Supporting Bill 28

The amendment to the Criminal Code forming part of Bill 28 which Parliament started discussing on Monday 28 November codifies the existing practice at the state hospital. It defines the necessary legal framework for therapeutic abortion. It does not introduce the practice of therapeutic abortion: this has been the practice for quite some time.

The Bill avoids use of the term “abortion”, using instead the term “termination of a pregnancy”, which as we are all aware has exactly the same meaning!

Legislation to date relative to therapeutic abortion is not clear at this point in time. On this basis ADPD-The Green Party was the only political party which tackled the matter during the March 2022 electoral campaign, including a whole section on sexual health and reproductive rights in the electoral manifesto. We went much further than that, emphasising the need for the decriminalisation of abortion too.

The Labour Party in Government, which has been practically silent on the matter during the electoral campaign, has now decided to act, taking a minimalist approach. It has limited itself to ensuring that current practice is protected at law. While this is definitely not enough it is a welcome first step and deserves our full support, even though there is still room for improvement in the proposed text of the proposal.

The Labour Party is right in saying that it is not introducing abortion through Bill 28: therapeutic abortion has been here and practised for some time even in the state hospital. Consequently, the approval of Bill 28 as presented will, in practice, not change anything, it will merely recognise the current state of affairs. As a result, it will give peace of mind to medical practitioners in state hospitals as their current modus operandi would be clearly spelt out in the law, as it should be.

In a sense the current fierce and at times emotional debate on abortion is much ado about nothing. It has however resulted in the local conservative forces speaking from the same hymn book. The opposition to the Bill is primarily twofold. On one hand there is the PN official stand which, together with Archbishop Scicluna has adopted the position paper published by a group of academics. In practice they seek to limit permissible medical interventions to cases of a threat to the life of the pregnant woman, eliminating health issues as justification. On the other hand, exponents of the fundamentalist Christian right, including a minority in the PN rank and file oppose the Bill in principle.

Put simply, the debate identifies three different proposals. The first, proposed by the Labour government in Bill 28, enshrines in law the current practice and places the onus on the medical profession to decide each case on its own merits. The second, supported by the PN opposition and the Church hierarchy seeks to substantially limit the discretion of the medical profession in Bill 28 primarily by eliminating health and mental health considerations. The third position brought forward by the fundamentalist Christian faction is in total opposition to all that is being proposed.

During the Parliamentary debate held this week I took note of the various positive contributions, in particular those of Deputy Prime Minister Chris Fearne, Parliamentary Secretary Rebecca Buttigieg and Opposition spokespersons Joe Giglio and Mario Demarco. Of particular note, in my view, is Fearne’s reference to the hospital’s standard operating procedures. It is being emphasised that these procedures do in fact address important aspects of the criticism aired during the debate, in particular that decisions taken by the medical profession relative to therapeutic abortion procedures should be taken by two or more professionals in order to ensure that no professional shoulders the decision alone. This, I understand is already standard practice!

There is always room for improvement in the proposed text of the Bill as indicated in the level-headed approach of Joe Giglio during the Parliamentary debate on Wednesday. As I emphasised in my article last week it would have been much better if Government had embarked on an exercise of public consultation before presenting the Bill. There would definitely have been more time to listen to and digest the different views. A valid point which was also emphasised by Mario Demarco.

In this scenario, even though viewing it as just a first step, which can be improved: without any shadow of doubt, ADPD supports the proposal put forward by Bill 28 in principle.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 December 2022

In-negozjant tal-ikel Tork u sieħbu fin-negozju

Il-mostru ta’ bini li approvat l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar u li preżentement qed jinbena ħdejn il-kappella tal-Manikata kien ikkunsidrat li hu aċċettabbli, kemm mill-arċidjoċesi ta’ Malta kif ukoll mis-sopra-intendenza tal-wirt kulturali. Kemm l-Arċisqof kif ukoll is-Sopratendent tal-Wirt Kulturali jeħtieġ li jagħmlu apoloġija pubblika għax l-ewwel oġġezzjonaw minħabba li l-bini propost mhux postu ħdejn il-kappella u mbagħad, wara, irtiraw l-oġġezzjoni tagħhom. B’dak li għamlu, t-tnejn li huma taw kontribut biex dan il-mostru jimmaterjalizza.

Iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa, l-portal elettroniku Shift News svela li Malti fin-negozju tal-ikel Tork, li f’ismu daħlet applikazzjoni ta’ żvilupp biex jinbena dan il-monstru  għandu sieħeb sieket fin-negozju: l-perit li iffirma l-applikazzjoni ta’ żvilupp. Skond ix-Shift News huwa jippossjedi 50 fil-mija tal-ishma tal-kumpanija Juke Developments Limited, il-kumpanija li qed tieħu ħsieb l-iżvilupp.

Mhux aċċettabbli li l-perit ikun ukoll żviluppatur.  Din hi imġieba ħażina li qed titfa’ dell ikrah fuq il-professjoni kollha. Hi materja ta’ etika li l-Kamra tal-Periti, li hi inkarigata milli tirregola l-professjoni, tevita kontinwament milli tesprimi ruħha u tieħu posizzjoni dwarha.

Madwar sentejn ilu, f’artiklu fuq Illum intitolat Il-perit-żviluppatur (8 ta’ Marzu 2020) kont ġbidt l-attenzjoni li l-perit inkarigat mill-proġett tal-Ħamrun, li fl-istadji inizzjali tiegħu kien wassal għall-mewt ta’ Miriam Pace, kien jippossjedi 10 fil-mija tal-ishma tal-kumpanija li kienet qed tieħu ħsieb l-iżvilupp.

Il-Kodiċi dwar l-Imġieba Professjonali għall-periti fil-gżejjer Maltin jipprovdi li  Perit f’Malta “ma għandux jokkupa, jassumi jew xjentement jaċċetta kariga li fiha l-interess tiegħu jkun kontra d-dmirijiet professjonali tiegħu.”

Il-punt hu jekk id-doveri professjonali ta’ perit inkarigat minn żvilupp humiex f’kunflitt ma li tkun ukoll, fl-istess ħin “l-żviluppatur”. Il-perit inkarigat minn lant tax-xogħol huwa ultimament responsabbli  għal dak li jseħħ fuq il-lant  avolja illum ġieli jkun assistit minn xi site officer, li imma rari jkun fuq il-lant! L-iskop tal-żviluppatur, min-naħa l-oħra, kif jgħidu, hu li jdawwar lira: hu interessat li jimmassimizza l-profitti mill-iżvilupp tal-art.

Il-Kodiċi dwar l-Imġieba Professjonali li semmejt iktar il-fuq jemfasizza li l-perit “jirċievi rimunerazzjoni biss bid-drittijiet professjonali tiegħu li jitħallsu mill-klijenti tiegħu u/jew bis-salarju tiegħu li jitħallas mill-prinċipal tiegħu. Hu ma jkunx jista’ jieħu rimunerazzjoni minn riżorsi oħra relattiva għax-xogħol u għad-dmirijiet fdati lilu.”   B’dan, fil-fehma tiegħi, hu ċar li perit ma jistax ikollu sehem minn profitti li jirriżultaw minn żvilupp tal-art u għaldaqstant m’għandux jaġixxi ta’ żviluppatur, la waħdu u l-anqas bi sħab ma ħaddieħor. Il-profitti mill-iżvilupp tal-art m’għandhomx ikunu l-motiv għall-ħidma professjonali tal-perit.  

Jidher li l-Kamra tal-Periti ma taqbilx ma dan għax b’mod konsistenti hi siekta dwar is-suġġett. Dan is-skiet hu inevitabilment interpretat bħala li l-Kamra tal-Periti qed taċċetta is-sitwazzjoni attwali. Mhux ta’ b’xejn, għaldaqstant li n-numru ta’ każi magħrufa ta’ periti li huma sħab fin-negozju ta’ żvilupp ta’ propjetà, imma li isimhom ma jidhirx, qiegħed jiżdied. Isimhom ma jidhirx għax huma konxji mill-kunflitt li hemm u jagħmlu ħilithom li jostru dan kollu fil-mixja tagħhom lejn sehem mill-profitti li jirriżultaw minn dan l-iżvilupp.

