Maltatoday Special Edition - Dom Mintoff

€0.90

maltatoday Newspaper post

TUESDAY • 21 AUGUST 2012 • WWW.MALTATODAY.COM.MT

Special edition

DEATH OF A PATRIARCH

DOM MINTOFF

6 August 1916 – 20 August 2012

2

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Death of a pa FEW politicians have succeeded

Loved and derided WHETHER we liked him or not, we cannot dismiss the fact that we were in some ways a direct product of Dom Mintoff.

Our education system, the opportunities we experienced were all dependent on his whims and policies. He was loved and derided by many.

His politics was not only divisive and confrontational but very much based on the premise that things needed to change.

Yet it was this confrontational streak in his character that catalyzed change and reactions from his staunchest adversaries.

He was a reformer who somehow lost the plot in later years, he will be remembered for his massive reforms and for his aggressive reactions to his opponents.

He was unrepentant over many of his decisions namely the nationalizations of banks and other entities, but he was also the father of initiatives that modeled modern Malta.

He challenged the Church and the establishment but he allowed mediocrity to develop and cronies to surround him and his party.

He stood up to the British and professed the meaning of being Maltese.

Yet on the other hand he ignored the writing on the wall and treated strata of Maltese society with derision.

Nonetheless he will be remembered for his reform in social welfare and of eradicating poverty and his roadmap to Republican Malta.

It will take time before anyone can objectively assess the Mintoff years. It will take time before we can accept an honest appraisal of his long years as one of Malta’s most incisive political leaders.

His oratory and wit was often outmatched. He shielded his intellect under a comic appearance, but this was often meant to demean his adversaries.

His prowess and macho character fuelled many of his followers who reveled at the ruthlessness of their political leader.

In the last years of his life he contributed to bringing down his own government, he became a darling for the Nationalists. Yesterday he was praised by about everyone even by the same party that had accused him of being a traitor.

Yet there is no doubt that he was the father and soul of the Labour party.

He was also their nemesis in 1998.

Until his late eighties he could still muster a conversation with his admirers about international politics.

In the next days, we should as is the norm in this culture of ours experience an outpouring of grief and adulation for the man who dominated Maltese politics for over 50 years.

When the dust settles, the time will come when we will write history as it really was.

Yet on one aspect we may wish to agree, that he was patriarch of Maltese politics.

in embodying so many instant contradictions as Dom Mintoff (19162012).

As much adored as abhorred, feared as revered, Dom Mintoff remains arguably the most divisive yet iconic figure ever to have emerged from Malta’s traditionally confrontational political landscape – a landscape he himself helped to shape, for better or for worse, over a political career spanning almost 70 years.

He died yesterday the 20 August, a few days after being admitted to hospital.

As Prime Minister between 1955 and 1958, and then again between 1971 and 1984, Dom Mintoff walked a tightrope between statesman and a pariah, liberator and autocrat, an enlightened (Fabian) socialist and Malta’s own version of his personal friend, Robert Mugabe.

Architect of the Maltese Republic and a self-styled ‘professor of democracy’, Mintoff’s sweeping reforms But his vision of modernity was ultimately overshadowed by his proverbial parsimony, leaving Malta both ‘richer’ and ‘poorer’ for his own particular brand of Socialism: richer, in that Mintoff’s far-reaching social reforms elevated the standard of living of a previously impoverished and barefoot working class; poorer, because the same Mintoff’s distrust of technology and quasipathological caution in spending public money starved the country of a number of key infrastructural developments.

On an international level, Dom Mintoff remains arguably Malta’s best known export: occasionally crossing the line several times by courting dictators like North Korea’s Kim Il Sung and Romania’s Nikolai Ceaucescu, while earning a certain notoriety for his brinkmanship in dealing with a Western world pitted against the eastern bloc at the height of the Cold War. On the domestic front, he was all too often accused of harbouring dictatorial tendencies of his own – manifesting themselves in the excesses of overzealous ‘Mintoffjani’ thugs, as emblemized by the attacks on the Opposition leader’s Birkirkara home, as well as the Times building in Valletta, in October 1979.

Ultimately, however, Mintoff always sought legitimacy from the ballot box… although when even that failed him in 1981, he was visibly stung but still managed to hang onto the seat of government for six years.

And ironically, it was Mintoff the statesman who first envisioned Malta’s future as a neutral member in the European Union, when proposing his vision for Malta as a ‘Switzerland in the Mediterranean’ in an article entitled A New Plan for Malta, penned for the New Statesman in 1959. Even his plan to integrate Malta with Great Britain was animated by a desire to make Malta a part of continental Europe. Perhaps, it was his attempt to undo the country’s insularity with the stroke of a pen.

In the same reformist zeal, it was Mintoff who modernized the country by introducing civil marriage and decriminalising homosexuality – two measures opposed by the Church and the Nationalist Party in opposition – in the early 1970s.

His 1971 electoral manifesto was full of enlightened proposals such as the pledge to introduce an Ombudsman and to give citizens the right of petition the European Court of Justice: two promises he completely ignored after winning power. He

also modernized the country’s social structures, giving dignity to the working-class and contributing to the very social mobility which would ultimately undo his hegemony over society a decade later.

Tragically, it was Mintoff the autocrat who prevailed after 1971 and even more so after 1976: ushering in a period of turbulence characterized by political violence, arbitrary policing and human rights violations.

It was Mintoff, too, who crystallized the country’s endemic polarisation the country through his reverberating battlecry, “whoever is not with us is against us.”

