He-who-must-not-be-named

There was an elephant in the room this week. As the government stood its ground and kept a brave face after a damning court decision, there was something missing in the narrative being played. There was an effort to avoid mentioning one name.

It was like a clip from Harry Potter when everyone in the film refers to ‘You-Know-Who’ or ‘He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’ rather than say his name aloud. In this case, it was not Voldemort, but Joseph Muscat.

There are two aspects in this story: the first is about why Muscat should be mentioned in relation to Vitals/Steward; the second, as to Muscat’s responsibility for this mess.

Muscat now revels in posting Instagram images, either dressed in his Christmas pee-jays, or brandishing his fashionable, branded clothing. Today he argues the decision on Vitals was a collective Cabinet decision. 

The only former Cabinet member who had the proverbial balls to counter this was Evarist Bartolo, but even he did not get that far enough. Robert Abela, the current prime minister, stated that he was not privy to the details of the agreement and the infamous side-letter concoted by Konrad Mizzi, naturally under the wing of Muscat, for Steward.

The truth is that the decision on Vitals and later Stewards was taken by and with the full cognisance of Muscat – entirely. And the facts clearly show that the Cabinet was not aware of the finer details of the agreement. Not that they showed great interest or questioned the agreement in the first instance as they should have done (it was early days then...) but at the time Muscat was riding so high as prime minister that no would dare question him. No one at the time could imagine that Vitals was some hoax with Ram Tumuluri and Mark Pawley apearing as frontmen for mystery investors playing the quick-buck, hospital leasing game, and that the companies being picked by a Maltese committee to run three state hospitals, had no experience in health management, let alone spearheaded some reform in the health sector.

Who could countenanced such a brazen con right in the first years of the new Labour administration?

Tumuluri and Pawley, with their other investors, were in it to make a killing and they did this with the connivance of the people who welcomed them to our shores. It was daylight robbery and we cannot believe that no one really noticed that the whole privatisation bid was one big joke, specifically tailored for them.

For this to happen there were lawyers, auditors, personal assistants and advisers. They all knew the name of the game.

Not all privatisations are as devious as this one, but most are because they are driven primarily by profit and not improving a service. And in signing up with Vitals, Muscat knew that the new service-providers were amateurs, and that no due due diligence was carried out on them.

We were led to believe that this privatisation would improve our healthcare standards (not that we needed them to be truthful) and bring new protocols in place. It did not happen. We simply bankrolled them and they gave us fuck-all in return. Not only that; they disappeared and took with them any profits and pay-offs from new tenants Steward.

The whole charade was carefully planned. When Vitals was under scrutiny or attack they would bridge out to the press. In this case the media was approached by a former Labour Party activist who had worked in the communications department and a former Nationalist communications official. They took out sponsored content on the online portals to highlight the role of Vitals in Maltese healthcare.

Of course, all the party boys and girls played the tune that Vitals would bring miracles and that this was the best thing that ever happened to Malta.

When Tumuluri and Pawley disappeared, cashing in on their scam, Steward moved in, retaining Vitals man (and then a former Steward man) Arnim Ernst as CEO, and most other senior staff. Then we were left to believe that Steward was a big American company that ran many hospitals in the US (they do... they run hospitals at a profit to pay the rent to Medical Properties Trust, a property company).

Without any pomp, sometime in 2021, Steward Health Care International was no longer part of the American family that gave birth to it (it was sold, apparently) and suddenly became a Spanish-registered company. With that move the American government also changed its defensive tone towards the Maltese government about Steward being asked to leave.

In the meantime, Muscat fell from grace, falling off his throne in the winter of 2019 after the Yorgen Fenech/Keith Schembri links. Some time later we learnt that there was a side letter which basically was written sometime before Muscat’s political demise – that if Steward were asked to unceremoniously leave by a Maltese court of law, they would be given €100 million. 

Robert Abela said he never knew about this. And it is probably true.

Joseph Muscat skirts the question, but the truth is that he not only knew about the €100 million, but encouraged it. And everyone knows this, including all the present and former Cabinet ministers. They think that Muscat was offering his professional services after resigning as PM, to people who were very close to Steward.

Needless to say, despite the alarm bells ringing, Muscat’s name never came up in the  government’s riposte to the harsh criticism on the Steward court judgement.

Which brings us to the second point. Why is mentioning Muscat such a sore point?

The reason is that Muscat still has deep-rooted support with many Labour supporters. Support by those who have traditionally always been diehard Labour activists. Just like dark-blue Nationalists who could see nothing wrong with their leaders when they erred.

Muscat has chosen to hit back when he is in a corner. Today he takes to Facebook or encourages his sworn enemies to interview him; and backed by a few familiar faces such as Manuel Cuschieri, who has also been ejected from One TV reportedly because of his pro-Muscat stance.

Muscat retaliates by saying that he has no problem being scrutinised for his actions. Or for proving that he is not corrupt. And surely it would be very difficult to prove his guilt or the accusations made against him unless hard evidence surfaces.

It is true that asking for one to be imprisoned simply because of some hunch might be a valid media stunt, but it certainly does not tally with the application of justice in a modern democracy.

But on the political and ethical level, the Vitals/Steward saga needs no special investigation to prove that Joseph Muscat allowed an agreement allowing for millions of euros to be handed over to crooks – people who had no qualms giving us a third-rate health service and then pack up their bags and leave.

Muscat is very good at hitting back and knee-capping his adversaries, repeatedly citing how many people benefitted from his policies and benevolence, but he tends to forget how many people sacrificed their career and life for his political success; how many people argued that he was the man of the moment; how many were gullible enough to believe that he was the real leader Malta needed; how many individuals felt traumatised by his betrayal; how many find his cockiness and demeanour revolting, to say the least.

Which is why next time, Labour people from the party volunteers right up to the Prime Minister will have a problem mentioning ‘you-know-who’ and ‘he-who-must-not-be-named’...

They should remember that they too were part of the change that elected Labour. Because nothing can wash away the truth: Vitals and Steward agreement was the biggest heist ever seen in Malta, perpetrated right up there in Castille.