Bosta snin ilu, meta kont membru elett tal-Bord li jirregola l-ħruġ tal-warrant tal-periti kont ippreżentajt proposta biex dan kollu, jiġifieri ir-rwol ta’ periti li jaġixxu ta’ żviluppaturi, jkun regolat. Il-proposta tiegħi dakinnhar ma kienitx imxiet il-quddiem.

Sfortunatament, sal-lum, għad ma ittieħdet l-ebda azzjoni dwar dan kollu. Li nibqgħu ma tittieħed l-ebda azzjoni jfisser li l-qagħda preżenti tkun aċċettata bħala n-normalità. Sfortunatament dan hu konsistenti mal-valuri tas-soċjetà amorali li qed tiżviluppa madwarna.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 28 t’Awwissu 2022

Il-ħela tal-elettriku: tniġġiż mid-dawl

Huwa pass tajjeb dak li jirrapporta l-Malta Today illum, li nħarġet direttiva fis-settur pubbliku biex l-enerġija nużawha bil-għaqal.

M’għandux jibqa’ jinħela elettriku bil-bini mixgħul bil-lejl.

Anke dwar l-air conditioners, t-temperatura f’uffiċini pubbliċi, issa, fix-xhur sħan, m’għandiex tkun iktar baxxa minn 24 grad Celsius.

Direttiva tajba, imma mhux biżżejjed. Hemm ħafna iktar x’jista’ jsir fid-diversi oqsma biex tonqos il-ħela. Imma tajjeb li bdejna.

Ikun għaqli li l-Knisja ukoll timxi fuq l-istess passi in partikolari dwar il-Knejjes imdawwlin. Nistennew (min jaf) direttiva dwar dan mill-arċisqof biex anke l-knejjes inaqqsu d-dwal żejda u jnaqqsu l-ħela!

Il-problema  hi kbira ħafna iktar milli naħsbu.

The kebab man and his business partner

The monstrosity dwarfing the Manikata chapel approved by the Planning Authority was considered acceptable by both the Archdiocese of Malta and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage. Both the Archbishop as well as the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage owe every one of us an apology for having withdrawn their objection to this development. They had originally submitted that the proposed development is incompatible with the chapel and its surroundings. Then they had second thoughts, thereby contributing to the development of this monstrosity.

Online news portal, Shift News, has revealed, earlier this week, that a man in the kebab business, in whose name the application was submitted has a silent business partner: the architect who signed the approved development application. The Shift News, also revealed that the architect is a co-owner of the development site through his 50 per cent ownership in Juke Developments Limited, the company which has taken charge of the development.

It is not on that architects are also developers.  This is a professional misconduct which is bringing the whole profession into disrepute. It is an ethical matter which has been repeatedly avoided by the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers, the professional body entrusted with regulating the architectural profession in the Maltese islands.

Around two years ago, in these columns, in an article entitled The architect-developer (8 March 2020) I had pointed out that the architect in charge of the development at Ħamrun, which development had, in its initial stages, resulted in the death of Miriam Pace, had a 10 per cent shareholding in the company which was carrying out the development.

The Code of Professional Conduct for architects practicing in the Maltese islands clearly lays down that a locally warranted architect “must not hold, assume or consciously accept a position in which his interest is in conflict with his professional duty.”

The point at issue is whether the professional duties of an architect in charge of a development are in conflict with the interests of being “the developer”. The architect in charge of a site of works is ultimately responsible for what goes on the site, even though he is nowadays assisted by a site officer who in most cases is rarely present on site! The developer, on the other hand is interested in the potential maximisation of profits resulting from the development of the site under consideration: making hay while the sun shines! The profits resulting from development should not be the professional’s motivation.

The Code of Professional Conduct abovementioned goes on to emphasise that a locally warranted architect “is remunerated solely by his professional fees payable by his clients and/or by his salary payable by his employer. He is debarred from any other source of remuneration in connection with the works and duties entrusted to him.”  In my opinion this clearly forbids architects from sharing in the profits of development and consequently in being developers, on their own or together with others.

Apparently, the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers disagrees with the above as it has been consistently silent on the matter. This silence has inevitably been interpreted by one and all as acquiescence: accepting the current state of affairs. It is consequently no wonder that the number of known cases of architects being silent partners in development projects is quietly on the increase. They are silent partners, meaning that they are aware that there is a conflict in their responsibilities which they do their best to hide in their pursuit of a share of the profits resulting from development.

