The Problem with the Holy Book -- Il-Problema bil-Ktieb il-Qaddis

 

I'm referring to the book, or collection of writings, that is used as a reference, or even the completely exclusive basis, for a system of beliefs, or religion.

 

Earlier this month, I re-read a statement by the Taliban, the extremist Islamist group, in 2011 when they had condemned a woman to stoning after being accused of adultery.  A Taliban representative then had stated that those who know Islam know that stoning is in the Koran and Islamic law.1

 

Now according to Islamic scholars, this is not strictly correct.  It is said that verses in the Koran on stoning (rajam) did exist but were removed with time.  Today, stoning is only mentioned in the Hadit,2 which is a collection of declarations and traditions attributed to the Prophet Mohammed by his followers, and held as authoritative second only to the Koran, as the latter was written by Mohammed himself.

 

Those who are Islamic conservatives, that is those who believe that the Holy Book and its traditional interpretation are perfect and the final word on any subject, and that there is no need for any dialogue with other experiences or moral or ethical witness from around the world, conclude that those guilty of adultery have to be stoned.  The Taliban are just one example of people that genuinely believe so.

 

Those who are Islamic liberals, that is those who believe that the Holy Book needs to be interpreted and re-interpreted according to human sensibilities and up-to-date accumulated wisdom, and not only rely on the first intepretation that had been accepted as authoritive in that moral system, conclude that there are so many conditions that are mentioned in the Hadit, that that sentence in practice should never be given.

 

This is an example of the problem that I see - that those who are conservative, in any religion, will never be able to have a relationship on the basis of equality with people of other faiths.  They will always think that their moral system is perfect and therefore superior to that of others, and that there  is nothing to learn from anybody else, or from universal values.  Therefore, if there is something bad or even doubtful in their faith, or in the interpretation of what is written in the Holy Book, this is never acknowledged, let alone fixed.

 

This stoning topic is but one example, and not limited to Islam.  In the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament, there is a whole list of acts the penalty for which is stoning, including rebellion against parents!  In practice, this sentence was no longer applied as the power to apply capital punishment was removed by the Romans in the year 30 A.D., and furthermore as this punishment could only be given in the Jewish Temple (Sanhedrin) which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., to this day this is impossible to be applied.

 

Therefore the Jews avoid saying that it is a mistake to put people to death by stoning, as this is prescribed by the Holy Book for certain acts, and therefore clearly good, but the sentence cannot be applied any more.3

 

The Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, and therefore do not accept his moral message when he stopped the stoning of the adulteress, telling the crowd that those without sin could throw the first stone.4  This is not dependent upon Jesus, it could have been anyone, but for the Jews, as it was written in the Holy Book, therefore this is God's will.

 

Whichever way I look at it, I always conclude that unless and until you look outside of your belief system, if you assume that you've already found the Truth and there is nothing more to learn except more knowledge on your own beliefs, you will never realise the occasions when aspects of the belief are not that inspired after all, even if inscribed in the Holy Book you so fervently believe in.

 

Thank God, today people's sensibilities in society has developed so that it is rare to meet someone who believes that such a brutal punishment is appropriate.  On this topic of stoning, Christians generally don't believe so, although it is easier to find some who justify capital punishment for criminal acts, notwithstanding the commandment 'thou shalt not kill'.

 

For those who are Christian (and that includes myself), it's easy to point a finger at practices of other traditions, like stoning, beheadings, whipping, genital mutilation etc some of which may be justified by others through their Holy Book, and say that sensitivities today do not permit these practices.  This is easy, as these practices are not prescribed in our Holy Book (the Bible) when considered in its totality.

 

It is much more difficult for Christians to look at teachings based on our Holy Book, and recognise a few which jar against other sensibilities that are developing in society today.  Perhaps these sensibilities might not be as extreme as the ones mentioned before, however they have their importance.

 

One example is the role of women being considered secondary to that of men.  Notwithstanding all the words of praise towards women, as a reaction to the sensibilities of society to women's equality, much of the Christian church at the end of the day still quotes from the Bible or faith tradition to maintain its paternalistic attitude, and exclude women from the most important roles in its structure.

