21 - 27 June 2001

On rights and responsibilities

From trying to bring the mighty to their knees, to trying to bring society’s
victims back on their feet, Anglu Fenech has seen his fair share of successes and failures. But what makes the erstwhile general secretary of the General Workers’ Union tick? Kevin Drake gets to grips with the ex-Union “strongman” and tries to discover what are the ingredients guaranteeing success in that particular part of the working world

Anglu. Many people only seem to remember you from your General Workers’ Union days. What is it that you do today?
I’m working with Caritas, running the administrative side of things. That includes fundraising, liasing with government and business, driving, sweeping the floors if needs be (smiles). I do whatever needs to be done.

Was this a career opportunity or a vocational decision?
I was always deeply involved in welfare committees in the GWU and was chairman of the MLP welfare committee for 16 years. A dedication to other people’s welfare is in itself a vocation I suppose.

In these past five years, Caritas has acquired a new reputation: for efficiency and for getting things done properly. Has that been your doing?
Caritas has grown substantially and so the administrative structures need to grow with it. We now employ 55 full-time employees. That’s a quarter of a million liri per annum in salaries alone (apart from all our other expenses). We only receive a very small subsidy. Fortunately my years at the GWU
created very long-lasting bonds with members of the government and opposition as well as with many businessmen. These relationships have been built on strong mutual respect. It also means that today I can still knock on people’s doors and assistance will be forthcoming.

Let’s go back a few years. As President and then secretary general of the GWU you were also a member of the Cabinet of ministers for some time (1985-1987). What was that period like?
It was a big responsibility for me. I always spoke very openly and always had the interests of the working classes as my top priority. My motto was (and still is) that “Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand”. It is something I tried to instil at all levels, including Cabinet. One of the principal benefits of Karmenu (Mifsud Bonnici)’s administration was that decisions at Cabinet level were taken by consensus and not by majority vote. This meant that on those occasions where the GWU did not agree with the measures being proposed by government, those measures were modified until deemed acceptable or else axed completely.

Were you proud to be a member of Cabinet? Those were very “difficult” years weren’t they?
I was very proud to be a part of the team that was administering the country. Yes, there were many difficult moments that I was involved in. The Egyptair hijack, the tal-Barrani incidents, the death of Raymond Caruana. I remember Cabinet meetings, especially then, as being very sober affairs. No-one, nobody took these events lightly. Extremely difficult decisions had to be taken, more-so in the light of the political tension that was running rife in the country. Nevertheless, I still feel that decisions were ultimately all taken in good faith and in the best interest of the country. Cabinet, though, wasn’t just about “difficult” moments. Other important and challenging issues needed to be addressed constantly: Jobs, housing, education, what funds to allocate where, which are the priorities to address, and so on. It was a very important time in my life and I’d willingly go through it again.

From running the country to running an NGO. Isn’t that a bit of an anti-climax?
You can’t make comparisons as regards size. Nevertheless, there are still similar principles that are called into play. At Caritas I tried to impose a greater sense of professionalism. I’ve tried to create a greater awareness with regards to avoiding wastage so as to minimise losses.

Are you very careful when it comes to money?
When it’s other people’s money, I’m obsessively careful. With my own money, not at all! (laughs). I’ve always handed my paycheck directly over to my wife, fully confident that she’ll use it well. Back at the Union they would call me “Mintoff” or “miser” because I was so careful when it came to money! If it’s other people’s money you’re handling, you should use it as diligently as possible. Whenever I had to take decisions regarding financial matters I would always consult extensively with the experts before making any move.

Do you place a lot of importance upon the advice of others?
If I have faith in that person, yes. At the GWU I had a sort of “think-tank” that I would consult on all matters. This included Edgar Mizzi, Frans Spiteri, Lino Spiteri, George Abela, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Alfred Mifsud, among others.

Have financial considerations always been high on your list of
priorities?
Naturally. Be it a union, be it an NGO, whatever, you needs funds to work with. If you don’t have a steady injection of cash coming in, you need to generate that income yourself. At the GWU we were employing 177 full-time employees with a salary bill approaching Lm900,000 per annum. Members fees only amounted to Lm250,000. The balance had to come from the Union’s business concerns. I’ve always stressed the need to be efficient and therefore profitable. When the companies are profitable the workers are able to enjoy better conditions and better salaries.