Many years ago, when I was an elected member of the architects Warranting Board, I had presented a proposal to start regulating the role of architects who act as developers. My proposal was not acted upon.

Unfortunately, no action has been taken to date. Taking no action signifies accepting the present situation as the normal acceptable behaviour. This is unfortunately consistent with the norms of the amoral society which currently rules the roost.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 August 2022

Beyond solidarity

Earlier this week the government and Puttinu Cares Foundation signed an important agreement.

As a result, the National Social and Development Fund will apply €5 million of its funds to assist in the purchasing of more apartments by the foundation to further its objective of assisting cancer patients undergoing treatment in London. This is indeed commendable.

I say this notwithstanding being aware of the origin of the funds accumulated in the National Social and Development Fund as a result of the detestable golden passports scheme. Known as the Individual Investment Programme, this scheme selling passports and citizenship is objectionable on a point of principle. Using the funds which it generates for solidarity measures will not sanitise it.

Earlier, during the month of August, the Ministry for Social Solidarity made €1 million of public funds available to the Hospice Movement to help it in its support services both to patients suffering terminal illness as well as their relatives.

Last year it was the Farsons Foundation and its affiliates who assisted the Hospice Movement through a €115,000 donation towards the establishment of the St Michael Hospice, the first state-of-the-art complex in Malta which will be dedicated entirely to providing comprehensive palliative care.

The St Michael Hospice is to be developed instead of the former Adelaide Cini Institute which the Church in Malta handed over to Hospice Malta. Archbishop Scicluna, in launching this Church initiative, stated that it was inspired by the Year of Mercy proclaimed by Pope Francis in 2015.

It is indeed heartening to know that Maltese society in general has its heart in the right place and is capable of acting to alleviate suffering and also to assist, whenever possible, in the recovery of those who can make this journey. All of us have a loved one who was or still is in the shadows of cancer.

Being capable of acting in this way is commendable. We can, however, in addition to all this strive to avoid, as much as possible, such suffering.

Adopting adequate environmental policies and ensuring that they are observed would undoubtedly, in the long term, avoid the incidence of a good percentage of terminal illnesses.

Launching the Beating Cancer Plan earlier this year, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that “Even though 30 to 40 per cent of all cancers are preventable, only 3 per cent of health budgets are invested in prevention strategies”. Is it not time that we put our heads together to address this anomaly?

Medical screening does wonders and has saved many lives, even in Malta. All would however agree that this is not enough.

Reducing environmental risk factors such as all forms of pollution and exposure to chemicals would be a good first step together with the improvement of access to healthy diets and the further promotion of vaccinations.

Within this context, in my opinion, the reluctance to act decisively on the use of pesticides in agriculture is of extreme concern. I am informed that in this day and age we still do not have the necessary facilities available locally to be able to examine and test agricultural products in order to determine the pesticide residue which they retain. Still having to send agricultural samples for testing to overseas laboratories makes a mockery of our ability to apply the EU regulatory setup intended to protect each and every one of us.

When results of tests carried out to agricultural samples selected for pesticide residue testing are available this will be generally too late as the products potentially laced with pesticides would have been sold and most probably consumed.

Limiting ourselves to pesticide use and abuse we need an adequate regulatory setup as a result of which pesticides would no longer be sold over the counter but through a prescription-type system and regulated by qualified agricultural pharmacists. Our farmers should be trained in the proper use of pesticides and not be left to their own devices.  Together with a rigorous sampling and testing policy buttressed with a locally run laboratory we could in the medium term start the process of prevention of pesticide-induced illness.

Acting through adequate control of use of pesticides is just one step. The consistent application of sensible environmental policy across the board would yield better results entrenching prevention as the preferred option in our health strategy.

This would take us a big step beyond solidarity, as prevention is definitely better than cure.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 15 November 2020

Illum : wara li l-Arċisqof beżaq mis-sunnara tal-PN

 

L-emendi Kostituzzjonali reġgħu fuq l-agenda.