 

Another example is its teachings on homosexuality, where it is expected that since St Paul was vehemently against gays, therefore Christians should be like him.  It's true that today it is said that homesexuals should be respected, but at the end of the day if they do what comes naturally to them, they are still considered to have sinned.  Sensibilities on this topic to the situation of homesexuals have developed much more than this in Western countries.

 

When we use our eyes to look at other traditions, and provide commentary according to our values, and expect others to change their beliefs and/or practices, it is similarly useful to talk to others with an open and sincered dialogue and listen to their comments about us with an open heart, and ourselves be open to be influenced in our beliefs and/or practices.

 

It is far too common for us to use Jesus' words 'I am the way, the truth and the life' to erect walls, stop listening and start preaching only.  Nevertheless, I do note that attitudes are changing, and people are becoming more open to new ideas than ever before, and this is a good thing, in my opinion.

 

The search for truth is an attitude of life.

 

How can we expect others to do what we are not ready to consider doing ourselves?

 

 

--------------------------------

 

Qed nirreferi għall-ktieb (jew kollezzjoni ta' kitbiet) li jintuża bħala referenza, jew bażi anke kompletament esklussiva, għal sistema ta' twemminiet, jew reliġjon.

 

Iktar kmieni dan ix-xahar, erġajt qrajt stqarrija li kienu ħarġu t-Talibani, il-grupp estremist Islamiku,  fil-2011 meta kienu kkundannaw mara għall-mewt bit-tħaġġir fuq akkuża ta' adulterju.  Rappreżentant tat-Talibani dakinhar kien qal li dawk li jafu fuq l-Islam jafu li t-tħaġġir huwa fil-Koran u fil-liġi Islamika.1

 

Issa skont studjużi tal-Islam, din mhix strettament korretta.  Jingħad li kien jeżisti vers fil-Koran fuq it-tħaġġir (rajam) li iżda tneħħa matul iż-żmien.  Illum it-tħaġġir għadu jissemma biss fil-Ħadit,2 li hija ġabra ta' stqarrijiet u tradizzjonijiet attribwiti lill-Profeta Mawmettu mis-segwaċi tiegħu, u miżmuma bħala awtorità sekondarja biss għall-Koran, għax dan tal-aħħar inkiteb minn Mawmettu nnifsu.

 

Dawk li huma konservattivi fl-Islam, jiġifieri dawk li jemmnu li l-Ktieb Qaddis u l-interpretazzjoni tradizzjonali tiegħu huma perfetti u l-aħħar kelma fuq kwalunkwe suġġett, u li m'hemm l-ebda bżonn ta' djalogu ma' esperjenzi u xhieda morali u etiċi oħra madwar id-dinja, jikkonkludu li dawk ħatja tal-adulterju għandhom jitħaġġru.  It-Talibani huma eżempju biss wieħed ta' nies li ġenwinament jemmnu hekk.

 

Dawk li huma liberali fl-Islam, jiġifieri dawk li jemmnu li l-Ktieb Qaddis irid jiġi interpretat u re-interpretat skont is-sensibbiltajiet umani u l-għerf tal-bniedem akkumulat sa dakinhar, u ma toqgħodx biss fuq l-ewwel interpretazzjoni li ġiet aċċettata bħala awtorevoli f'dik is-sistema morali, jikkonkludu li tant hemm kundizzjonijiet li jissemmew fil-Ħadit, li dik is-sentenza fil-prattika qatt m'għandha tingħata.

 

Dan huwa eżempju tal-problema li nara jien - li dawk li huma konservattivi, ta' kwalunkwe reliġjon, qatt ma jaslu biex ikollhom relazzjoni fuq livell ta' ugwaljanza ma' nies ta' twemmin ieħor.  Dejjem jaħsbu li s-sistema morali tagħhom hija perfetta u għalhekk superjuri fuq dik ta' ħaddieħor, u li m'għandhom xejn x'jitgħallmu minn ħaddieħor, jew minn valuri universali.  Għalhekk, jekk hemm xi ħaġa ħażina jew anke dubjuża fit-twemmin tagħhom, jew fl-interpretazzjoni ta' dak li hemm miktub fil-Ktieb il-Qaddis, din lanqas qatt ma tiġi rikonoxxuta, aħseb u ara rranġata.