So in actual fact you were constantly wearing two “hats”: Union man and employee?
It was a very hard balancing act. I always backed management when I felt that disciplinary measures were called for but I always stressed the importance of being fair. It is essential that you are fair and apply the same weights and measures in whatever you do. It’s the same at Caritas. I’ve sometimes had to take certain disciplinary steps, but it’s the exception and not the rule. Caritas is a different kettle of fish altogether. Most of the people who work there are motivated spiritually rather than by considerations of career advancement. Many of the employees put in (unpaid) extra hours all the time whenever they feel that this is necessary. So you obviously have to take all that into consideration.

Are you a very disciplined man?
Yes. With myself and with others. Having said that, I do consider myself to be very fair though. What really makes me “lose it”, however, is when somebody tries to take me for a ride and take advantage of my trust in them. That’s where I really draw the line.

You seem to have a very businesslike approach in what you do. How did that work out in the GWU?
I think that it’s very important to be realistic in whatever you do. You need to keep your feet firmly on the ground and make distinctions where necessary. You can’t expect an employer to come up with exorbitant wage increases that he can’t possibly afford. On the other hand you can’t be expected to sit idly when you come across gross discrepancies in wage increases being afforded to particular workers and not to others. The parastatal companies are a case in point. Certain parastatal companies are giving their workers large increases, others are being very stingy. I believe that there should be one model for all parastatal companies’ collective agreements; at least with regards to wages and basic conditions.

That seems to be an issue rearing its head at present. Are there other issues of that ilk that you feel strongly about?
The fringe benefits tax irks me no end. Without going into the merits of whether it’s good or bad, it’s the timing that leaves a lot to be desired. You can’t justify the introduction of that tax when you’ve just given hefty wage increases to all your top civil servants, the Prime Ministers, ministers, and other increases all over the place. You complain about the deficit but you increase the wages of a particular segment of the workforce and you tax another part of the workforce to make good for those increases. It just doesn’t look good.

Is it all about “styles” and perception then?
No. But perception is important. I’m convinced that people will willingly go along with you and make sacrifices so long they are convinced that you are genuine and sincere and that what you are doing or proposing is in their best interest. If I were a party leader heading towards an election, I would not avoid dealing with the fact that the country’s financial situation is far from healthy. I definitely wouldn’t appear on TV time and again saying how great everything is and talk of progress being registered everywhere either. The man in the street is no fool and he can tell the difference between fact and fiction. I would present myself to the electorate, clearly outlining all the problems as I see them, proposing all the remedies that need to be taken, even if this may be construed to be “bitter medicine”. If the people think that this is the right way forward, they’ll elect me, if not, they won’t. Simple as that.

Continues on page 9
Continued from page 8

Haven’t you ever been tempted to contest elections at party level?
Never. I could never stand the thought of being a party “candidate” and all the pressures that this involves. I’m the sort of person that would resign from politics immediately if I made a mistake (Laughs). I had been approached millions of times to contest the elections but I never accepted. Dom Mintoff himself had tried to persuade me to contest the party (MLP) leadership once Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici had stepped down. I declined of course. I’ve always believed that once you immerse yourself in politics at party level you begin to lose sight of all objectivity. You start losing the sincerity and the genuineness that can only be sustained as long as you look at things from the “outside”.

Do you miss those days when you were so immersed in the Union and the MLP?
Rather than the party, I would say the Union. And it’s not so much that I “miss” it, in that I still take a very active interest in all that goes on in the GWU and in the trade union sector. Nevertheless, I spent 10 years in the top ranks of the union and I think that that was quite enough.

Were you to have the opportunity to re-live those years, would you still make the same choices and follow the same paths?
Well, at 61 it’s a bit hard to contemplate that thought (smiles). But yes. I would probably do it all again. My conscience is very serene in that regard. I am wholly at peace with myself in the knowledge that all that I’ve done has been directed towards improving the Workers’ lot and bringing the country forward.

You continuously refer to “honesty”, “sincerity”, a “clean conscience”, and so on. Are you obsessed with these notions?
Extremely. And I’ve probably suffered at times because of this fact. I could never stand the thought of doing things unjustly even if they were in the best interest of the Union. I had many a fall-out with colleagues of mine who felt that my fixation with fair-play could have occasionally been a hindrance to the GWU. Nevertheless, I believed and continue to believe that honesty is the one-and-only policy. I would desperately like to see governments function in that way. I would love to see governments commissioning serious inquiries whenever accusations of foul-play are made, even commissioning inquiries that may be led by the opposition! The recent Daewoo business springs to mind, for example. And why not? If you conduct your affairs honestly you have absolutely nothing to hide.