Nafu li tul dawn l-aħħar snin il-possibilita li tiltaqa’ l-konvenzjoni kostituzzjoni kienet limitata minħabba li ġie mdeffes fin-nofs Franco Debono. Il-Partit Laburista ried lilu u l-Partit Nazzjonalista oppona. Nifhmu li għad qed isiru sforzi biex din il-problema tingħeleb.Imma qed jingħadu diversi affarijiet oħra li huma ta’ interess kbir.

Madwar tlett ġimgħat ilu, Mons Scicluna qal li l-Knisja ma jkollha l-ebda oġġezzjoni li titneħħa r-referenza għal Kattoliċiżku mill-Kostituzzjoni Maltija. Il-Knisja, qal Mons. Scicluna, ma tridx privileġġi imma trid il-libertà reliġjuża. Dikjarazzjoni makakka u f’waqtha ta’ Mons Scicluna li indirizzat waħda mill-issues jaħarqu quddiem il-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali. Jaħarqu fis-sens li kien (u għadu) antiċipat li l-PN jopponi din il-bidla. Dan minkejja li din il-bidla kostituzzjonali ma għandhiex bżonn żewġ terzi tal-Parlament għall-approvazzjoni, iżda teħtieġ biss maġġoranza sempliċi. Bid-dikjarazzjoni ta’ Mons Scicluna l-Knisja beżqet mis-sunnara tal-P.N. u mhux ser tħalli lill-P.N. jinqeda biha!

Issa li l-Knisja beżqet mis-sunnara tar-Religio et Patria, illum ħarġet ir-reazzjoni ta’ Adrian Delia, mexxej tal-PN, u dan kif antiċipat. Ser jibda jbeżża’ bil-babaw ġaladarba l-Knisja mhux ser tħallieh jinqeda biha. Dalgħodu kien rappurtat li Adrian Delia qal li l-Prim Ministru jrid ineħħi l-kurċifissi mill-iskejjel! Daqt jibda jgħidilna li sejrin l-infern!

Ir-realta hi li Malta għandha bżonn Kostituzzjoni lajka, jiġifieri kostituzzjoni li filwaqt li tirrispetta l-liberta reliġjuża tkun waħda li ma tpoġġi l-ebda reliġjon fiċ-ċentru tagħha. Tkun kostituzzjoni sekulari. Il-pajjiż hekk hu fir-realtà, wieħed lajk, u l-kostituzzjoni tiegħu għandha tirrispetta dan il-fatt.

Hemm bżonn ftit iktar serjeta meta niddiskutu l-kostituzzjoni. B’mod partikolari mill-partit tal-avukati!

Sadanittant Alternattiva Demokratika qed tistenna li tibda l-konvenzjoni kostituzzjonali biex tkun tista’ tinvolvi ruħha fid-diskussjoni dwar it-tibdil meħtieġ fil-kostituzzjoni Maltija. S’issa, AD ma hiex involvuta f’xi diskussjjonijiet li jidher li għaddejjin.

The financing of Fawlty Towers

The saga of the Mrieħel and the Townsquare towers is now entering a new phase, with the planning appeal stopwatch due to start ticking shortly –  most probably towards the end of the month. It is known that, so far, Sliema Local Council and a number of environmental NGOs will be appealing against the 4 August decision of the Planning Authority to approve the “Fawlty Towers” at Mrieħel and Townsquare Sliema .

Financing of the projects is next. The banks cannot increase their already substantial exposure to loans that are dependent on building speculation. Consequently, the developers will inevitably have to seek the involvement of private citizens and, possibly, institutional investors. Most probably, the process for financing the projects has already commenced; it will involve the issuing of bonds to the public and will normally be sponsored by a bank and a stock-broking agency.

The bank or banks and stockbrokers sponsoring the bond issue will have to ensure that the bonds are subject to an “appropriateness and suitability testing” subject to such direction as the Malta Financial Services Authority  may consider necessary and suitable. Also, in the light of past local unpleasant experiences, the Authority will undoubtedly be guided by the need to ensure  that prospective investors fully understand the inherent risks of the proposed investments.  It will also ensure that detailed information is published in the form of a suitable prospectus in which the small print is both legible and understandable.