 

Din tat-tħaġġir hija biss eżempju wieħed, u mhux limitat għall-Islam.  Fit-Torah, l-ewwel ħames kotba tal-Bibbja Lhudija u t-Testment l-Antik tal-Insara, hemm lista sħiħa ta' atti li għalihom il-piena hija l-mewt, inkluż ir-ribelljoni kontra l-ġenituri!  Fil-prattika, din is-sentenza ma baqgħetx tingħata għaliex il-poter li tingħata l-piena kapitali tneħħiet mir-Rumani fis-sena 30 w.K., u peress li setgħet tingħata biss fit-Tempju tal-Lhud (is-Sanhedrin) li twaqqa' mir-Rumani fis-sena 70 w.K. sar impossibbli sallum li jitwettaq iktar.

 

Għalhekk il-Lhud jevitaw li jgħidu li huwa żbaljat li jingħata l-mewt bit-tħaġġir, għax dan huwa preskritt mill-Ktieb Imqaddes għal ċerti atti, u għalhekk bilfors tajjeb, imma s-sentenza ma tistax tingħata aktar.3

 

Il-Lhud ma aċċettawx lil Ġesù bħala l-Messija tagħhom, u għalhekk ma jaċċetawx il-messaġġ morali tiegħu meta waqqaf lill-folla milli tħaġġar lill-adultera, u qal lill-folla li min hu bla dnub jitfa' l-ewwel ġebla.4  Mhux għax kien Ġesù, seta' kien min kien, imma għal-Lhud, ladarba huwa miktub fil-Ktieb il-Qaddis, allura ġej minn Alla, u dik ir-rieda tiegħu.

 

Iddur fejn iddur, dejjem nasal għall-konklużjoni li sakemm ma tħarisx 'il barra mit-twemmin tiegħek, jekk int tassumi li l-Verità diġà sibtha u ma baqa' xejn iktar x'titgħallem ħlief iktar tagħrif fuq it-twemmin tiegħek stess, m'intix se tinduna meta t-twemmin tiegħek mhux daqshekk ispirat wara kollox, anke jekk hu mnaqqax fil-Ktieb il-Qaddis li temmen tant fih.

 

Għall-grazzja t'Alla, illum is-sensibbiltà tan-nies fis-soċjetà żviluppat tant li huwa rari li tiltaqa' ma' min jemmen f'kastig hekk brutali.  F'dan l-aspett tat-tħaġġir, min hu Nisrani ġeneralment ma jemminx f'dan, għalkemm iktar faċli ssib minnhom li jiġġustifikaw l-piena kapitali għal atti kriminali, anke jekk jeżisti l-kmandament 'la toqtolx'.

 

Għal min hu Nisrani (u jien wieħed minnhom), hu faċli li jipponta subajh lejn prattiki ta' tradizzjonijiet oħra, bħat-tħaġġir, il-qtugħ ir-ras, is-swat, il-mutilazzjoni ġenitali eċċ li jistgħu jiġu ġġustifikati minn uħud mill-Kotba Mqaddsa tagħhom, u jgħid li s-sensibbiltà ta' daż-żmien ma jippermettux dawn il-prattiċi.  Hu faċli, għax dawn il-prattiċi mhumiex preskritti mill-Ktieb Imqaddes tagħna (il-Bibbja) meta jitqies fit-totalità tiegħu.

 

Huwa ħafna iktar diffiċli għal min hu Nisrani li jħares lejn tagħlim li hu bbażat fuq il-Ktieb Imqaddes tagħna, u jinduna li wħud minnhom jiżgarraw ma' sensibbiltajiet oħra li qed jiżviluppaw fis-soċjetà tallum.  Forsi dawn is-sensibbiltajiet mhumiex estremi bħal li semmejt qabel, imma għandhom l-importanza tagħhom.

 

Eżempju wieħed huwa r-rwol tal-mara li jitqies li hu sekondarju għal dak tar-raġel.  Minkejja l-ħafna kliem ta' tifħir lejn il-mara, b'reazzjoni għal din is-sensibbiltà tas-soċjetà lejn l-ugwaljanza tal-mara, parti kbira mill-Knisja Nisranija tibqa' fl-aħħar mill-aħħar tikkwota mill-Bibbja jew mit-tradizzjoni biex iżżomm mal-attitudni paternalista tagħha, u teskludi 'l mara mir-rwoli l-iktar importanti fl-istruttura tagħha.