Is honesty the be-all and the end-all, then?
That and other things too. I believe that forgiveness is an extremely important virtue. You need to have the ability to forgive. Dun Victor (Grech) taught me that forgiveness is not just a virtue but it is therapy for you yourself. Once you forgive, you are at peace with your conscience and you are then able to re-build relationships that were destroyed.

Your family owned a bakery. Didn’t you ever have the urge to become a self-employed businessman yourself?
No, never. I started working at the dockyards when I was 16. At that time there were 13,000 people working at the ‘docks. The moment you entered the dry-docks you also joined the GWU. The dockyard workers were the pioneers of social reform and social services and so there was a particular aura about the GWU then. A short while after I entered the ‘docks I became a union shop steward, a post I held for 14 years. After that I was elected on the council of the Metal Workers’ section, the section that was being led by Lorry Sant.

Lorry Sant went on to become a very controversial figure in local politics. What were your views?
Irrespectively of any controversy, I believe that Lorry Sant was an extremely good trade-unionist as well as being a very good minister. He was an incredibly good administrator. A self-made man who always “learnt the ropes” effectively and efficiently. He was also a stickler for discipline and a man who had a very clear idea of what was right and wrong. I think that I learnt a lot from him.

Was he a great influence in your life?
I suppose so. But there were others too. For example, I’ve always tried to combine and internalise the better qualities of both Dom Mintoff and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici: Karmenu’s affable nature and great humanity with Mintoff’s determination and toughness.

Your long “career” in the GWU and the union’s direct association with the Labour governments and ministers would imply that you were a “natural” opposition to the Nationalist governments?
Quite the contrary. Although I had been portrayed that way in the Nationalist press throughout the years, I can confidently say, and in all honesty, that I was never motivated by partisan considerations. When the Nationalists were returned to power in 1987 they tried their utmost to break the GWU. I realised what was going on and so I took an aggressive defiant stance in order to defend the union. Once the boundaries were established and the “rules of the game” accepted, the government soon learnt that you could, in fact, work well with the GWU. I had very good working relationships with many PN ministers. For political reasons, the public rarely got a glimpse of the respect and the cordiality that existed between us (the GWU) and many government ministers. John Dalli was a case in point. I had an excellent working relationship with him, especially with regards to industrial relations. It was very much a question of give-and-take.

So you do believe in compromise?
Of course! Compromise is essential in everything. Life itself is a daily compromise! I think that I am a very flexible person even though others have always tried to portray me in a very different light.

You’re saying that appearances are deceptive?
Let’s just say that you aren’t always the person you appear to be. And I don’t mean it in any negative way. Just to give you an example, if I would be addressing a mass meeting at the drydocks, my stance would be very aggressive, tough and militant. If, however, I would be addressing bank clerical staff, it would be a different “me” altogether. The same thing happened between me and John Dalli in the press. More often than not there would be “squabbles” between us appearing regularly in the papers. These would paint a very different picture from the very gentlemanly relationship that we had. These public squabbles, though, helped to silence the critics within our own ranks who would accuse us of being “lap-dogs” if we appeared to be getting too “cosy” with the other side.

Does that mean that you have to be a chameleon?
(Laughs) No! I’m not a chameleon! You just need to adapt yourself to the circumstances you find yourself in. Take the union’s newspapers, for example. The l-orizzont and the it-Torca have always been accused of being heavily pro-MLP. Of course they are pro-Labour! It’s logical. Knowing that the majority of the GWU’s rank-and-file come from a Labour background it makes business sense to orient the newspapers that way. If I had taken any decision to make the newspaper “independent” who, then, would I sell the newspapers to? You need to adapt to your
circumstances.

The commercial considerations come into focus again?
They were, are and always will be very important. As I mentioned earlier, during my term of office as secretary general at the GWU I was extremely conscious of the business side of our operations. I would investigate each and every printing tender we lost to see precisely why we lost it and take remedial action accordingly. When the Gwida was taken away from us (for political motives) I began publishing the Antenna magazine. Very few people know that the Union Press, the Nationalist Party’s press and The Malta Independent were on the verge of forming a commercial company together! The Independence Print and the Union Press were both about to buy new printing machines at the time, costing us around Lm1,500,000 altogether. I came up with an idea that would save us all hundreds of thousands of liri. This “idea” was basically that the two of us, together with Standard Publications, invest in one machine (capable of printing 60,000 copies an hour), and set up a tri-
partite company to run the commercial venture. This was an idea that made heaps of commercial sense. Nevertheless, just as we were about to get things moving someone threw a spanner in the works, so to say. Still, this was another example of how I refused to look at party politics, especially when it came to commercial considerations. People had chided me at the time for wanting to go into a commercial partnership with the Nationalists. My reply was: business is business! Many people at the GWU were also offended when the MLP took a decision to print the KullHadd newspaper at the Times’ press. I didn’t take it at all to heart. I felt that if their choice made more commercial sense, then good luck to them.

