The Malta Independent on Sunday
As a citizen this week I was humiliated by the meeting which my Prime Minister held at his request with the Chairman and Chief Executive of Skanksa regarding` the performance of their obligations as project Managers of the Mater Dei Hospital.
It is absolutely unheard of that a Prime Minister of a sovereign nation, that is now also an EU member, stoops so low beneath his status by seeking a direct encounter with the representative of a commercial organisation that holds a commercial contract of sorts with the government through an autonomous or semi-official body controlled by the government.
What is the use, may I ask, of creating such Organisations, Foundations, Authorities or whatever they may happen to be called, if then problems are referred back up to the Prime Minister for his direct intervention Even from a negotiating tactic viewpoint it makes weak posturing for the Prime Minister to enter into such direct negotiations. Protocol would have demanded negotiations to be conducted by the Chairman of Foundation of Medical Studies (FMS) assisted by technical experts and legal advisers, if necessary from the Attorney General`s Office.`
If such meetings have already been held without success and one needed a further attempt from more heavyweight representation, one could at most have involved the Permanent Secretary of the responsible ministry or at most the Permanent Secretary at the Prime Minister`s Office.` Beyond that it is a humiliation which implies weakness in government`s or FMS`s` legal position vis-`-vis the contractor, to have the Prime Minister engaging at his own initiative to weigh-in the stature of his position in direct negotiations. By so doing one risks being re-buffed, politely or otherwise, by a CEO of an international company who seems comfortable with its rights under the commercial contracts that were authorised by Cabinet, of which the current Prime Minister formed part, and signed by the FMS. Such re-buff is not only humiliating for the Prime Minister in persona but is offensive to the government, the State and its citizens.
If government has legal rights to fault the contractor on its performance, negotiating tactics would have demanded threatening and if necessary executing such rights and consequent remedies, leaving it to the contractor to seek high level meetings for reaching a compromise settlement.
If on the other hand FMS legal rights are questionable enough to force our Prime Minister`s misjudgement to get involved directly with the risk of grave humiliation, then the Prime Minister should instead be meeting all those responsible for signing the original agreement with the contractor, from the Minister to the advisers, from the Chairman and Board of FMS past and present to the lawyers who advised on such agreements, and demand explanations why were agreements signed in way exposing the nation to such grave risk of cost overruns, delayed time lines and poor accountability.
Once internal responsibilities are clarified and heads are made to roll as necessary, the Prime Minister`s responsibility, rather than through personal engagements in negotiations with contractors, is to appoint capable and trusted hands who can make the best out of a difficult position to bring this project to conclusion within the boundaries of` legal restrictions in existing contracts with outside suppliers, enforcing our rights and seeking concessions even beyond what is legally enforceable.
Mater Dei project is well set on course to becoming a white elephant that dwarfs Malta Shipbuilding proportions. Can anyone explain the logic of such an investment which seems set to sail well past the Lm200 million mark (if is ever finished, that is) if at the end it will have less hospital beds than are currently available at St Luke`s Hospital` Can anyone explain why five years after agreeing the latest configuration and the appointment of Skanska as project managers by direct cabinet decision (which has been criticised for lack of transparency and lack of accountability) we still have no idea how much it would cost when finished, when it will be finished, and how much it would cost to run it`
Can we afford the running expenses of the new outfit, or would its operations mean that universal entitlement to free acute interventions in public service hospitals will have to be foregone`
Coming to head in the last week of October such matters unavoidably raise nostalgia of what it could have been if the Labour government, elected so handsomely eight years ago, were to be still in power now approaching the end of its second term. One could blame Labour for many shortcomings and indeed I question the wisdom of the decision it took to extend the inherited San Raffaele project to amalgamate both operations of San Raffaele and St Luke`s Hospital into one operation eventually re-named Mater Dei. Having one operations rather than two separate ones makes economic sense but I still think that it would have been better to focus such unified operation in a re-defined and gradually re-developed and extended St Lukes rather than at Mater Dei. I would have much preferred if a line was drawn under the inherited San Raffaele until one could decide what exactly one could make of it.
What`s for sure however, is that a Labour Government would have never signed a contract like the one Skanska have, permitting them legal comfort to humiliate our Prime Minister.` A labour government would never have accepted to pay off people sending them home in early retirement changing a ` Repubblika mibnja fuq ix-xoghol` into a `Repubblika mibnija fuq il-hela`.
Confidently I would say that given more time a Labour government would have addressed the deficit problem which still haunts us till today and would have saved us the horrifying accumulation of debt that we have incurred since 1998. It would have strengthened our tourism and gave us a strong economy that would have been much better prepared to face the challenges of EU membership and the Euro.
But that is water under the bridge. Eight years after its 1996 victory, Labour is still languishing in its sixth consecutive year in opposition under failed leadership. The consequences of not just a reckless government but also of an uninspiring opposition, find tangible explanation in the Mater Dei mess which seems to benefit only its supply contractors.