 

Eżempju ieħor huwa t-tagħlim fuq l-omosesswali, fejn huwa mistenni li ladarba San Pawl kien kontra l-omosesswali b'qawwa, allura l-Insara għandhom ikunu bħalu.  Veru li illum jingħad li l-omosesswali għandhom ikollhom ir-rispett tal-poplu, imma fl-aħħar mill-aħħar jekk jagħmlu dak li jiġi naturali għalihom, xorta jiġu meqjusin li qed iwettqu dnub.  Is-sensibbiltà tal-poplu għas-sitwazzjoni tal-omosesswali żviluppat ħafna iktar minn hekk fil-pajjiżi tal-Punent.

 

Meta nużaw għajnejna biex inħarsu lejn tradizzjonijiet oħra u nikkummentaw fuqhom skont il-valuri tagħna, u nippretendu lil ħaddieħor li jibdel it-twemmin u/jew il-prattiċi tiegħu, tajjeb ukoll li nitkellmu ma' ħaddieħor b'djalogu sinċier u nisimgħu il-kummenti tiegħu fuqna b'qalb miftuħa, u nkunu aħna wkoll lesti li nkunu influwenzati fit-twemmin u/jew il-prattiċi tagħna.

 

Spiss wisq nużaw il-kliem ta' Ġesu 'jien hu t-triq, il-verità u l-ħajja' biex intellgħu s-swar, nieqfu nisimgħu u nibdew nippridkaw biss.  Madankollu, ninnota li l-attitudnijiet anke f'dan il-qasam qed jinbidlu, u n-nies qed isiru iktar miftuħa għal idejat ġodda minn qatt qabel, u din hija, fl-opinjoni tiegħi, ħaġa tajba.

 

It-tiftix tal-verità hija attitudni tal-ħajja.  

Kif nistgħu nistennew lil ħaddieħor jagħmel dak li m'aħniex lesti nagħmlu aħna?

 

 

1http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36236567, retrieved 17/5/2016

2http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_quranic_verse_on_stoning, retrieved 17/5/2016

3http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-death-penalty-in-jewish-tradition/#, retrieved 17/5/2016

4John 8:7

1http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36236567, retrieved 17/5/2016

2http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_quranic_verse_on_stoning, retrieved 17/5/2016

3http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-death-penalty-in-jewish-tradition/#, retrieved 17/5/2016

4John 8:7

The Panama Papers and Politics -- Il-Panama Papers u l-Politika

 

These few weeks saw the 'news' of the revelation of almost a quarter of a million offshore entities.  These had been established by a legal company in Panama, Mossack Fonseca, over the course of forty years.  The documents were revealed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.1

 

To see why this is relevant, we have to understand what is offshore and why it's used.  The International Monetary Fund says that a financial centre is called 'offshore' when it resides in a jurisdiction where business is undertaken primarily by entities that are not resident, where the value of transactions and/or assets (like property) is much higher than necessary for domestic (resident) use, and where the centres offer one or more of the following features: low (or zero) tax, next to no financial regulation, banking secrecy and anonymity.2

 

Panama is one of these centres.  Another is actually Malta, where this industry was established by the Nationalist government in the eighties.  After Malta joined the EU, it was asked, and accepted, to modify some related rules which were deemed to be of detriment.3  Nevertheless, today the offshore industry in Malta is still strong, so much so that the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) estimates that in 2014, 56% of assets held by banks in Malta are held by those that don't have a connection to the domestic economy.4  This proportion is declining year upon year, so today the MFSA says that the industry has gone onshore.

 

There are legitimate reasons why one has accounts in jurisdictions outside of his residence, however it is accepted that the main reason that wealthy individuals or commercial companies do so is to reduce, or eliminate, the tax they pay.  One way this is done is for the owner of economic activity in a high tax country to seem to reside in a low tax country.

 

Another way is for the owner or owners of an incorporated company to be hidden, where replacement directors and even shareholders are nominated, so that the ultimate beneficiaries are invisible.  In this way, economic activity can be hidden from authorities.  What has happened with the documents from Mossack Fonseca is that the ultimate beneficiaries were revealed, and these included prime ministers and other well known persons, which has caused pandemonium around the world.