Has your way of thinking changed at all over the years?
Definitely. As I said a few moments ago: you need to adjust to your circumstances. My basic principles, however, have not changed. They are what they have always been.

Do you think that “principles”, as such, are still important to people nowadays.
Principles are always very important. They are at the very core of who you are, what you are. I think that the majority of people still hold on to their principles, in one form or another. This number, though, is sadly dwindling. Egoism has taken over and that cannot be a good thing. Although many people seem to subscribe to the idea that the changing of party affiliations is a good thing. I’m a little bit cautious in that regard. The “floating-voter” phenomenon is a good sign of a healthy democracy but it is also very dangerous. The more “floaters” there are, the more political parties will baulk at the thought of doing what is right, what is necessary, because they will be terrified of losing votes.

A “Union” mentality and a “Party” mentality seem to be quite different to each other. Why is that?
A union official’s approaches and goals are far more genuine, far more sincere than those of a politician. Another point that differs
the two is that a trade union acts mostly on behalf of large groups of people and very rarely on behalf of individuals. A politician will focus greatly on “favours” requested by individuals. I myself was personal assistant to (ex-MLP minister) Freddie Micallef for seven years. I really couldn’t hack it. I think that those were the worst seven years of my life! (Laughs)

So if a politician is always held to ransom by the voters, what is a possible solution?
We need a radical change in the way we look at politics. It’s a fact that not always the best people are elected to Parliament. A good public talker might receive thousands of votes while a serious, honest politician might barely scrape through. One solution is to appoint ministers who are not members of parliament. We need to look at the possibility of appointing technocrats as
ministers.

One of my ideal choices would be, for example, Bertie Mizzi as Minister for Industry. There are obvious advantages to this. A technocrat not running for office won’t feel the need to “grant favours”. He (or she) won’t need to constantly appease the public, but simply administer policy. The Prime Minister will have a much greater choice of people when it comes to selecting the right candidate for particular portfolios. The Prime Minister will not be fearful of consequences if a particular minister needs to be removed because there won”t be the threat of the person in question “crossing the floor”. You see? So many advantages!

Do you think that changes are necessary only when it comes to appointing ministers?
No. The presidency is another issue I feel strongly about. If the President of the Republic is someone who is supposed to represent the whole nation, how can we go on appointing people from within the parties’ echelons; Parties that, at best, only represent half the population? In my opinion, one of the most popular and well-respected Presidents that Malta has ever had was Sir Anthony Mamo – a man who was not associated in any way to a political party and was therefore respected and looked-up-to by all and sundry.

Is that it? Select a non-partisan President and all is solved?
No. I think that the President should also be given certain executive powers. If the President of the Republic is appointed by general consensus, then the presidency should also be given the responsibility of administering politically sensitive areas. The Electoral Commission, the Army, the Police force, the Broadcasting Authority.I think that all these “hot potatoes” should fall under the jurisdiction of the presidency.

You mention “consensus” very regularly
There are many areas where it is essential to reach consensus. Very few people know that in Parliament, for example, over 80 per cent of all laws are passed by consensus. It’s those that are not passed in this way that attract the limelight. I also believe that a common policy should be created by both parties with regards to Education, Finances and Health. If both parties were to reach a consensus for a common policy spanning these three essential areas (a 15- or 20-year plan that each party would bind itself to adopt when in power), I’m sure that the country would be in a far better state than it is in now.