Those who finance the high-rise projects should shoulder responsibility for their impact together with the Planning Authority and the developers. They will potentially make it happen, so they should carry the can. It is important to get this message through: those who will invest in the Gasan and Tumas bonds intended to finance the “Fawlty  Towers”  should receive more than a monetary return on their investment. The moment they sign up they will also assume co-responsibility – with the developers, the Planning Authority, the bank or banks and the sponsoring stockbrokers – for this projected development .

Word is going around on the need to boycott the services and products placed on the market by the Gasan and Tumas Groups. Journalist Jürgen Balzan, writing in Malta Today described these services and products as being wide-ranging (hotels, car-dealerships, gaming, finance and property) which easily impact on the daily life of a substantial number of Maltese citizens. However, such a boycott’s only link with  the “Fawlty  Towers”  would be through the owners.  It would be preferable for a boycott to have a direct link with the offensive action.  In this context, the forthcoming bond issue to finance the “Fawlty  Towers”  presents itself as a suitable opportunity.

A boycott is a non-violent instrument of protest that is perfectly legitimate in a democratic society. The boycotting of the forthcoming bond issue would send a clear message that people will not be complicit in further ruining the  urban fabric of Sliema and ensure that development at Imrieħel is such that the historic landscape is fully respected.

A social impact assessment, if properly carried out, would have revealed the apprehensions of the residents in particular the residents on the Tignè peninsula. But, unfortunately, as stated by Sliema Green Local Councillor Michael Briguglio, the existing policy-making process tends to consider such studies as an irritant rather than as a tool for holistic management and community participation.

We have had some recent converts on the desirability of social impact assessments, such as Professor Alex Torpiano, Dean of the Faculty for the Built Environment at the University of Malta. Prof. Torpiano, in an opinion piece published by the Malta Independent this week, stressed that spatial planning in Malta needs a social-economic dimension. Unfortunately, I do not recollect the professor himself practising these beliefs as the leading architect in the MIDI and Cambridge projects on the Tignè peninsula,  a stone’s throw from Townsquare!

Investing in this bond issue is not another private decision: it will have an enormous impact on the community.

Responsibility for this ever-increasing environmental mess has to be shouldered by quite a few persons in Malta. Even the banks have a very basic responsibility – and not one to be shouldered just by the Directors: the shareholders should also take an interest before decisions are taken and not post-factum.

I understand that the Directors of APS Bank have already taken note of the recent  statements regarding the environment by  Archbishop Charles Scicluna. As such, it stands to reason that APS will (I hope) not be in any way associated with the financing process for the “Fawlty  Towers”.  However, there is no news as yet from the other banks, primarily from the major ones – ie Bank of Valletta and HSBC.

This is a defining moment in environmental action in Malta. It is time for those that matter to stand up to be counted – and the sooner the better.

published by the Malta Independent on Sunday – 21 August 2016

Issa li l-Arċisqof irriżenja ……………..

 

L-Independent tal-lum qed jgħidulna li l-Papa taptap fuq spallejn l-Isqof t’Għawdex Mario Grech wara d-diskors li dan ta’ l-aħħar għamel waqt is-sinodu tal-isqfijiet f’Ruma.

L-Isqof Grech kien rappurtat li għamel diskors li fih saħaq fuq il-ħtieġa ta’ kemm il-Knisja trid toqgħod attenta dwar x’lingwaġġ tuża’. Meta tqis li waqt il-kampanja dwar id-divorzju l-Eċċellenza Tiegħu uża kliem iebes ħafna fil-konfront tal-kampanja favur l-introduzzjoni tad-divorzju, jidher li dan hu progress kbir.

L-anqas ma jista’ wieħed jinsa li l-ET l-Isqof t’Għawdex f’pontifikal fil-parroċċa tal-Munxar ftit wara r-referendum tad-divorzju kien rappurtat li ma kellu l-ebda dispjaċir minn dak li qal u li jekk meħtieġ kien lest li jirrepetieh.

 

Logħba Ċess fil-Kurja tal-Arċisqof

 

Mill-kummenti diversi fil-gazzetti jidher ċar li fil-Kurja tal-Arċisqof għaddejja logħba Ċess.