Despite his pretensions of being Malta’s liberator he was often accused of exploiting the worse aspects of the Maltese psyche for his own political ends. Anthropologist Jeremy Boissevain noted that Mintoff behaved “like the traditional Maltese father – aloof, mainly harsh and looked after his own. The authoritarian figure was familiar to all Maltese. Most of them had grown up in and formed part of families dominated by such fathers.”

And yet, these same characteristics arguably stood him in good stead in his various negotiations with the British colonial administration, at a time when authoritarianism was perhaps necessary to buttress the relative weakness of the local (and limited) government.

At the other end of the pendulum, the same Dom Mintoff was hailed as “saviour” by those who felt they owed him their entire livelihood, their homes and jobs. These were to become his tribal followers, and in time – arguably the most enduring myth of Mintoff’s questionable legacy - they came to believe that the State owes them and their children a living.

It was Mintoff, too, who succeeded in alienating the middle class and even the progressive intelligentsia, which elsewhere in Europe was gravitating leftwards, provoking them to unite against him under the unlikely banner of ‘Xoghol, Gustixxja, Liberta’”.

Instead of a socialist intelligentsia dominating the arts and national culture, Malta was regaled with ‘run, rabbit, run’ vulgarity: the enduring image of the national broadcaster’s subservience to the State, marking the pinnacle of cultural depravity.

Unable to withstand almost any form of resistance, Mintoff closed the Faculty of Arts altogether, supposedly the hotbed of free and critical thought. Rather than attracting intellectuals, he stood accused of allowing his party to slide towards mediocrity: a mediocrity epitomized by a slavish adulation of the leader he himself actively encouraged.

Elsewhere, Mintoff’s schizophrenia between liberal Europe and Maltese autarky was immortalized in his clash with eminent sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf, whom he invited to become chairman of the Commission of the Royal University of Malta shortly after his election in 1971.

But Dahrendorf soon fell out with Mintoff, denouncing the workersstudents’ scheme as one producing “either unhappy workers or underqualified students, or both.”

Ironically it was Mintoff’s authoritarian streak which paved the way for Eddie Fenech Adami’s broad church. Despite courting a clique of big businessmen and speculators, in his speeches Mintoff emphasised his party’s appeal to the working class.

Just a year before Fenech Adami’s investiture, Mintoff underlined the exclusive working-class identity of his party. “Everywhere he goes,

On an international level, Dom Mintoff remains arguably Malta’s best known export

3

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

atriarch: Dom Mintoff At the other end of the pendulum, the same Dom Mintoff was hailed as “saviour” by those who felt they owed him their entire livelihood, their homes and jobs

Mintoff’s brand of socialism, although intrinsically authoritarian, ultimately owed its legitimacy to the ballot box [Gorg] Borg Olivier says: we are everybody’s party and when we will be in government we will be everybody’s government. And I tell him that we are not everybody’s party and we are not everybody’s government. We are not a government of thieves, whoever steals votes against us… We are a working-class government.”

In reality, Mintoff’s whole project of economic modernisation hinged on the creation of a new breed of Maltese capitalists assisted by docile unions and protectionist measures.

Some of these even owed their new riches to the expropriation of property belonging to less loyal businessmen: a case in point being the deliberate dismantling of the Bical group of companies, when it was taken under controllership, or the nationalization of the National Bank of Malta. Others even thrived on criminal extortion, which the police force failed utterly to control..

Yet the gulf between ideology and reality widened to the extent that on the eve of the 1981 election, the Nationalist Party presented a formidable critique of Mintoff’s brand of state capitalism.

“The Mintoff Government tends

to run the country very much in the manner of a private capitalist, managing his own privately owned property, and seeking to maximize his own profit and not that of the country’s citizens.”

Even in his dealings with the wider world, Mintoff alternated between statesman and a pariah. Money-wise his tactic of playing of east against west, and north against south, can be seen to have paid off. While Nationalist prime minister Gorg Borg Olivier only managed to snatch Lm9 million in foreign aid following independence, Dom Mintoff managed to squeeze an unlikely Lm129 million from foreign powers.

Mintoff not only managed to make the British pay dearly for the use of the military base prior to 1979, but also diversified Malta’s foreign aid by getting Lm2 million from Libya in 1972 and Lm6 million from oilrich Kuwait, Qatar and Abu Dhabi in the aftermath of 1979. He can also be credited with becoming the first Western leader to forge diplomatic ties with Maoist China, a full year before US President Richard Nixon claimed that honour for himself.

Still, the country’s reputation was

somewhat dampened by his flirting with the likes of Muammar Gaddafi, Ceaucescu and Kim il Sung. Yet he also managed to win the friendship of the likes of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. For despite expressing a preference for the “Europe of Abel” (the Communist east), Mintoff was still intent on gaining Cain’s money and protection.

Ultimately, in a way not dissimilar to Chavez today, Mintoff’s brand of socialism, although intrinsically authoritarian, ultimately owed its legitimacy to the ballot box. When elections produced a Nationalist majority in the country and a Labour majority in parliament, Mintoff was so uncomfortable that he appointed a new leader three years later, while working in the shadows to reach a constitutional agreement with the Nationalist Party.

From 1987 onwards Mintoff could never reconcile himself to being a secondary figure in the political landscape, condemned to watching fro the sidelines as both the country and ‘his’ party changed beyond recognition. His final serious contribution to Maltese history was that of bringing a Labour government down in 1998 – a traumatic

act which lost him the respect of the many who revered him.