For someone who would come across as being immensely belligerent – you always seem to prefer discussion to confrontation; consensus to division. Is that the real “You”?
Definitely. I believe that you are more likely to come to an agreement by sitting around a table than by public confrontation. Every problem or impasse requires a solution. The time that it takes to reach a solution all depends on how you approach the problem. Learning to master the art of compromise is also extremely important. When you compromise you aren’t displaying weakness. Not at all. You’re displaying intelligence. You need to be very smart to know precisely what compromises need to be made for an agreement to be reached. Negotiation is an art in itself. You need to have mastered many different disciplines to negotiate effectively. Take the EU issue for example. Irrespective of whether or not I agree or disagree, I feel that the Maltese government’s negotiations with the EU got off on the wrong footing from the word “Go”. I’m convinced that Malta will have to accept whatever the EU dictates without putting up a fight. It’s logical, because Malta’s bargaining position was weak from the outset. When you spend a number of years openly displaying your great enthusiasm to join a “club” at all costs, you have no bargaining position whatsoever. The people on the other side of the negotiating table are fully aware of your eagerness and so they are in a better position to negotiate on their terms (or subtly “threaten” you with refusal if you raise any objections). In those circumstances you are going to the table as a beggar, with no bargaining arms at your disposal.

What do you think have been your greatest successes to date?
I think that the Union’s biggest success was safeguarding the employment of the 8,000 “irregularly-employed” government workers that the newly elected PN government wanted to dismiss in 1987. It was a particularly remarkable success because, first and foremost, the issue at hand was a very difficult, complex and intricate one. Secondly, I feel that it was a great success because I was able to work out a solution, acceptable to all, whereby the Nationalist government would also save face politically. You must remember that this issue arose immediately in the wake of the 1987 elections. Thousands of PN supporters were clamouring for the prompt dismissal of those 8,000 employees. The government was in a quandary in that it couldn’t appear to be giving in to the GWU so easily after having made that issue such an important thrust of the PN electoral campaign. The long and short of it was that I came up with the concept of the “Irregular Casual Workers” and that was apparently the breakthrough that was needed to unblock the impasse, to everyone’s satisfaction. Being able to successfully negotiate the whole issue and save 8,000 jobs still fills me with a great sense of achievement.

What about disappointments?
The Phoenicia strike. I am still filled with remorse about that. I should have put my foot down and called the industrial action off when my instincts told me to. However, I let myself be persuaded to the contrary and, for all intents and purposes, we lost out. The hotel was closed down and the rest, as they say, is history. My lack of resolve at the time weighs heavily on my conscience till this very day.
Do you manage to relax at all?
When I was still at the GWU, I don’t think so. I had many things to worry about and when I’m worried about something I don’t sleep well at all. When some problem or other is worrying me I’m like an open book. My wife would realise immediately when things were going badly, and she’d worry even more because I wouldn’t want to talk about it. I pay a lot of attention to detail and so that means that many more things are likely to worry me! (Laughs)

Do you find it hard to trust
people?
Nowadays it takes more for me to be able to trust someone fully. In the past I think that I was willing to trust people blindly. That’s why, I suppose, I was stabbed in the back so many times by people who I thought were my friends. I detest those kind of “two-faced” people. I’ve never been able to come to terms with this sort of treachery that some people seem to thrive on.

Are you a perfectionist?
More or less. I like things to be done properly.

And a workaholic?
When I was working at the GWU I was a total workaholic. The moment I left, I was at a complete loss at what to do next. All my life seemed to be revolving around Dun Victor (Grech)’s decision as to whether he wanted me to join Caritas or not. I owe a lot to him. He saved me as a person, both spiritually and physi-cally. If I was left to my own devices at the time, I think that I would have already been four years in the grave. Caritas was my salvation. I first visited Caritas’ San Blas centre in 1988. I was very impressed and, off the cuff, I told Dun Victor that if I ever retired from the Union I’d come to work for him. I kept my word and he took me up on it. Working at Caritas has made me feel 20 years younger. It has given my life such a boost!

What motivates you most?
Helping those who are in need. That, in turn, helps me to sleep well at night. Money has never been my motivation. Ever!

Do you think you would have achieved success in a business context?
I don’t think so. Not with my Union “head” on, anyway. Maybe it’s a heresy, but I believe that you should “Never trust a union man in a business concern” (smiles).

But you yourself ran the Union’0s businesses?
It was markedly different. I suppose that the end-decisions were ultimately mine – but more often than not I always left things in the hands of the managers and rarely ever interfered.

Do you see yourself as a being good manager?
Yes. Because I believe in discipline and I believe that “Rights” and “Responsibilities” go hand in hand.

What do you think are your greatest assets?
I hate talking about myself. But I think that my only two virtues are my honesty and my sincerity

And capabilities?
I can manage, I can deliver and I keep my word.

What’s the best advice you’ve ever been given?
Lino Spiteri and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici instilled two important values in me: “Always do what you believe is right, irrespective of the opposition you face” and “Always keep your word”.

Finally, what is the secret of success?
You need to be shrewd and you need to believe in what you do.