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

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 acceptable. You may

Shema Yisrael, the cries of the Palestinian people

You live a peaceful life in a modest home. You've never bothered anyone and you've never caused trouble. Out of the blues, a group of people claim that they should live in your house. Why? Because they have been persecuted in a war, and they claim that some 5,000 years ago, their God had told them your home was their promised land. Somehow, the whole community agrees with their wishes, and asks you to grant them your spare-bedroom. You oblige. After a few months, they take the whole top-floor. In a few year's time, they take over your kitchen. After a few more years, they own your house and keep you and your family locked in the bathroom. They don't even allow you to get out, while they strip-search you the few times they do. Even if it's a medical emergency. Sometimes not even medical personnel and ambulances are allowed to see to your needs while your children die in your hands. Desperation starts hitting you. Life seems to offer no hopes. In moments

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