Last Friday eyebrows were raised when government decided to set up a tent outside Mater Dei to house the reception while the reception area was to be prepared for a potential influx of influenza cases in the coming weeks.
The man who faced the media onslaught was Health Minister Godfrey Farrugia, who first gave a press conference to explain why government believed this tent was needed, only to be then publicly shamed by a Prime Minister who likes to play hero. But in all honesty, I believe that Farrugia is facing the flak for the wrong decisions being taken by others, the roots of which go back to the way Cabinet was composed back in March.
We know that a number of beds at Mater Dei are occupied by elderly patients who cannot be sent home because no one is available to care for them, what have been commonly termed as 'social cases'. Up to March, a policy was in place to give preference to such patients when beds became available at elderly residences such as St. Vincent De Paule. This allowed beds at the acute Mater Dei hospital to be freed and made available for patients such as those who will need temporary cure. This chain was also politically assured by the fact that elderly care fell under the Minister of Health portfolio, thus ensuring that if this chain was broken it would be the Minister of Health himself who would politically be facing the problem back at Mater Dei.
When Joseph Muscat announced his Cabinet back in March, elderly care was moved from the health portfolio to social solidarity portfolio for one simple reason: Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca who contests the sixth district in which St Vincent De Paule residents vote, wanted the residence under her responsibility. The priority given to Mater Dei 'social cases' to be allowed at SVDPR has now been superseded by Coleiro Preca's priority to please her constituents and house their relatives, of course because she is not concerned with the effects these decisions have on the rest of the Health sector which does not fall under her responsibility. Breaking this chain is solely the Prime Minister's responsibility.
I don't have access to the precise data to back this except accounts from workers in the sector, but I believe Parliamentary Questions related to this should be asked. At the end, this comes to no surprise. This is the type of behaviour you'd expect from 1970's resurrected politicians whose only idea of "naqdu n-nies" is flagrant nepotism. In Malta it works. While tackling nepotism would win you points in other normal liberal democracies, in Malta it ends up being one of the main reasons for a massive electoral defeat under the heading of "ma qdejniex in-nies".
On the other hand, systems of good governance and who-should-be-responsible-for-what which is what Politics should really be about, are given the side as the electorate doesn't see beyond "what affects my pocket". So while those with access to Ministers are served instantly, the rest of us who don't have to systematically suffer the injustice and pay the price.
Unfortunately, these are the types of decisions we have now learned to expect from a Prime Minister who is only concerned with short-term populism masked by media ploys. Because which Prime Minister in the world will first approve his Minister's decision, only to then shame him publicly and revoke his decision instead of doing so in private and allow him to revoke it himself? Which Prime Minister in the world would cold-bloodedly shun his Minister (in the same way as he "cold-bloodedly politically murdered" of his Deputy), only to make himself appear as some sort of people's saviour just because people protested to the decision?
If Minister Farrugia had any dignity left, he wouldn't allow himself to be carpeted in this way, especially when he's paying for the wrong decisions of others.
It seems that the only idea of a roadmap the Labour government has is that of creating systems and webs of nepotism in which it can bend rules and procedures to the whims of Ministers and the selected few, rather than build on systems of good governance which should create rules and procedures applicable equally to all.
Comments
Post a Comment