Ironically, the slavish discipline towards the party leader created by Mintoff had by then turned against him. From then onwards, his incursions in the political landscape bordered on the grotesque and the ridiculous. His clash with television comic James Bondin during a live Xarabank programme opened people’s eyes to the man’s ageing frailty; his paranoid claims that he was under CIA surveillance; his letters full advice to a disgraced Mugabe, and his televised incursion in Evans Building on the eve of the last election. indicated that he was not all there.

For all his mistakes, it was a demonstration of life’s unfairness, an unfitting end to a statesman who changed Malta’s history: a ‘someone’ in an island of nobodies.

For Mintoff may yet prove to be the only Maltese politician whose antics, like that of holding up the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe for 52 days as he stubbornly insists on a special insert on Mediterranean peace and security, will go down as a footnote in world history.

4

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Malta mourns ‘il-Perit’ THE news of Dom Mintoff’s death spread like wildfire on internet and prompted flash news bulletins on the main television stations.

The news was broken just after 9pm by Labour deputy leader Anglu Farrugia who announced Mintoff’s death on Facebook. As online news portals carried the news, the internet was flooded with comments and tributes to the former Prime Minister.

Minutes after the news broke, Labour’s One television interrupted its scheduled programmes and aired

Mourners hold vigil for Mintoff AS two police officers guarded the gates to former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff’s house in Tarxien last night, a group of people gathered and organised a vigil outside his home.

Some 40 to 50 people gathered at Joanne Gardens, close to the former Premier’s home and quietly talked about the politician they followed and loved.

Some recited the rosary, others cried as they held pictures of the late statesman.

Among those who were seen at Mintoff’s residence were his two daughters and his brother Fr. Dionysius, while Labour Leader Joseph Muscat visited the family earlier in the evening.

Former shipyard’s and General Workers Union stalwart, Sammy Meilaq was also present at the residence.

videos of Italian singer Andrea Bocelli’s Ave Maria.

Minutes later, a visibly upset Labour leader Joseph Muscat was on One television to pay homage to Mintoff.

As scores of people started visiting Mintoff’s residence in Tarxien, the television stations aired a series of documentaries and interviews with a number of politicians and commentators.

While One television carried interviews with former Labour ministers who served under Mintoff, the PN

Net television ran a documentary portraying the ‘dark years’ of Mintoff-led Labour administrations.

National broadcaster TVM screened Where Everybody’s Biografiji programme dedicated to Mintoff, produced a couple of years ago.

As Facebook and other social networks were swamped with video tributes and messages of grief, vile blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote a blog entitled “Glory Glory Hallelujah” in which she said “Now excuse me while I rush out to cel-

ebrate.”

This was met with a glut of comments on internet, condemning the Malta Independent columnist for her blog.

Mintoff has always been a divisive figure, eliciting both adulation and vilification throughout his long political career, spanning over 53 years.

Recently, Mintoff’s figure stirred a great debate following the screening of Pierre Ellul’s docu-film Dear Dom. The docu-film depicted Mintoff

as a dual personality, a statesman with a sense of brinkmanship and vision but whose rule was tainted by authoritarian and despotic traits, a hero turned villain. “il-Perit” will be long remembered for his social revolution, secularism and oratory skills as much as he will be remembered for his crackdown on the university, intellectuals and his collusion with corrupt and violent personalities within his party.

Saviour or anti-Christ, Mintoff’s towering figure will cast its shadow far beyond his death.

State Funeral to be announced today Government stands behind a mourning nation – PM Lawrence Gonzi FORMER Prime Minister Dom Mintoff is to be given a State Funeral.

Details on the funeral are to be announced today as government representatives are expected to meet with the former Premier’s family, after having accepted Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s offer for the nation to hold a State Funeral.

Contacted last night, Gonzi said that he was in contact with Mintoff’s family soon after he was informed of his predecessor’s demise.

“My government stands behind a mourning nation,” the Prime Min-

ister told MaltaToday, describing Mintoff as a “determining personality who shaped Malta’s history.”

He added that Mintoff embodied 50 years of Malta’s political, Constitutional, economic and social development.

“It is my government’s duty to stand behind the people at this time of sorrow, and I extend my condolences to the family,” Gonzi said.

In an official statement issued late last night, the Prime Minister said that Dom Mintoff was central to Maltese public life from World War II and lasted through the 20th Century.

5

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Joseph Muscat mourns ‘architect of free Malta’ MINUTES after the news of Dom Mintoff’s death, a moved Labour leader Joseph Muscat said “today we have all been orphaned.”

Muscat who visited Mintoff’s home in Tarxien soon after the former prime minister died aged 96 this evening noted that Mintoff died in peace, at home, surrounded by his children “as was his wish.”

The Labour leader described his predecessor as “the architect of a free Malta, a giant in Malta’s political history.”

Muscat explained that in recent weeks it was evident that Mintoff’s health was precarious but the former Labour leader showed incredible strength and recovered. “We hoped the same would happen today,” Muscat noted.

“We say so as Labourites and Maltese. We are aware of Mintoff’s controversial figure but those who held him in high esteem and those who criticised him must recognise that Malta would not be what it is today without this man.”

Muscat stressed that “against all odds, Mintoff put this rock on the world map and the world started taking Malta seriously.”

Muscat said he only Mintoff for the first time 20 years ago and said “his vision and energy were impressive.”

The Labour leader added that while working on his thesis he spoke at length with Mintoff and said the former Prime Minister’s insight, love for his country and his unprecedented love for the workers were unmatched.