Il-kliem li qed jintuża fil-kitba hu indikattiv ta’ dak li għaddej minn moħħ min qed jgħidu. Ir-Rev. Joe Borg per eżempju jiddeskrivi lill-Knisja Maltija bħala li qegħda fl-istess stat li kien il-Partit Nazzjonalista wara l-elezzjoni ġenerali tal-1976. Jiġifieri, r-Rev  Joe Borg qed jgħid li l-Knisja hi b’Kap iżda bla tmexxija, b’viżjoni imċajpra u bis-segwaċi imgerfxin.

Analiżi iebsa li iżda taqbel mad-deskrizzjoni tal-Knisja Maltija bħala waħda li ġiet imsikkta. Din hi deskrizzjoni ta’ Simon Busuttil u ta’ oħrajn fil-PN xi xhur ilu.

Minbarra din il-kritika hemm oħra bħal dik tar-Rev Rene Camilleri dwar il-prokrastinazzjoni tal-Arċisqof biex jagħmel it-tibdil meħtieġ fil-Kurja kif ukoll il-kummenti validissimi ta’ Fr Joe Inguanez fuq l-istess linja.

It-tmexxija tal-Knisja f’Malta kienet komda għal ħafna snin. Għax minbarra l-Arċisqof fil-Kurja kellha ukoll ieħor jilgħaba tal-Arċisqof, għal ħafna snin, fil-Berġa’ ta’ Kastilja.  Il-protezzjoni li l-“Arċisqof Lawrence Gonzi” , kif ukoll il-predeċessur tiegħu ta lill-Knisja Maltija tul is-snin billi rreżista t-tibdil soċjali spiċċa iktar għamel ħsara mhux biss lill-Knisja imma anke lis-soċjeta’ Maltija. Għax it-tibdil li seta tħalla jseħħ bil-pass tiegħu, minflok qiegħed iseħħ f’daqqa u b’ritmu mgħaġġel. Mhux kulħadd hu ippreparat għal dan it-tibdil.

Il-protezzjoni artifiċjali tagħtik sens falz ta’ sigurta’. Sigurta’ li fil-fatt ma teżistix. Meta l-poplu allura xeba’ u ivvota favur l-introduzzjoni tad-divorzju nhar it-28 ta’ Mejju 2011 il-protezzjoni tal-Arċisqof Lawrence Gonzi spiċċat.

It-tmexxija tal-Knisja li jrid r-Rev Joe Borg tikkuntrasta ma dik tal-Prof Victor Axiaq. Ta’ l-ewwel irid Knisja mhiex siekta fuq materji ta’ interess pubbliku. Tat-tieni jrid Knisja mhedija fl-ispiritwalita. Ikolli ngħid li dawn iż-żewġ veduti m’humiex inkompatibbli. Id-diffikultajiet iżda jmorru lura s-snin sa żmien l-Arċisqof Gonzi l-ieħor.

Għax dan pajjiż li mhux dejjem tista’ tifhmu: kellna Arċisqof li kien politiku u politiku li iktar kien jidher qiesu l-Arċisqof!

Sadanittant għaddejja l-logħba ċess. Uħud iżommu s-skiet bi prudenza jew iktar b’makakkerija. U l-Arċisqof Pawlu Cremona, skond Joe Borg, qiesu George Borg Olivier, jistenna li jew jitlaq inkella itellquh.

Wara kollox anke fiċ-ċess hemm 4 isqfijiet, tnejn fuq kull naħa  !

Ippubblikat fuq iNews, il-Ħamis 21 t’Awwissu 2014

Dom : abjad jew iswed iżda bla griż

Il-funeral statali ta’ Dom Mintoff kif kien mistenni ħareġ fil-pubbliku l-appoġġ u l-approvazzjoni li Dom għadu kapaċi jqanqal, minkejja li hemm min ipprova jpinġih bħala traditur.  Miet imma għex b’viżjoni ċara. Viżjoni li kienet ċara sa mill-ewwel ġranet tal-ħidma politika tiegħu.

