yesterday evening by the Electoral Commission. He was convicted last year of inciting racial hatred and insulting the President, and was eventually given a two-year jail term suspended for four years and fined €500.

According to the Constitution, a person is disqualified from contesting elections “if he is serving a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months… or is under such a sentence of imprisonment the execution of which has been suspended”.

Consequently, Norman Lowell is not qualified to take part in the EP elections. An appeal from the sentence was dismissed last October after it was found that his fundamental human rights had not been violated by a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal and a Constitutional application where he argued that he was denied the right to a fair hearing by the appeals court was eventually dismissed.

So, if I understood correctly, he is not eligible to contest these elections. Therefore, I ask, why did he submit his nomination in the first place? Why was he allowed to submit it?

Does he want to give the impression that he’s a martyr? Does he expect us to pity him? Why am I not surprised that some people find him entertaining?

After all, that’s how it all started. Do you remember the guys at Maltafly posting his ‘interviews’ on their site? Do you remember hearing the ‘interviewer’ laughing at his incredulous assertions? It was only until some people started actually taking him seriously that they stopped uploading these ‘jokes’.

Why did the Electoral Commission publish his name if he’s not eligible? Couldn’t they just refuse it straight away?

This is truly the zone where normal things don’t happen very often.

An assault course for expats

An expat's reaction after he learned about the assault course he'll have to endure to be able to settle and work in The Rock

Gonzi is promising you that his MEPs will be working hard to bring more jobs to The Rock. How he expects people to buy into this hogwash beats me, as anyone with a basic knowledge of politics would know that it is not the MEPs’ job to attract businesses but government institutions like Malta Enterprise, Malta Financial Services Authority, Lotteries and Gaming Authority, Malta Tourism Authority (to a certain extent), and others.

I would have expected il-prim to announce a comprehensive reform in government practices and legislation before promising anything of this sort; but our politicians keep thinking that the people who inhibit the island that thinks of itself as having a higher standard of education than the rest of the world are complete idiots.

Attracting foreign investment should be all about convincing big companies to set up units of strategic importance employing hundreds of people from the local labour market. To do this, they would have to send some of their top executives here to run the operation; and in order to convince these individuals who lead a comfortable life abroad to settle here, they need to receive an attractive package.

Let’s face it. If you are asked to leave your country and work in some god-forsaken land, you need to be convinced that you stand to gain. Otherwise why should you bother? Furthermore, a golden opportunity has just arisen. London is Europe’s business capital, and the 50% tax introduced by the Brown government is said to scare heavy hitters away to settle in other counties where they would pay less tax. It’s all over the papers in the UK and I was expecting our wise guys in Castille to snatch the opportunity to take the biggest possible slice of this cake. Unsurprisingly, none of this happened. If Gonzi ‘s government is not being fast to grab these opportunities on its home ground, you can imagine how effective its party MEPs are going to be hundreds of miles away; when they’re just a very small cog in an extremely complex machine. Will you stop trying to take us for a ride, please?

Imagine that you are a top executive in a big company, based in a comfortable office in one of Europe’s big cities, and leading a comfortable life. One fine day, your boss comes up to you to ask whether you would like to run the new operation that the company is considering to set up on The Rock. Being the professional executive that you are, you don’t take hasty a decision, and you start doing your homework to see if you’re going to be better off or not.

After you ask consultants to do some research, you will be presented with the following reality:

Work permits – even though you are an EU citizen, you will need a work permit. Without it, you will not be able to work and this is renewed on a yearly basis. Hence, on paper, if it is not renewed, you will not be able to work in The Rock. This essentially means that you are expected to leave your normal life at home and put yourself at the mercy of some civil servants who will decide whether or not to renew your permit every year. If they decide not to renew your work permit, you practically have two options: leave The Rock or get a new career in the underworld.