“Mintoff did not want a monument but he built a living monument for

himself through social benefits such as pensions, children’s allowance, the free medical service, free tuition, stipends, the minimum wage, the right to sick leave, equal rights for women, the right to vote at 18, the separation of church and state and the decriminalisation of homosexuality.”

Muscat said there had been times when there were difficulties between the Labour Party and Mintoff in recent years, but added that he was “pleased that over the past four years that chapter was closed.”

A shaken Muscat expressed his gratitude towards Mintoff for everything he had done for the country and added “today we cry for him without any shame.”

The Nationalist Party said Dom Mintoff “doubtlessly was one of the biggest Maltese political figures who dominated the political scene for more that 50 years.”

However the PN noted that the differences between the party and Mintoff “are well documented.”

“At this moment the PN conveys its condolences to the Dom Mintoff’s family and the Labour Party,” the PN statement said.

Joining the political parties, the University’s Students Council, KSU, also expressed its condolences to the passing away of Mintoff.

Whilst thanking him for his contribution to the Maltese political scene, KSU thanked Mintoff for his work as a member of the KSU, then known as the Students’ Representative Council (SRC).

Mintoff had served as a member of the SRC as a member and eventually as a secretary for three years, from 1934 till 1937.

‘Not easy to lose a Mintoff’s death hits giant as a father’ world headlines – Mario de Marco “IT’S not easy to lose a father who was a giant, and it’s not easy to lose a giant as a father,” remarked culture minister Mario de Marco.

Speaking to MaltaToday last night, de Marco reminisced on his late father’s autobiography where he described Dom Mintoff as a “a tremendous force of energy and diatribe. He could be an excellent orator, an outstanding debater and a villain all in one,” He added that Mintoff “could massacre a person’s reputation with no apparent feeling of guilt; he could reach heights of creative thinking and at the same time stoop to vulgarity. He remains a phenomenon in Maltese politics.

Mintoff may be Marxist-inspired but he was not a Marxist. He was anti-British, but very English in his culture. I believe he was a Fabian with a totalitarian inclination. He was, and remains, a democrat by persuasion, a dic-

tator by inclination. I admired Mintoff mostly for his ability to improvise options,” de Marco quoted his father.

Born in 1965, a year after Malta had achieved Independence, Mario de Marco said that he was five when Dom Mintoff was elected to power and 22 when his government ended.

“My vision may be blurred about the man as many suffered violence during his time,” de Marco said, adding however that “his role in convincing his MPs to vote for the 1987 Constitutional changes which ensured that the party which obtained the majority of votes would be elected to government, ensured democracy in Malta.”

De Marco extended his condolences to Mintoff’s children and family.

“It’s not easy to lose a father who was a giant, and it’s not easy to lose a giant as a father,” he remarked.

YOUR FIRST CLICK OF THE DAY www.maltatoday.com.mt

NEWS agencies around the world reported the death of former Premier Dom Mintoff.

Reuters, Associated Press, ANSA and Bloomberg carried the news describing Mintoff as a “confrontational character.”

“Known for his confrontational character, Mintoff engaged in tough disputes with Britain over its role, the Roman Catholic Church over its influence and western Europe over his ties with Libya, China and North Korea.

He also brought down his own govern-

ment in 1998 in a party dispute. Labour has been in opposition ever since,” reported the Associated Press.

The news also featured in The Washington Post, CBS News, BBC World Service and all major news organisations.

6

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Works minister in the Boffa government was not enough for the ambitious young Socialist and architect in the late forties

He finally outflanked Pawlu Boffa and became Leader of the Labour party but Boffa retained the Premiership

His days at Oxford influenced his political thinking more than one could imagine

He met Moyra in Oxford

7

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

One of the last appearances of Mintoff in a church, in later years he would shun any public presence in a Church

A different pose with Gonzi

Meeting Pope Paul VI

Kissing Archbishop Gonzi’s hands

Meeting Pope John Paul II

8

Dom Mintoff

Moira Mintoff with Dom Mintoff. The patient wife who would stand by her husband

Mintoff with his inimitable pipe and Moira Mintoff in 1965 at the MLP HQ

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Wenzu Mintoff, Dom Mintoff’s father

9

Dom Mintoff

Mintoff met Moyra de Vere Bentinck during his studies in Oxford and they had two daughters, Anne and Yana.

Moira was a quite and unassuming woman who worked relentlessly with voluntary organisations and the poor

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

10

Dom Mintoff

Dom Mintoff and Libyan leader and dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi

The strong relations between the two states raised eyebrows in Western Europe and Nato and worried many nations that Malta would soon be a Libyan satellite

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Dom Mintoff offers an orange to Gaddafi’s son

11

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

At one point the two political leaders talked of an intrinsic bond between the two people – it would not be

12

Dom Mintoff

Lord Mountbatten with Dom Mintoff

Mistrusted as ever by the British, Mintoff meets Thatcher

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

13

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

German socialist and icon Willy Brandt who visited Mintoff at his Delimara lodge

Socialist Bruno Kreisky the Austrian Chancellor with Mintoff Mintoff in Paris

Archbishop Makarios President of Cyprus meets Mintoff

14

Dom Mintoff

President Tito outside the Mediterranean Conference Centre

Mintoff in Algiers

With Romanian dictator Ceasescu

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Chou en Lai welcomes Mintoff

Mintoff with Soviet President Konstantin Chernenko

Mao Tse Tung frail as ever still finds time to meet Mintoff one of the few Western leaders to visit Communist China

15

Dom Mintoff

Mintoff visits the pariah State of North Korea and meets Kim il-Sung

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Algerian President Ben jedid embraces Mintoff