Ta’ 23 sena fid-Daily Malta Chronicle ippubblika l-mission statement tiegħu : “Malta għandha bżonn ta’ membri ġodda b’ideat godda li jkunu jistgħu jgħaqqdu l-elementi progressivi kollha u tbiddel is-sistema soċjali medjevali f’sistema li tkun l-għira tal-bqija tad-dinja.” Fl-1939 il-messaġġ ta’ Dom kien ċar għal kulħadd, ħlief għal min ma riedx jisma’. L-impenn tiegħu fil-ħajja pubblika Dom kien jarah bħala l-għodda biex ineħħi l-għanqbut!  Kien mgħaġġel, probabilment għax kien konxju li l-politiku hu għasfur tal-passa. Allura fittex li jagħsar kull opportunita’ li ġiet quddiemu. Ma kellux paċenzja ma min kien kajman.  Min kien jimxi bil-mod iżżejjed kien jarah ta’ xkiel li seta jtellfu l-ħin u per konsegwenza l-opportunita li jwettaq il-viżjoni tiegħu.

Il-viżjoni tiegħu wettaqha. Imma weġġa’ ħafna nies. Weġgħat li faċilment setgħu ġew evitati. Kif għidt diġa f’kitba oħra tiegħi hi sfortuna kbira li dawk ta’ madwaru mhux dejjem kienu kapaċi jagħtuh parir tajjeb. Pariri tajbin kienu bla dubju jnaqqsu l-possibilta’ ta’ ħsara u jagħmlu l-bniedem iktar aċċettabbli – jew inqas inaċċettabbli – milli fil-fatt hu.

Hemm ukoll il-problema kkawżata mid-debbolizzi tiegħu illi kif ilu jingħad fil-widnejn seta kien hemm min uzhom biex jirkattah. Fil-fatt fi blog oħra, dik ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia, iktar kmieni din il-ġimgħa ġiet ippubblikata storja dwar dan il-punt. Din l-istorja ġiet imneħħja ftit wara għax kien fiha żball. Imma mhux billi tneħħiet minn fuq il-blog, l-istorja xorta għadha teżisti x’imkien fuq l-internet u tista’ tinqara billi wieħed jagħmel użu minn din il-link: għafas hawn. Għax it-teknoloġija, tajjeb jew ħażin, illum tikxef kollox. (Nota: sadanittant ġiet ippubblikata edizzjoni ġdida tal-post li kienet irtirata li tista’ tinqara hawn).

Din hi storja dwar rikatt u sfortunatament hija ibbażata fuq inċidenti li l-gazzetti naqsu serjament illi jinvestigaw u jinfurmaw lill-pubbliku dwarhom. Veru li meta ġraw ma kien hawn  l-ebda tradizzjoni ta’ ġurnaliżmu investigattiv fil-pajjiż. Ġurnalisti kapaċi kien hawn, imma l-klima politika ma kienitx tippermettilhom li jaħdmu. Imma in-nuqqas xorta jibqa’ hemm u kellu konsegwenzi kbar. Kif jixhed l-inċident tar-ritratti li ġew ippreżentati fil-Parlament minn Lorry Sant. Ir-ritratti jixħtu dawl fuq dak li ġara u inżammu mistura. Biex seta’ jseħħ rikatt ħalli tinħeba l-korruzzjoni, li xorta inkixfet ftit wara bir-rapport tal-Kummissjoni dwar il-Korruzzjoni fuq Lorry Sant.

Dawn u ħafna affarijiet oħra għad iridu jinkitbu volumi sħaħ dwarhom. Kif qal l-Arċisqof Pawlu Cremona dalgħodu Dom bena l-ħidma politika tiegħu fuq żewġ pilastri importanti: li jgħin lill-fqir u li jsaħħah l-identitia’ nazzjonali. Hi sfortuna li kellu jirrombla minn fuq ħafna. Li għalaq għajnjeh għal ħafna ħmieġ w irregolaritajiet amministrattivi. Li kien imdawwar minn nies vjolenti li kellhom is-setgħa li jagħmlu li jridu mingħajr ma jiġrilhom xejn, għax il-Pulizija kienu dejjem jipproteġu lilhom.

Għexna fi żminijiet koroh. Żmien fejn l-abbuż kien igglorifikat. Veru li Dom għamel il-ġid imma dan il-ġid m’huwiex gomma li tħassar il-ħsara li saret. Fl-aħħar l-istorja għad tagħti l-ġudizzju tagħha. Nittama li l-abjad jibqa’ abjad imma li l-iswed jibqa’ iswed ukoll. Għax Dom ma kellux griz!