You ask your consultants to give you more information about work permits and they tell you that the system is quite strange and archaic. If you get a work permit, you are only allowed to work for that particular company that applies for it. Therefore if you want to change employer, you are once again at the mercy of the civil servants at ETC. If they decide that there are locals who can do your job, they are technically justified to refuse your application. Then you’ll be without a job because you would have resigned from your employment, applied for a new work permit which got refused. However, your consultants tell you that you don’t need to worry about all this because you’re an EU citizen and this whole procedure is just an indirect form of taxation. Just a gimmick. You will be safe and as an EU citizen as your work permit will be issued automatically.

You’re happy about this, but then you realise that you want John Horowitz as your deputy. He’s from Israel, and works with another company. You worked together in your previous employment and you’ve been waiting for the right opportunity to bring him into your organisation.

The consultants explain to you that non EU work permits are not issued in 3-4 weeks as in the case of EU residents. They may take from 3 to 6 months because of international police checks. So technically, poor Mr Horowitz will have to go through the recruitment process, and after he accepts the negotiated package (which usually leads to disengagement from one’s employment and the employee would then be looking forward to the next move), he would then have to wait for a long time before he actually relocates. And if the work permit is refused? Tough luck. He’ll end up jobless; unless he first applies for the work permit and resigns after this is issued. In practice, this means that you can have John after about 5 months you would have offered him the job (he has to work his notice, you know).

If, on the other hand his work permit application is accepted, once again Mr Horowitz is at the mercy of the civil servants every year. Rumour has it that the Torquemadas at ETC are not generally happy to renew permits after 3  years to non EU citizens as then they become permanent residents on their fourth year. WOW! The infidel is infiltrating the holy land and we need to act fast.

We have such a complex system that can be easily replaced by, say, a five year working visa. People will be given a visa to work with any employer in The Rock, and this is renewed every 5 years. But since this is the zone where normal things don’t happen very often, a practice that make sense is anathema.

Residence permit – this is another hurdle in the long and tough assualt course that expats (and their spouses) have to endure when settling here. You and your partner, if any, have to apply for a residence permit immediately after you receive your work permit, and you (together with your partner) are expected to go to Valletta, every year to get your residence permit renewed.

ID Card – while in Valletta, it is advisable that you walk a further kilometre down the road to hand in the papers and pictures for your identity card. The guys at Evans Building will then send you a letter at home and you have to go back after a week to retrieve your id card. Apparently, this is to confirm that you actually live in that residence.

Tax Registration – as soon as you leave Valletta, you then have to head off to the Inland Revenue Department in Floriana to get your tax number, which will then make you eligible for your NI number which can be obtained at the Social Security office in your district upon presentation of your work permit and ID card. Sigh!

Relocation – needless to say, if you’re settling in a different country you have to ship over your personal belongings. Customs will make your experience interesting with their creative charges and declarations about your ‘importation’ when in fact, the only thing you’re importing is your own personal stuff. These personal possessions are likely to include your car. You will be shocked to find out that it is easier (and better value) to sell your car for a pittance than paying the registration tax based on outrageous local evaluations of your car.

Tax bands – even though on paper you may think that you will be much better off because of the 35% maximum tax rate, upon taking a closer look you will realise that the tax bands are not wide enough to help you make good savings, and you’re practically on 35% after you earn the equivalent of a two month salary, while, at home it will take much more than that to reach the maximum capping. And since we’re talking about income, you may want to check the prices of clothes, electronic equipment, and leisure items.

I’m sure that the government will come up with every excuse to justify all this bureaucracy and harp on the necessity of such procedures. In true Rocker mentality, it will not listen to what customers have to say about its (dis)service. Instead, it will justify the reason for this dull and gruelling assault course. Even if one buys into the arguments, there is still no reason why the government shouldn’t at least make it easier for expats and set up one department to act as a one-stop-shop to offer a better service to expats who want to settle here.

If this is not enough to convince you to stay at home because you’ll be worse off if you move here, you have to forget about the continuation of any pension scheme you may have at home. Despite continuous promises about pension reforms, our legal framework doesn’t make it practical for individuals to invest in a pension scheme. So forget about all those years of potting money in a pension scheme.