Greeted in Peking by thousands of schoolchildren

And with Kenneth Kaunda

Socialist Leader Greek Leader Papandreou

16

Dom Mintoff

The great leader in a typical Red Flag pose

The great orator speaks to party faithful flanked by Karmenu Vella on one side and Alex Sceberras Trigona on another

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

17

Dom Mintoff

The images of Dom Mintoff, the people’s man and the Statesman

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

18

Dom Mintoff

Addressing the crowds after Labour loses the 1987 election

The undisputed leader

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

19

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Mintoff signing off the military bases agreement with Lord Carrington

His second term as Prime Minister in 1976 flanked by his personal secretary Joe Camilleri

Lighting the flame at the Jum il-Helsien monument

20

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Mintoff with his anointed heir, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici

Celebrating Republic day with Malta first President Sir Anthony Mamo looking on

And taking the oath as Prime Minister

21

Dom Mintoff

Dom Mintoff remained an active backbencher until his eighties

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

Always renowned for his love for the outdoors, swimming and horse riding were two

Finally making peace with the Labour party, here seen being greeted by Joseph Muscat

In between long bouts of illness he would still welcome guest to his home in Tarxien

Entering parliament surrounded by his loyalists, Sammy Meilaq on his right and John Dalli on his left

22

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

The Summer o IT was a sultry June of 1998. The ten-

sion of the World Cup only served to add to the heat. All ears were glued to their radio sets, listening to the games.

All ears? One might ask. Surely you meant...? No. All our eyes were glued to the local national TV radio station, where an 83 year-old man once again held the nation in his iron grasp.

We watched breathlessly as the little man spoke carefully, deliberately, ever-playing his audience to derive maximum impact from every syllable uttered.

He knew – we all knew – that this was his last moment of glory. Slowly, unswervingly, he plodded on in that inimitable style of his. First he would tease his side, making them doubt whether he was really going to go so far as to pull the rug from under their feet.

Then, sensing a rising air of expectant buoyancy from the side of the foe, he would deftly turn what he had just said on its head and deflate the enemy, causing everyone to lick their dry lips as the uncertainty started to mount, for the umpteenth time, from square one.

Everyone was held in thrall as he slowly set out to demonstrate with devastating clarity, that nobody, but nobody, tried to sideline Dom and put him out to pasture and got away with.

With the passing days, it began to transpire that perhaps, the grand old patriarch of Maltese politics was, Samson-like, actually going to pull down the temple about his head, burying his ex-colleagues with him.

The following is an excerpt from Dom Mintoff’s historical speech on 15 June 2008, at the House of Representatives.

DOM MINTOFF: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a breach of privilege. I shall not quote legal sources because it is up to your distinguished office to check if there has been a prima facie breach of privilege.

I am raising a breach of privilege against the Prime Minister Alfred Sant who, over the last eight days has done everything, including threaten me, so that when I came here, not only would I not vote against the motion – and this he had the right to do. But that I would resign. This is something that has never happened before in the history of democratic parliaments in Europe or the world. It has never been that a prime minister gathers all his strength, including the police force and all he has in a district and threatens to resign, and even scares people if a Member of Parliament does not vote as he wishes. If this does not constitute breach of privilege, then this house has absolutely no privileges. If that is how things stand, then privileges have come to an end.

Now let me continue to expand this argument, so that everyone will know why I’m raising a breach of privilege.

What was the prime minister’s theory?

What was his justification in perpetrating this act, the likes of which has never been seen in Europe. His justification was that I had been hampering him for a long time. He said that I had been interfering since the last election and not only since this issue regarding Cottonera arose. He did not say, however, that he, as head of the party, when he convened the general assembly, could have hauled me in front of the board of discipline to inquire whether or not I had broken the disciplinary code of the party. He had a legal right, a democratic right and the right conferred by the party to do this. But what did he do instead? He went on and said during the conference: “Give me a vote of confidence,” and expected that I who did

not give a vote of no confidence against him, but had only told him that what he was doing went against the fundamental principle of the party, that it is not in the party manifesto nor in anybody’s and that I had the right to vote against him in Parliament... I only told him this and I also sent him a letter, the gist of which was that he should have called a general conference in order for him to ascertain whether he was following what was mentioned in the electoral programme and whether he was following party principles, not to see if the party wanted him removed from the post of prime minister. He did not do this and acted as if nothing had happened.

Now what did I say in November? I said that this was not a budget that did credit to the Socialist Party and that it was not true that it was not going to affect the small worker adversely. But the Prime Minister as well as the ministers - since they chose to go along with him - used to deny the veracity of what I was saying. Later they admitted that the small worker was going to be affected and they spent months negotiating with the two unions and in fact some amendments were made. But they did not only carry out amendments which were going to influence only the small workers, but also the hotels. I’m saying this because the Prime Minister hardened his head and did not allow me to speak and were it not for the opposition that gave me a chance, I would not have been able to speak. I am referring to when this issue cropped up for the first time. Now one would imagine that from that time till now, something would have happened, but neither the Prime Minister, nor his ministers tried to consult me regarding anything.

What I am saying – this is important as background - is that I was never consulted about anything, especially when it came to the Cotton- era project. But in spite of this and in spite of the fact that they used to do everything to try and avoid me. . . here I’m not going to mention what they did to annoy me personally to force me to either tow the line or else leave Parliament. I will refer to this at a later date so that I won’t mix what is personal with affairs that have to do with the nation, but if they dare me to I will mention it as well.

