Updated | PN turn tables on Labour as Muscat asks if Zammit Dimech should resign
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat asks whether Simon Busuttil would ask Opposition MP to resign after a MaltaToday report revealing that Zammit Dimech is one of eight facing charges of involuntary homicide of a worker • Nationalist Party says Muscat should have demanded resignation of Owen Bonnici, Michael Falzon, and host of other Labour MPs
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has this morning asked whether Simon Busuttil would ask Francis Zammit Dimech to resign following a MaltaToday report that revealed that the Nationalist MP is among eight facing charges over a worker’s death in 2012.
MaltaToday on Sunday revealed that Opposition MP Francis Zammit Dimech, a former director of the Seabank Hotel and Catering Limited, is among eight facing charges of involuntary homicide of a Latvian man who when a roof collapsed during the construction of the Seabank hotel in Mellieha.
“Simon Busuttil wanted Owen Bonnici to resign over a car accident … Now that the Opposition leader expects higher standards, will he tell Francis Zammit Dimech to resign as well?” he quipped while speaking on One Radio.
However, in a reaction published later in the afternoon, the Nationalist Party took umbrage at Muscat's question, and instead turned the tables on the prime minister by demanding that he applies the same yardstick to Owen Bonnici after the justice minister was charged with injuring a person while driving his own car.
“If Joseph Muscat wants to be taken seriously he should demand the resignation of parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon over the Gaffarena case, and the resignation of [ministers] Chris Cardona, Helena Dalli, Anton Refalo over their respective scandals,” it said.
Similarly, the PN insisted that the same yardstick should be applied to Ian Borg and Ray Zammit, the latter of whom retained his post of acting director at the Corradino Correctional Facility, and the head of the local enforcement agency.
“Joseph Muscat should resign himself over the Café Premier scandal which he authorised himself,” it argued.
American University: 'Government could have handled issue better'
Turning his attention to the American University of Malta, the prime minister acknowledged that the whole issue could have been handled better, but insisted that notwithstanding this, the whole project showed that the government handled the controversy well. “We are not perfect, but we are certainly not arrogant.”
“The whole American university project was clear evidence of the difference between this government and previous PN administrations. The Nationalist governments used to steamroll everyone and present people with an ultimatum, whereas on the other hand, this government paused, listened to the people, and achieved a win-win situation,” Muscat argued.
The Labour Party leader also took umbrage at the PN for not issuing its position on the university, arguing that the Opposition’s silence – together with the fact that the AUM did not feature on the front pages of newspapers – showed that this was a fair decision and that there was no controversy.
Muscat also defended the government’s decision to develop parts of the university on ODZ, arguing that it was incredulous that a site that is usually covered in rubbish is classified as an outside development zone.
Toasting the government’s decision to build part of the university in Cospicua, Muscat insisted that this would ensure the Cottonera realise its “stupendous potential.”
“Cospicua can become one of the most beautiful areas in Malta, if not Europe. The decision was announced on the third anniversary of Dom Mintoff’s passing as a gift to the people … We want them to believe that the south is not second class,” he said.
Welcoming Malta’s Fitch ‘A’ rating, the prime minister insisted that the positive result was thanks to the government decision. Taking exception at the Opposition’s claim that the government is using the state coffers as if it was its own money, Muscat underlined that the government is exercising caution and treating the people’s money in the same way as a family treated its money.