As a citizen this week I was humiliated by the meeting which my Prime Minister held at his request with the Chairman and Chief Executive of Skanksa regarding` the performance of their obligations as project Managers of the Mater Dei Hospital. It is absolutely unheard of that a Prime Minister of a sovereign nation, that is now also an EU member, stoops so low beneath his status by seeking a direct encounter with the representative of a commercial organisation that holds a commercial contract of sorts with the government through an autonomous or semi-official body controlled by the government.
What is the use, may I ask, of creating such Organisations, Foundations, Authorities or whatever they may happen to be called, if then problems are referred back up to the Prime Minister for his direct intervention Even from a negotiating tactic viewpoint it makes weak posturing for the Prime Minister to enter into such direct negotiations. Protocol would have demanded negotiations to be conducted by the Chairman of Foundation of Medical Studies (FMS) assisted by technical experts and legal advisers, if necessary from the Attorney General`s Office.`
If such meetings have already been held without success and one needed a further attempt from more heavyweight representation, one could at most have involved the Permanent Secretary of the responsible ministry or at most the Permanent Secretary at the Prime Minister`s Office.` Beyond that it is a humiliation which implies weakness in government`s or FMS`s` legal position vis-`-vis the contractor, to have the Prime Minister engaging at his own initiative to weigh-in the stature of his position in direct negotiations. By so doing one risks being re-buffed, politely or otherwise, by a CEO of an international company who seems comfortable with its rights under the commercial contracts that were authorised by Cabinet, of which the current Prime Minister formed part, and signed by the FMS. Such re-buff is not only humiliating for the Prime Minister in persona but is offensive to the government, the State and its citizens.
If government has legal rights to fault the contractor on its performance, negotiating tactics would have demanded threatening and if necessary executing such rights and consequent remedies, leaving it to the contractor to seek high level meetings for reaching a compromise settlement.
If on the other hand FMS legal rights are questionable enough to force our Prime Minister`s misjudgement to get involved directly with the risk of grave humiliation, then the Prime Minister should instead be meeting all those responsible for signing the original agreement with the contractor, from the Minister to the advisers, from the Chairman and Board of FMS past and present to the lawyers who advised on such agreements, and demand explanations why were agreements signed in way exposing the nation to such grave risk of cost overruns, delayed time lines and poor accountability.
Once internal responsibilities are clarified and heads are made to roll as necessary, the Prime Minister`s responsibility, rather than through personal engagements in negotiations with contractors, is to appoint capable and trusted hands who can make the best out of a difficult position to bring this project to conclusion within the boundaries of` legal restrictions in existing contracts with outside suppliers, enforcing our rights and seeking concessions even beyond what is legally enforceable.
Mater Dei project is well set on course to becoming a white elephant that dwarfs Malta Shipbuilding proportions. Can anyone explain the logic of such an investment which seems set to sail well past the Lm200 million mark (if is ever finished, that is) if at the end it will have less hospital beds than are currently available at St Luke`s Hospital` Can anyone explain why five years after agreeing the latest configuration and the appointment of Skanska as project managers by direct cabinet decision (which has been criticised for lack of transparency and lack of accountability) we still have no idea how much it would cost when finished, when it will be finished, and how much it would cost to run it`
Can we afford the running expenses of the new outfit, or would its operations mean that universal entitlement to free acute interventions in public service hospitals will have to be foregone`
Coming to head in the last week of October such matters unavoidably raise nostalgia of what it could have been if the Labour government, elected so handsomely eight years ago, were to be still in power now approaching the end of its second term. One could blame Labour for many shortcomings and indeed I question the wisdom of the decision it took to extend the inherited San Raffaele project to amalgamate both operations of San Raffaele and St Luke`s Hospital into one operation eventually re-named Mater Dei. Having one operations rather than two separate ones makes economic sense but I still think that it would have been better to focus such unified operation in a re-defined and gradually re-developed and extended St Lukes rather than at Mater Dei. I would have much preferred if a line was drawn under the inherited San Raffaele until one could decide what exactly one could make of it.
What`s for sure however, is that a Labour Government would have never signed a contract like the one Skanska have, permitting them legal comfort to humiliate our Prime Minister.` A labour government would never have accepted to pay off people sending them home in early retirement changing a ` Repubblika mibnja fuq ix-xoghol` into a `Repubblika mibnija fuq il-hela`.
Confidently I would say that given more time a Labour government would have addressed the deficit problem which still haunts us till today and would have saved us the horrifying accumulation of debt that we have incurred since 1998. It would have strengthened our tourism and gave us a strong economy that would have been much better prepared to face the challenges of EU membership and the Euro.
But that is water under the bridge. Eight years after its 1996 victory, Labour is still languishing in its sixth consecutive year in opposition under failed leadership. The consequences of not just a reckless government but also of an uninspiring opposition, find tangible explanation in the Mater Dei mess which seems to benefit only its supply contractors.
No comments:
Post a Comment