Madam Speaker, I knew of nothing, but I remained watchful and when I saw things that went against the interests of the nation, against the interests of the party, against the programme, against everything, I sent word to the Prime Minister.

Watch your step because I have already told you that if you do these things, I will finish up having to vote against you in Parliament.

Here I would like to make a small parenthesis because I have been accused of something which they know is not true. I have been accused of having gone abroad on purpose so that when it came to voting for a bill over a loan of 20 million liri, I wouldn’t be here to vote and therefore constrained you, Madam Speaker, to vote in my stead.

This is a blatant lie. Whoever said this is a liar. And if it was the Prime Minister who said this, then he is a liar as well. Why? Before I went abroad, I told the Whip to be careful. I told him: “You left me here on Friday the whole day long on stand-by for nothing because you told me there was going to be a vote of confidence in the government. Now are you sure that this vote is not going to happen on Monday or Tuesday? Because I’m not likely to be here.” And he told me: “You can go.”

And then, on my return nobody attacked me or told me: How dare you

go abroad when there is a money vote?

As I said, I thought the opposite was true. I knew that there was not going to be a money vote, not that there was going to be a money vote. When I saw the Whip, I told him: “What is this story?” he told me: “Don’t worry about it, we’ve arranged the matter.” This is what happened. But let me go on about the Cottonera episode.

I have to admit that I am sick a lot of the time and that I am not always in a position to follow affairs. I never acted as if I were not ill. In fact I tell everyone not to depend on me, because my health fluctuates from day to day. But when I’m healthy let nobody think that they can use me to work against the party and the nation. At this point in time I’m healthy, but I don’t know what I’m going to be like tomorrow morning, like anybody else. Let me repeat, I did not know anything about the Cottonera project, I knew absolutely nothing, and when I read about the amendments that were presented by the Nationalist Party and when I saw that what they were saying was true, I did not come here and inform all of Malta through the television that the Nationalist Party was right, but I called the deputy leader and told him: Do me a favour, either you come, or else I’ll come so that we may talk about urgent matters. Why? When I noticed this it was Friday, and I swear before everyone that I did not talk about this to anybody, not to Gonzi, not to de Marco, even though had I spoken to them, it would have been perfectly within my right. Since when do I not have the right to speak with other members of Parliament to seek their opinion about things that have to do with Parliament?

Since when has the right been taken away that somebody from this side speaks to somebody from the other side of the House? And this is no plotting; I did not speak to them because there was no time, because there was no need to speak and because I did not want to involve them and not because I was going to do any wrong by speaking to them about these matters. It often happens that some- body stops me to speak to me on the stairs and tells me: “Is it possible that you agree with this?”

“By doing that are we plotting?” I often spoke to the members of the opposition about divorce.

Did I do wrong because I spoke to them about divorce? To those who have condemned me without listening to me - I am referring to all the members of Parliament - I ask: “Do I have the right to do this or not?

Did I break any- body’s code of discipline by doing this? Those that are hearing this now deserve to blush!

I reiterate, Madam Speaker, that until Friday I knew nothing and I called the deputy leader, as I was bound to.

Were it true that I wanted to start trouble in the party and that I wanted to topple the government, as they are saying, I would not have called anyone - I know how to put spokes in wheels - I would have said that it’s not my fault and that “this” and “that” happened.

God forbid that I do not know how to do these things, but I do not do them because it is not in my character to do them. That is why I called the deputy leader and told him: “I’m calling you because you have the responsibility to guide the party and if you don’t want to shoulder your responsibility, just tell me, don’t worry.” He told me: “No! Why?” and he came. Now that day I could have had a notary accompany me - not Madam Speaker - but any other notary - so that he would be my witness. Do I not have the right to take a witness when I speak to someone,

when I would have notified him previously so that if he wished to, he also could bring his own witness? Did I do anything wrong by doing that? So if I did not do anything wrong why should you involve Sammy Meilaq in the discussion about Birgu - so that they would make fun of him and blow raspberries at him?

MADAM SPEAKER: Perit, continue talking about the breach of privilege.

DOM MINTOFF: How else can you say it in Maltese? If there is another word tell me and I will use it.

MADAM SPEAKER: I did not correct your language.

DOM MINTOFF: Then I’ll say that they made noises at him from behind!

But let me continue with what I was

saying. Why did this name crop up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Honourable Mintoff, if you don’t mind, do not mention people who are not part of this House.

DOM MINTOFF: Madam Speaker, either I’m going to talk about these things or else I’m going to sit down and say that this Parliament is allowing the Prime Minister to do whatever he pleases outside and that he who is being attacked is never even heard. I will say again: the Prime Minister had no right to mention this person, the very same person, moreover that the Prime Minister himself nominated to be chairman of the Commission for Fiscal Morality, when this person went to him a second time and said: “No, this does

23

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

of discontent to do my best to hide things and these have already appeared on television!”

When he came to me at 2.00 p.m. with Dr George Abela, he said to me: “The contract that we’re going to sign with the company is not the one that is appearing in Parliament. I’m saying this so that the members on either side, whoever they are, will notice that I’m being precise and not because I’m on one side of the house, the others will say that he’s lying, even if I’ll be saying the truth. Have we reached this extreme situation in this Parliament? So he told me that this blessed contract did not contain the clause that they were ready to insert when they signed the contract.

I have my doubts, too whether he told me that they were ready to propose this amendment in the evening. But I interrupted him and said: “I’m sorry, but I only vote in Parliament on that which I know is going to be binding and not on what you’ll do after I have cast my vote. And if you don’t need to include all these privileges that you’re going to give this company, why did you include them in the contract? Why don’t you amend?