 

The amount of funds involved globally in this industry is astronomical.  One estimate by the economist Gabriel Zucman is that $7.6 trillion, representing 8% of global wealth, is held in offshore centres, and that the unpaid tax is of the order of $190 billion every year.5

 

To retain a sense of how big this story is, consider that Mossack Fonseca is only the fourth largest legal company setting up offshore entities in the world.  One can only wonder what's being hidden by the other three larger legal companies!

 

Every so often, there is a commotion when the case of a multinational, such as Google or Apple, is heard, who pay a very small percentage of their income as tax, due to their intricate use of these offshore centres.  These companies always defend themselves as abiding strictly by the law.  The tragedy is that many of them are right, as the US President remarked recently, much of what is done  is legal, not illegal.6

 

And who makes the laws?  Is it not members of parliament, in parliament?  And what are they doing to resolve the problem?

 

Very little.  Too little.  It's difficult to avoid the impression that things stand where they are as those with the power to do something, that is members of parliament, prefer everything to remain the same.  Perhaps it's to their advantage, and those that have the confidence and connections to organise meetings to influence their decision making.

 

Those that live by their pay cheque don't gain anything with the offshore system, because as we know their income is tax reduced at source before the cheque is even received.  The ones to gain are the individuals and commercial institutions whose income tax depends only upon the yearly tax return, and who structure their finances so that their wealth is stored away from where the economic activity is undertaken.  For those on a wage, this is not even possible.

 

I smiled while reading a debate that happened in Malta recently on this subject, after it was revealed that some members of the government were mentioned in the Panama Papers.  Plenty of words were said about the immorality and lack of wisdom their actions entailed, however I think the main point was missed.  If their action is so reprehensible, why isn't there a law against it?

 

There's nothing stopping members of parliament of any country from passing laws in the national interest, as they are supposed to be doing.  There's nothing stopping governments from working together to resolve this problem, which reflects the global nature of the problem.  There's nothing stopping the opposition from setting aside partisan politics and support government-proposed legislation in this regard.  Why hasn't this happened so far?

 

There are signs that this cooperation has started.  For example, in the latest meetings of the Group of 20 most advanced economies, the G20, a project entitled BEPS was prominent which seeks to keep multinational companies from artificially reducing profits in one country to transfer them elsewhere.  In Australia this week also the government has just announced a substantial increase in resourcing for the tax department to follow this subject.  I'm just surprised how governments around the world, which have lost and still are losing so much revenue, have left this situation persist for so long.

 

I often write about being disillusioned with our representatives in the parliaments of where we reside.  Who are they really representing?  Why is there a law applicable for the wealthy and strong, and another for the rest?

 

We need to make wise choices in elections!

 

-----------------------------------

 

 

Dawn l-aħħar ġimgħat kellna l-'aħbar' li ġew żvelati dokumenti fuq kważi kwart ta' miljun entitajiet offshore.  Dawn l-entitajiet kienu stabbiliti minn kumpannija legali fil-Panama, Mossack Fonseca, fuq medda ta' erbgħin sena.  Dawn id-dokumenti ġew żvelati mill-International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.1

 

Biex naraw għalfejn dan kollu hu relevanti, irridu nifhmu x'inhu l-offshore u għalfejn jintuża.  L-International Monetary Fund tgħid li ċentru finanzjarju jissejjaħ offshore meta jkun parti minn ġurisdizzjoni fejn in-negozju jsir primarjament minn entitajiet li mhumiex residenti, fejn il-valur tat-transazzjonijiet u/jew tal-assi (bħall-proprjetà) huma ħafna ikbar minn dawk għal skopijiet domestiċi (residenti), u fejn dawn iċ-ċentri joffru xi waħda jew iktar minn taxxi baxxi (jew żero), ftit li xejn regoli finanzjarji, segretezza bankarja u anonimità.2

 

Panama hija waħda minn dawn iċ-ċentri.  Oħra hija fil-fatt Malta, fejn din l-industrija ġiet stabbilita minn gvern Nazzjonalista fis-snin tmenin.  Wara li Malta ssieħbet fl-UE, ġiet mitluba, u aċċettat, li timmodifika xi regoli relatati li kienu miżmuma li kienu ta' ħsara.3  Madankollu, illum l-industrija offshore ta' Malta għadha b'saħħitha, tant hu hekk li l-Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) tistima li fl-2014, 56% tal-assi miżmuma minn banek f'Malta huma miżmuma minn dawk li m'għandhomx konnessjoni mal-ekonomija domestika.4      Dan il-proporzjon qed jonqos sena b'sena, għalhekk illum l-MFSA tgħid li l-industrija marret onshore.

