This is my take, not my tweet

I had a sleepless night on Friday. I had decided it was to time to do what I am best at and stop believing that I could get back into civil society. 30 years ago, I had hair and was so ‘green’ that I refused to drive a car or even travel on a plane. Three decades or more ago, I was also very active in BirdLife.

I had now been vice-president of Birdlife Malta since December 2013, and nominated to the Ornis committee.  The committee is a sham, more of a joke because the scientific reports it presents, which are based on imaginary figures concocted by those who kill and maim wildlife. It gets worse when you realise that all the government-appointed members (with the exception of the chairman) are close to the Labour party and simply do as they are told.

But the thing that set me thinking was the fact that The Times had somehow communicated to BirdLife that my comments, my input or presence as a BirdLife activist, could sour the way they looked at the NGO.

BirdLife had already passed through a very tough time when one particular journalist, renowned for his malice, did everything not to mention the organisation. And that was for nearly ten years.  He then left the Times to work at PBS.

Now there is no love lost with The Times. But they took offence for my comments over their decision to provide the police with the personal details of online commenters who passed harmless comments on The Times’ website on hunting. The FKNK had filed criminal libel proceedings and set the police on The Times and their readers.

When I spoke to the police commissioner to say that taking these people up to court for criminal libel was ridiculous, he had nothing to say. To be precise, he did not even know what was happening.

Chief editor at The Times Steve Mallia appears to be have been very offended that we showed what fantastic idiots they are. And also how unimportant their readers were to them at the time. We all make mistakes: this was one of them. It was only a pity that the press club, the IGM, were too busy polishing the journalist of the year award trophy.

I have already declared that if the police wanted the details of those who commented on our new website, I would tell them to do exactly what you are thinking I would tell them.

The real issue is that my post as vice-president of BirdLife seems to have soured the relationship with the media, and that was not my intention. I also knew that the hunters, through the good office of Manwel Mallia’s legal office, had protested to PBS over my programme, citing all sorts of archaic arguments. That led me to decide not to raise the issue of hunting in my programmes. That is now no longer a consideration.

So at the end of the day, I said I should better leave so that perhaps people might see BirdLife Malta as they should see them: a bunch of altruistic guys who do everything for everyone but nothing for themselves.

But my resignation is obviously trivial when compared to the resignation of former health minister Godfrey Farrugia, who triggered a horrible day for the press. It also led to very premature announcement of the new Cabinet.

If you do look at the Cabinet, there is not one decapitation. It is really a case of musical chairs. And let’s face it, some of the ministers and parliamentary secretaries were or are not fit for purpose. Yet Muscat removed none. And not just because of their unsuitability for the portfolio, but rather because they were simply hopeless.

Muscat simply moved his men and women according to the resignations and departures of some of his ministers. Karmenu Vella was kicked upstairs, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca was nominated as President, Franco Mercieca departed of his own volition, telling us that he never fitted in the role (I tweeted back saying ‘then why did he enter politics’?) and then there was Godfrey Farrugia, who provided Muscat with another opportunity.

A closer look at the reshuffle shows that no one was forced to leave – shuffled around, yes – but not asked to leave. And that says plenty about Joseph Muscat.

Some of the new faces raise some eyebrows.

Placing Chris Fearne in health is in fact questionable at least from my side. Had it now been for the Attorney General’s bizarre and arbitrary application of nolle prosequi, where he single-handedly prevented a magistrate from persisting in a criminal inquiry against the doctor, Fearne could have faced charges of his alleged negligence that led to the inadvertent death of a six-year-old boy in hospital. His parents, years later, were paid an out of court settlement by government.

People have short memories. But I do not.

The other questionable appointment is Michael Falzon at planning. Don’t get me wrong: Falzon, a hunter and fireworks enthusiast, certainly has no problem with the construction industry…

Sorry – I mean – Falzon has been INDEED close to the construction industry because of his legal work. Will he be able to stand up to them? Can he live with the likes of Sandro Chetcuti and his developers’ lobby? I wonder… this choice is just another one that sends a wrong message from the government.

The super-correct decisions are the ones putting Konrad Mizzi in health as well as energy. He is the man for the job in health. The other merited ones are tourism for Edward Zammit Lewis and justice and culture for Owen Bonnici, stepping him up where he belongs and taking culture away from Herrera’s uncomfortable grasp.

But my final bone of contention is about yesterday’s Cabinet reshuffle. We were informed of the changes through Twitter. And then we were told that a press conference would not be held.

Incredible! As if there was no explaining to do, after a whole day covering the post-Farrugia events.

Franco Mercieca tweeted that he was proud to “be part of this change” but being a minister was not for him. If this is the change we are expected to embrace, then Mercieca should really stay in Gozo and leave politics forever.

Ministers resigning and reshuffles demand explanations, and not evading the press.  If this is the new of doing things, then no wonder Roderick Galdes can live with being the same junior minister responsible for animal welfare at the same time that he is the one tied to the bird slaughter taking place.