MADAM SPEAKER: Right Honourable, you have to connect what you are saying with the breach of privilege.

You cannot make this part of you discussion.

DOM MINTOFF: Madam Speaker, I am giving all my reasons to why I think that there is a prima facie breach of privilege, and I’m giving all the reasons after the Prime Minister, with his government, has been harping on and lying about me all week, making people cry, saying that I’m a traitor and many other things. I have as yet not told him anything. I’m only mentioning facts.

So I expect that you, Madam Speaker, will allow me to do so and not interrupt me, and if possible you will help me to get this over and done with.

In the defence of Dom Mintoff This excerpt breaks from the previous one and moves forward to a later part of the same speech. Professor de Marco is defending Malta against the tide of politically irrational behaviour and decisions taken on the crest of high emotion. He makes it clear that nobody has the right to call his old political foe a traitor, for that, according to him, is one thing that he definitely is not.

not suit me.” It is true that the position he wanted to give him was not suitable.

So the Prime Minister said: “This is what we’ll do: take this bill that we are discussing with the Grand Masters; see what you think of it and give me your opinion about it.” I am saying all this to show that these things are no secret and had they wanted to, they could have told me about them. I’m saying all this so that he won’t stay involving this person so that he can hurt him tomorrow. He told him: “If this bill has to do with sovereignty, then it’s better if you don’t give it to me.” And when he told me about this proposal, because he is a friend of mine, I told him: “Don’t you dare show it to me because tomorrow he’ll taunt you and say that he gave you

something in confidence and you came and showed it to me!” I don’t know what this bill contains but I’m saying this because there is going to be a link with the Cottonera project.

Now, that day when I voted against the proposal of the government – I did not vote with the Nationalists because it’s one thing to vote for an amendment proposed by the Nationalists and another to vote against a proposal by the government – because I did not agree with it, I knew that the Prime Minister had, without telling me anything, asked some ministers, amongst them Minister Vella, to create a lot of propaganda on television about this project. People told me that these appeared on the television and I said: “Prosit, So I’m trying

DE MARCO: “I can have no part in the internal political battles of the Labour Party and I do not have the right to be a part of them; those are the problems of the Labour Party, as every other party occasionally has. However, I have found myself being called a traitor of Malta and that I am in cahoots with Mintoff and that I am causing damage; that I have been running Malta since November of last year and that I collaborated with Mintoff and that we went to Libya together. I never went to Libya. In other words without wanting to I have found myself included in this great polemic. Now I am not a person who likes polemics. I am a person who believes in my principles – principles that I have shared openly – and a person who is flexible in the application of those principles, because if you are not flexible in the application of principles you will cause great harm. Now, it is good to observe and follow principles but one cannot be so obstinate that one is not flexible in their application. You cannot be so obstinate that because you have one point of view you therefore believe that anyone who does not agree with you is a traitor to the country. Why should we have reached such a state of affairs on a simple contract like this?

We should never have reached a stage where the government is called into question.

As I have already said Mr President, I am not from Cottonera, but I am sure that the Honourable Mintoff identifies with its history and is part of Cottonera. So how can we say that he is a traitor? One could say that one does not agree with him and one might tell him that he should not vote against simply because he does not agree with a particular contract. I understand this kind of criticism but I do not think that it was reasonable to say Malta first and before everything because the Honourable Mintoff betrayed this call that attracted such a great following. Neither do I believe that simply because one does not agree with something therefore one should resign. Why are we making such a mountain out of a molehill? We certainly have the right to be angry and God know show many times I was angry because I felt that that I was not given my dues; maybe they were right and maybe I was right but this is not a question of who is right and who is wrong. This is a question of how we would like to develop. This is what I am trying to say, Mr President.

As I have already said, we have been debating this for too long.

To start with we had the first part of the debate, so to speak, and the vote was rejected. The following day the Prime Minister went to Birgu and this, in my opinion, was a big mistake. I have a great respect for the Prime Minister and he knows this and I also respect his artificial calm. I use the word artificial because I think the Honourable Alfred Sant is only superficially calm, but effectively has an internal volcano.

I admire his capacity for self-control in the face of suffering - because when you govern, you often suffer - and in the face of affairs which he considers to be hostile towards him. However, I ask the Prime Minister, does he really think that the best way of attracting investment to one’s country is by holding a belligerent press conference in Birgu, full of coarse shouting that is very much not in keeping with his character? Does anyone think that this is the way to attract foreign investment to Malta? I should think that this is the best way of putting off investors.

Mr President, I listen to all the radio stations but these last few days I have paid particular attention to Super One. Why all these triumphant anthems as though we are going into battle, in the spirit of La Marseillaise? Why incite the women, and everybody for that matter to leave their homes and converge on the spot, supposedly to talk about whether Italy will defeat The Cameroon or vice versa but in reality to criticise Mintoff? What kind of integrity is this? (Hon. members: Hear, hear) There were telephone calls upon telephone calls saying that the Honourable Mintoff has lost his mind and others implying the contrary.

Now Mr President, I am perhaps among those who have most criticised the Honourable Mintoff and my criticism has been harsh. But then in other things I have certain close ties with him. However, can anybody think and these are journalists who certainly sympathise with the Labour Party and who have great loyalty to Prime Minister Sant - however, in spite of all the sympathy and loyalty in the world, one can never exceed the limits of what is good. The Honourable Tonio Borg is reminding me that there is something called ‘excess of legitimate defence’ and I think that that war-cry to converge on Birgu day after day with the excuse of discussing the victories and defeats

of football teams is indeed a case of excess of legitimate defence. This does not show integrity. Our country deserves much more than this.