 

Hemm raġunijiet leġittimi għalfejn wieħed ikollu kontijiet f'ġurisdizzjoni barra mir-residenza tiegħu, madankollu huwa aċċettat li r-raġuni prinċipali li individwi għonja jew kumpanniji kummerċjali jagħmlu dan ikun biex inaqqsu, jew jeliminaw, it-taxxi li jħallsu.  Mezz wieħed kif dan isir huwa billi s-sid ta' attività ekonomika f'pajjiż ta' taxxa għolja ikun jidher li għandu residenza f'pajjiż b'taxxi baxxi.  

 

Mezz ieħor hu li s-sid jew sidien tal-kumpannija inkorporata jkunu moħbija, fejn diretturi u anke dawk li jżommu l-ishma ikunu nominati, ħalli s-sidien aħħarija ma jidhrux.  B'dan il-mod, l-attività ekonomika tista' tiġi moħbija mill-awtoritajiet.  Li ġara bid-dokumenti minn Mossack Fonseca kien li ġew mikxufin s-sidien aħħarija ta' dawn il-kumpanniji offshore, u dan kien jinkludi prim ministri u nies magħrufin oħra, li qajjem kjass madwar id-dinja.

 

L-ammont ta' flus involuti globalment f'din l-industrija huwa astronomiku.  Stima waħda minn ekonomista jismu Gabriel Zucman hija li $7.6 triljun, li jirrappreżenta 8% tal-ġid globali, huwa miżmum fiċ-ċentri offshore, u li l-ammont ta' taxxa iffrankati huwa ta' madwar $190 biljun fis-sena.5

 

Biex iżżomm sens ta' kemm din il-ħaġa hija kbira, biżżejjed tiftakar li l-Mossack Fonseca hija biss ir-raba' l-akbar kumpannija legali offshore fid-dinja.  Wieħed biss jista' jimmaġina x'qed jiġi mistur mit-tliet kumpanniji legali offshore li huma ikbar!

 

Kull tant żmien, ikun hemm għagħa meta jinstema xi każ ta' kumpannija multinazzjonali, bħal Google jew Apple, li globalment iħallsu persentaġġ żgħir ħafna tal-introjtu tagħhom bħala taxxa, permezz tal-użu intrikat ta' dawn iċ-ċentri offshore.  Dawn il-kumpanniji dejjem jiddefendu ruħom li qed jimxu skrupolożament skont il-liġi.  Id-disgrazzja l-kbira hi li ħafna minnhom għandhom raġun, għax bħal ma qal il-President Amerikan Barack Obama ftit ilu, ħafna minn dak li jsir huwa legali, mhux illegali.6

U l-liġijiet min jagħmilhom?  Mhux membri tal-parlament, fil-parlament?  U dawn x'qed jagħmlu biex isolvu l-problema?

 

Ftit li xejn.  Ftit wisq.  Diffiċli li wieħed jevita l-impressjoni li l-affarijiet huma kif inhuma għax min għandu s-setgħa li jagħmel xi ħaġa, jiġifieri l-membri tal-parlament, jippreferu li jibqa' kollox kif inhu.  Forsi jaqbel lilhom, u lil min għandu l-kunfidenza u midħla biżżejjed li jorganizza laqgħat  biex jinfluenza d-deċiżjonijiet tagħhom.

