Skip to main content

The Honoraria payback



It seems that the Labour government has decided to spin around the honoraria saga, in its desperate need to divert attention from the farcical way it is using taxpayers' money to pay back anyone who gave a billboard appearance in its campaign (dik li mit-taxxi tagħna lkoll qed inħallsu għal kampanja "Tagħna Lkoll").

Our very positive Prime Minister, has decided to once again try to create a wave of envy by claiming that the previous Cabinet members have not paid back the increase in the honoraria they were paid, using the manipulative spin-tools he learned as a One reporter.

Let's get the facts right. There were two issues with the honoraria increase given in the last legislature (I had already discussed these in a previous post: That Shameful Honoraria). One was that Cabinet members would be paid a Parliamentary honoraria like back-benchers and Opposition MPs, over and above their Ministerial salary. The other was that this honoraria was increased from €19,122 to €26,700, and that this increase had only been paid to Cabinet.

That Cabinet members would retain their honoraria was communicated and discussed in Parliament. It was the €7,600 increase in the honoraria that was not communicated properly, neither to Parliament nor to backbenchers, as discussions had started with the Opposition and stopped. This increase in honoraria was what Gonzi and the previous government promised to pay back (click here to read the TOM report on Gonzi's original declaration). It was, and a few weeks ago this was also confirmed by Muscat on Dissett when he was asked if this was refunded. No mention was made that he had expected more money to be refunded.

Suddenly, in a desperate attention-diverting attempt, Muscat is demanding that the whole honoraria be refunded.

Muscat would better realize that the way he distorted the honoraria issue before the election, and is still doing now, has led us backward from discussing a full-time Parliament to allowing a part-time Government, with Codes of Ethics being applied only where he deems fit. And that's regressive not progressive

It's not the honoraria which ought to be paid back. It's the money being forked to pay back Labour's election campaign stunts. It's the salary being paid from the nation's coffers to the Labour Party's CEO disguised as PM consultant. It's the salary being paid from the nation's coffers to the Prime Minister's wife when she has no State role. It's the salary being paid to Minister's relatives employed in their secretariats in full breach of the Code of Ethics. It's the extra salary being paid to Ramona Attard which is scales above her current role.

That's what ought to be paid back. But what does Joseph care. Ethics are just an obstacle in his quest of full power control and his party's 'let's-get-as-much-as-we-can-while-we-can' orgy.

This government should start caring about its honour rather than honorarias.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is ...

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually a...

The Church and its riches

The above pictures has lately been doing rounds on facebook. Posted comments refer to injustice, hypocrisy, and of the Church not practising what it preaches. It seems it has become a common trend to blame the Church for everything under the sun. Hitting at the Church is the new way of looking cool. But before joining the bandwagon of shares, likes and comments, let me try to analyze the points this photo is trying to make. The first one: the Church is immensely rich. Well, it could be, but what do most of these riches constitute? Most of the Church's "riches" are fixed immovable assets, of which most are important human heritage. They can practically never be sold. Let's just say that the Pope sells all his adornments (provided anyone wants to buy them), maybe even Michelangelo's Pieta, and once we're at it , yes, maybe he should also sell the Sistine Chapel and have it converted to apartments. Then what? Apart from making UNESCO and the rest of human...