As I was saying, I know many of these journalists personally, and I know that they are clever and they bring integrity to their work. However, God forbid that they lose their head as Prime Minister Sant has done. This has been most unfortunate as it was unfortunate that he continued in this vein even in the Bormla meeting. Did he do any good? We can say that it did good to the Nationalist Party, because without wanting to, a split in one party always strengthens the other party. This is a logical conclusion, however even though the Nationalist Party gained, did the country gain? Did democracy in our country gain? This is what I am trying to say.

Mr President we have a great responsibility in this country. Every- one has his point of view, everyone has his style and everyone has his method, but in certain things one may not cross the demarcation line. For example, how can one first get the opposition to agree with one and use it as a negotiating tool while simultaneously depict it the opposition as a traitor to Cottonera? Why should this give rise also to public lynching? I repeat, I admired the Honourable Mintoff; I admired his stamina and his resistance. Perhaps another of a lesser political level and a lesser political stamina would not have been capable of resisting the pressure that was put upon him hour after hour, day after day and speech after speech.

Now I am not a Labourite. I am a Nationalist, but even I who have had so many political altercations with the Honourable Mintoff, have never had a personal altercation. On the contrary, our personal relationship has always been of the best.

I say that one may not treat a person who has been a Representative of this country for more than fifty years and who was for so many years a prime minister of Malta in this way. One can say many things to a crowd, but to tell the crowd that the Honourable Mintoff is a traitor is unacceptable. (Hon. members: Hear, hear) In a certain sense, this claim hurt us too. (interruptions) Allow me to continue. I am not making an apologia for anyone. The Honourable Mintoff does not need Guido de Marco to defend him. The Honourable Mintoff spoke for seven hours and we all heard him. There were those who agreed with him, and those who did not; there were those who agreed with his method and those who did not.

However he does not need me to defend him, and I am not defending him.

The Honourable Mintoff can defend himself in his own able manner. In other words, my aim is not to defend him but to defend Common Sense as a quality in this country and as a quality in the institution of Parliament. Therefore, Mr President, what am I saying?

We came to this Parliament to debate a question which unfortunately has become a question of national crisis.

The Prime Minister has said that if the Honourable Mintoff does not resign, or if he or anybody else votes against or abstains, he will consider this a vote of no confidence in him. Now we, as the opposition, must perforce vote against, because we certainly have no faith in this government. Even if he obtains the best contract imaginable, if he presents it as a vote of confidence in the government, as is the budget, we must perforce vote against. Was this wise? Is this the way we want democracy in Malta to progress?

Dom Mintoff

maltatoday, TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2012

1916 Dom Mintoff is born in Bormla 1935 Mintoff elected secretarygeneral of Malta Labour Party aged 19 1939 Mintoff graduates as an architect and civil engineer from University of Malta 1943 Mintoff obtains a Masters in Science and Engineering at Hertford College, Oxford University 1944 Following his stint abroad, Mintoff is re-elected MLP secretary-general 1944 He is elected as the party’s deputy leader 1945 Contests general elections and is elected to Legislative Assembly 1947 Labour wins general election and Mintoff is appointed deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Works and Reconstruction 1949 Following internal struggle with party leader Pawlu Boffa, Mintoff becomes leader of the Malta Labour Party 1955 After spending six years as leader of the Opposition, Mintoff is elected as Prime Minister for first time 1956 Integration referendum held. Although Mintoff’s proposal is backed by 77% of voters, the British deem result as inconclusive because of the boycott by the Nationalist Party 1958 Mintoff resigns as Prime Minister in protest against the British colonial government 1962 At the height of the conflict with the Catholic Church, Mintoff’s MLP obtains 50,974 despite interdiction of the party 1964 Malta obtains Independence from Great Britain. Mintoff participates in negotiations but boycotts celebrations 1971 Mintoff re-elected as Prime Minister 1974 Mintoff steers Malta to become a Republic, a move also supported by most Nationalist MPs in Opposition 1976 MLP is re-elected to power 1979 Mintoff oversees the closure of the British military base in Malta and declares 31 March as Freedom Day 1981 Labour remains in government notwithstanding the fact that 51% of the electorate voted in favour of the PN. Mintoff remains Prime Minister 1984 Mintoff voluntarily vacates office to enable his successor, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici to take over.

1998 Mintoff, now a backbencher, denies Labour Prime Minister Alfred Sant a majority in parliament on the Cottonera yacht marina motion, paving the way for Nationalist re-election and gives up 53 years of parliamentary life.

2008 Mintoff visits Labour’s headquarters in Hamrun for first time ever on invitation of newly elected Labour leader Joseph Muscat 2012 Mintoff dies at his home in Tarxien after battling illness for a number of years

Mintoff in a pensive mood at the Helsinki conference. Malta’s ‘peppery and persuasive socialist prime minister’, as he was once described by anthropologist Jeremy Boissevain, was the big man of Maltese politics thanks to his redoubtable persona, deft negotiating skills, and political brinkmanship Published by:

Vjal ir-Riħan, San Ġwann, SGN 9016, Malta Tel: +356 382741, Fax: +356 21381992 www.maltatoday.com.mt

Editor: Saviour Balzan Contributors: James Debono, Jurgen Balzan, Miriam Dalli, Karl Stagno Navarra Design: Kevin Grech Photos: Union Print, DOI, Private collection