 

Dawk li jgħixu bil-paga ma jiggwadanjaw xejn bis-sistema tal-offshore, għax bħal ma nafu l-introjtu tagħhom jitnaqqaslu t-taxxa tad-dħul qabel lanqas biss ma jkunu rċevew iċ-ċekk.  Jiggwadanjaw dawk l-individwi u istituzzjonijiet kummerċjali li t-taxxa fuq l-introjtu tagħhom tiddependi biss fuq dak li jiddikjaraw fil-karta tat-taxxa tagħhom darba fis-sena, u li jagħżlu li jirristrutturaw il-finanzi tagħhom biex il-ġid tagħhom jiġi maħżun 'il bogħod minn fejn issir l-attività ekonomika.  Għal min hu bil-paga, din il-ħaġa lanqas tista' ssir.

 

Tbissimt naqra ftit id-dibattitu li sar Malta fuq dan is-suġġett riċentement, wara li ġie żvelat li xi membri tal-gvern issemmew fid-dokumenti li ħarġu minn Panama.  Sar diskors fuq l-immoralità u n-nuqqas ta' għaqal tal-aġir tagħhom, imma għalija il-punt huwa ieħor.  Ma jidher li hemm xejn illegali f'dak li għamlu.  Jekk l-aġir tagħhom huwa tant repreħensibbli, għalfejn m'hemmx liġi kontrih?

 

M'hemm xejn iżomm lill-membri tal-parlament ta' kwalunkwe pajjiż milli jgħaddu liġijiet fl-interess tal-pajjiż, kif suppost li qed jagħmlu.  M'hemm xejn li jżomm lill-gvernijiet milli jaħdmu flimkien biex isibu soluzzjoni globali, li tirrifletti n-natura globali tal-problema.  M'hemm xejn li jżomm lil opposizzjoni milli twarrab il-partiġġjaniżmu u tappoġġja riforma proposta tal-gvern f'dan il-qasam.  Għalfejn s'issa dan ma sarx?

 

Hemm sinjali li din il-kooperazzjoni bdiet ssir.  Per eżempju, fl-aħħar laqgħat tal-Grupp tal-għoxrin pajjiż l-iktar żviluppati, il-G20, kien prominenti proġett imsejjaħ BEPS li jfittex li jżomm lil kumpanniji multinazzjonali milli jkunu jistgħu artifiċjalment jnaqqsu l-profitti f'pajjiż wieħed biex jittrasferuhom f'ieħor.  Fl-Awstralja wkoll din il-ġimgħa l-gvern ħabbar żieda sostanzjali fir-riżorsi tad-dipartiment tat-taxxa biex isegwu dan is-suġġett.  Jien niskanta kif il-gvernijiet ta' madwar id-dinja, li tilfu u qiegħdin jitilfu tant introjtu, ħallew din is-sitwazzjoni sseħħ għal tant tul ta' żmien.

 

Spiss nikteb li ninsab disilluż minn dawk li jirrappreżentawna fil-parlamenti ta' fejn noqogħdu.  Lil min verament qiegħdin jirrappreżentaw?  Għalfejn hemm liġi għal min hu għani u b'saħħtu, u liġi oħra għall-bqija?

 

Għandna bżonn nagħmlu għażliet bl-għaqal fl-elezzjonijiet!

 

 

 

 

 

 

1https://panamapapers.icij.org/blog/20160403-key-findings.html, retrieved 2/5/2016

2https://www.imf.org/external/np/mae/oshore/2000/eng/back.htm#II, retrieved 2/5/2016

3http://www.lowtax.net/information/malta/malta-offshore-business-sectors.html, retrieved 2/5/2016

4MFSA Annual Report 2014, p20

5https://theintercept.com/2016/04/05/heres-the-price-countries-pay-for-tax-evasion-exposed-in-panama-papers/, retrieved 2/5/2016

6http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/justice-department-panama-papers-mossack-fonseca-us-investigation, retrieved 2/5/2016

1https://panamapapers.icij.org/blog/20160403-key-findings.html, retrieved 2/5/2016

2https://www.imf.org/external/np/mae/oshore/2000/eng/back.htm#II, retrieved 2/5/2016

3http://www.lowtax.net/information/malta/malta-offshore-business-sectors.html, retrieved 2/5/2016

4MFSA Annual Report 2014, p20

5https://theintercept.com/2016/04/05/heres-the-price-countries-pay-for-tax-evasion-exposed-in-panama-papers/, retrieved 2/5/2016

6http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/05/justice-department-panama-papers-mossack-fonseca-us-investigation, retrieved 2/5/2016