There’s more! If you would like to start a family, or have children, you have to seriously think about it. The legal minimum for paternity leave is one day, and maternity leave doesn’t go beyond the 14 week minimum period stipulated by EU legislation. So if you’re a man and you’re here with your family without relatives and friends to support you, you have to contend with a miserable one paternity leave day to support your partner when she’s giving birth. If you want to support her as soon as she leaves hospital, you have to take annual leave. At home, you generally have between one to two weeks (paternity leave) to do so.

If you’re a woman, you only have 14 weeks maternity leave. Then you have to go back to work. The only option is to avail yourself of a three month unpaid parental leave period to extend your maternity leave – without getting paid. So if you intend to breastfeed your baby, you have to come up with creative means to do so.

Needless to say, the maternity and paternity leave entitlement stipulated by law are the minimum standards, and companies are free to go beyond that. Then, if and when you do offer adequate entitlement, you get accused of distabilising the labour market by local employers. Which employer would be happy to receive such a compliment?

The unbearable reality of being an expat goes beyond government policy. Opening a bank account is an arduous task, and if you’d like to have a credit card that is easily given to a Rocker earning a fraction of your salary, you would have to deposit equivalent of the credit limit in your account and the bank freezes it in case you decide to escape The Rock. This is true, believe me. This defeats the whole purpose of having a credit card. How the banks do not realise how ridiculous they are, goes beyond my wildest dreams.

It doesn’t stop there. If you want to get a basic prerequisite service like a fixed telephone line, you have to leave a €1,000 deposit.  Once again, you are seen as (and made to feel as though you are)a person whose sole intention is to rip everyone off and vanish into oblivion in the dark hours of the morning.

Admittedly, it would be unethical of the government to dictate policy for private entities, but the government is there to lead. First and foremost it does not lead by example, and neither does it encourage other institutions to stop treating expats like would-be crooks. In an earlier comment, I explained how ‘foreigners’ have to pay double the deposit that Rockers pay for a simple service like crutches from hospital.

Worse still, it is the government itself that treats expats like crooks whose only intention is to steal money and leave unnoticed. In case you didn’t know, the company directors are personally appointed by Inland Revenue as tax representatives of their non-Rocker workers. This means that they are personally responsible for the tax declarations and fiscal activities of their non-Rocker employees. How enticing is that!

This disgust towards non-Rockers has recently reached its peak recently in the PN’s accusations of other European parties’ vote in the EP, where it was decided that legal immigrants should have the right to vote. Despite that the PN tried to disguise this issue as a decision that affects illegal immigrants, it’s not. It’s a decision that affects people who work and therefore pay taxes here. So why shouldn’t they have the right to vote in EP elections? By right, not only should they should have the right to vote for EP elections, but also for the local elections.

Anyone living here should have every right and entitlement to decide who will lead the country for the next 5 years. Why shouldn’t people have the right to decide on the future of the country they’re working, living, and raising their family in?

Despite being the party that took us into Europe, Gonzi and his PN is anything but a modern, open party that embraces European values (which includes the mobility of citizens). Their policies are as protectionist as Mintoff’s. The latter was wanted to protect local trade, and Gonzi is being protectionist over the labour market. This is as bad as Mintoff’s narrow minded approach on trade.

Now that you know what expats have to endure, do you still think that Gonzi wants to entice international companies to invest here, when other countries do their best to support foreign investment? In this comment, I only mentioned the ordeal that individual employees have to go through. I didn’t even tap on the bureaucracy to obtain the necessary licenses and permits.

Why should they choose us over other jurisdictions that are more friendly towards expats? It’s high time to cut the crap and face the harsh reality of our insular, xenophobic practices.

Gonzi: the big Mintoffian

The message and quality of this billboard are mediocre and smack of Mintoffianism

The main reason why Labour has been stuck in opposition for the last 20 years is mainly due to Mintoff and his legacy.

Just speak to people who are scared shitless of Labour, and they will lay it out for you. The negative attitude towards life, low self esteem, confrontational policies, exaltation of mediocrity, its protectionist mentality, hostility towards business and anyone who’s successful, wrong alliances, etc have been some of the many reasons why so many people resent Labour.  I can keep on writing a never ending list on Mintoff’s ills.

As you may have guessed by now, I am not a Mintoff fan, but neither am I a Gonzi fan. I am, ironically, a huge admirer of Eddie. It’s true that he’s too conservative for my liking, but his leadership qualities far outweigh his conservative outlook. As someone who, for the record is not a Rocker (but his name escapes me) once hailed him, Eddie was a giant statesman. I also like Lou Bondi’s definition of Eddie’s achievements: he took the country from tal-barrani to Brussels. Very well put from our guy in braces.

Back to Gonzi. I must say that he was very lucky to have Alfred Sant as an opponent in the last general elections; and he’s also lucky to have Joseph Muscat as his counterpart now.  Had there been a strong leader challenging Gonzi, he would now be recognised as The Rock’s biggest serial loser. Some people are lucky, aren’t they?

I pointed out our skewed outlook of the EU in a number of posts on this blog already, and I’m not the only one to voice these opinions. Other opinion writes have been expressing the same views on a number of different occasions as well. The PN’s slogan for the EP elections cannot be any more Mintoffian.  Worse still, during yesterday’s conference, Gonzi was boasting about the money we managed to absorb from the EU. It reminds me of Mintoff boasting about the jobs and the money he brought over from his visits to dodgy countries like Libya or China at the time. Literally, the “ara x’iddubbajt sakemm kont hemm, Guz” mentality. If you may recall, people were still in that frame of mind until the mid 1990s. They used to literally ask “what did minsters bring with them?” after a visit to any particular country. They also used to make fun of the Maltese terrier that was given as a gift to the then Prime Minister by his Australian counterpart. So you can understand why I feel very uneasy to see a GonziMintoff merge unfolding before me. Behold the birth of a new scary creature: Gonzilla.

Although Eddie used to refer to EU funds and job opportunities when he was campaigning for membership, he never projected the EU as a flea market where jobs and bargains were up for grabs. While used to refer to the obvious economic gains, he used to make it a point to speak about the big picture: political stability, safeguarding of democracy, and balance of political powers. Now that’s a real leader and a statesman.

Our glorious PM doesn’t seem to be chaffed about the EU’s major objective. Like any greedy Rocker, he sees the EU as a money milking cow from which we can suck out money and more money. Where the EU is concerned, all he speaks about is jobs and funds. It may be understandable to talk about jobs in the current scenario, but as country leader, he should be inspiring people to broaden their horizons. His approach is materialistic and shallow. I will keep on saying this till I’m blue in the face, till the cows come home, and until pigs will fly: a huge number of people didn’t tick the YES box in the referendum because of economic reasons only. They were looking at a bigger picture.

When I saw the PN billboard for the first time this week, I was shocked. I cannot fathom the message that the PN is trying to convey. Does it expect its MEPs to go round knocking on doors asking the reps of other countries to invest here? It is not the MEPs’ jobs to attract employers. That’s Malta Enterprise’s job.

Furthermore, if Gonzi really wants to attract businesses, he needs to get his house in order first. He needs to ensure that the basics are right, and guess what: they’re anything but. I can speak from a first hand basis as this is what I have to contend with every single day. Our practices in general – both on a governmental level and on a private enterprise level, especially the banks – are anything but expat friendly. They’re xenophobic, discriminatory, and as protectionist as Mintoff’s approach towards information technology and free trade.  We need to fix these issues first. Then, we can talk about more foreign investment. There aren’t many incentives for expats to relocate here.

Is Gonzi taking us for a ride, or is he so far removed from reality that he expects businesses to set up shop locally without sending top executives from other operations? I have a lot to say about this so I’d better stop here for now.

More details about the getting our house in order business will follow tomorrow . . . . . .