The courage to change

Good governance is central to the proper nurturing of this 50-year-old Republic. Good governance is founded on transparency and accountability. Secrecy and the withholding of information from the public domain, in contrast, generate bad governance.

Transparency is a basic characteristic of good governance whereas secrecy is the distinguishing mark of bad governance. This inevitably leads to the shielding of unethical behaviour, as well as the propagation of a culture of greed and corruption.

Transparency and accountability are inseparable twins. Accountability is, in fact, non-existent or severely diluted in the absence of transparency.

Good governance is much more than a concept. It is the essential foundation for any democratic Republic.  In the absence of good governance, greed flourishes, and national institutions are slowly transformed into personal fiefdoms. Corruption and rampant clientelism are the inevitable results of a lack of good governance.

In her inaugural speech on Thursday, President of the Republic Myriam Spiteri Debono spoke of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Daphne’s assassination was described by Her Excellency as a wound that, as a nation, we must heal the soonest.

Daphne Caruana Galizia was actively involved in journalism, investigating corruption. Notwithstanding the continuous vitriol she faced, Daphne identified many a scandal associated with the governance model championed by the Labour Party in government.

This, in reality, is the wound to be healed. We need to finalise that begun by Daphne by ensuring, as a nation, that the corrupt face the music the soonest. Then the festering wounds of corruption, made worse as a result of a culture of impunity, will start the healing process. The rule of law must prevail without any exception.

The assassination of Daphne is also a heavy blow against good governance.  The public inquiry into the circumstances that led to Daphne’s assassination concluded with identifying the Maltese state as being ultimately responsible for all that happened.

A culture of greed has been reinforced with a culture of impunity.

The change necessary to heal this wound requires considerable courage and goodwill. I am not at present convinced that the political leadership currently in government is acting in good faith. It is a leadership under siege, continuously defending those who have driven this country to the dogs.

Land use planning and our environment are regulated by greed. Agricultural land is slowly disappearing as a result of the planning policies of the PN in government way back in 2006 through the so-called rationalisation exercise. The Labour Party opposed these plans when in Opposition but it is currently in the process of milking them dry to ensure that the greedy are fully satisfied.  Some have already licked their lips! Others are awaiting their turn.

It takes courage to act against greed, when both Parliamentary parties are fully committed to entrenching it as a way of life. They ensure the quality of life of the greedy, but in the process are ruining that of all the rest of us: both the present as well as the future generations.

The current set-up of our Parliament is part of the problem. It is no wonder, that, in this scenario, we are lumped with an electoral system that ensures that the voice of change is silenced by making it as difficult as possible for it to be heard.

Change is hindered as the national institutions are rigged against those who dare to speak up for the representation of a variety of minority views in the country.

As a result of this lack of political goodwill, ADPD-The Green Party is currently in Court contesting the discriminatory nature of this rigged electoral system. It is a constitutional court case that is hopefully approaching its conclusion.

At ADPD-The Green Party, we have long been speaking about the urgent need for electoral reform, focused on the need to ensure that every vote is valued. Until such time, no change can ensure that everybody is on board. One person, one vote, one value.

It takes courage (and political goodwill) to change.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 7 April 2024

Pelting with eggs

The debate on defense policy requires to be dealt with much more seriously than through pelting Prime Minister Robert Abela with eggs, as happened last Tuesday during a political activity at Vittoriosa.     

Whether we like it or not, 23 out of the 27 EU member states are members of NATO. Malta, Ireland, Austria and Cyprus are the exceptions. (Cyprus had its NATO membership application vetoed by Turkey.) It is a politically difficult situation which requires a tightrope walking skill. It is never going to be easy with the European defense industry leaders breathing down the neck of the EU leadership.

The defense industry, including that within the European Union itself, is undoubtedly lobbying intensively on a continuous basis. An EU defense budget running into several billion euros would definitely be in their interest! In 2023 the EU’s military spending reached a record €230 billion.

It is inevitable that in view of the Russian aggression in Ukraine the defense debate intensifies during the current EU Parliament electoral campaign.

One of the points raised by the outgoing President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen is on whether it is appropriate to have an EU Commissioner entrusted exclusively with defense policy in the next Commission later this year. The European People’s Party (EPP) wants to substitute the top EU diplomatic job with a defense Commissioner post.

Defense, in all its aspects, is a matter reserved for the individual European Member states in terms of the EU treaties. I would have expected government spokespersons to be clear on this point. Unfortunately, they have been completely silent, at least on a public level. This is not on. It is not acceptable. The sooner it is rectified the better.

This is not a matter which can be relegated to the diplomatic level. It has to be taken up forcefully: positions taken must be clear publicly.  The warmongering on a European level must be brought to order the soonest.

On a local level, the debate on defense policy is completely absent, except for the partisan bickering from time to time. This has intensified in the past weeks.

Unfortunately, we have already had proposals by the Bavarian Christan Democrat leader of EPP, Manfred Weber, that the EU should invest in nuclear deterrence.  Last January, Politico reported that this Bavarian political outburst was delivered in the context of the perceived consequences of Donald Trump’s threats on the weakening of NATO, if he is re-elected to the Presidency of the United States of America later this year. Irrespective of the motivation it should be clear even at this stage that such proposals are unacceptable. A neutral Malta should have made her voice heard ages ago! Yet silence prevails.

Notwithstanding all the bickering on the EU Council’s final statement last week, this matter has been ignored. The Prime Minister then felt the need to seek the advice of the State Advocate in order to ensure that Malta’s neutral status is respected in the commitments made in the final statement. Yet we are not yet aware as to whether the proposal to create a standalone defense portfolio in the next Commission has yet been sent to the State Advocate for his advice.

The silence of the Opposition PN on the matter is also deafening, considering that the defense proposals on EU defense Commissioner as well as the proposal on an EU nuclear deterrence are being made by the European People’s Party of which it forms part.

Pelting with eggs is no substitute for the national political debate on defense matters. It is in our interest to wake up and smell the coffee.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 31 March 2024

The President of the Republic: a flicker of hope

The term of office of current President of the Republic George Vella will expire in the first days of April. His successor, the new President, will, for the first time require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives in order to be elected. This, in practice, means that both Government and Opposition must be in agreement for such an appointment to be approved.

Talks between government and opposition are known to have commenced. They are confidential in nature and as such little is known as to how they have proceeded to date. All that is known is that the Opposition Parliamentary group has drawn a significant red line: it will not support any candidate for the Presidency of the Republic if such candidate was a member of the Cabinet of Ministers led by Joseph Muscat and censored by the public inquiry into the circumstances leading to the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

The red line drawn by the Opposition is significant. It is not known how government ranks have reacted to it, as, so far, no public statement has been made on the manner in which the talks between the Labour led government and the PN Opposition are progressing. 

The veil of confidentiality is reasonable, but at some point, it must and will inevitably be lifted in order to enable the public debate on the Presidency to proceed.

At the time of writing Prime Minister Robert Abela is being quoted as emphasizing that he is “hopeful” that an agreement will be arrived at, even at this late hour. It is being stated that ongoing talks are constructive, this giving rise to a possibly positive outcome by the early April deadline. The first indication of the name of a possible agreed nominee is also available at the time of writing.

The two-thirds hurdle which must be overcome in order to elect a President of the Republic, once every five years, has a specific aim: that of ensuring that the selected person has as wide an acceptance as possible. He or she must be able to bridge the political divide. This must be done on a continuous basis.

There have been a countless number of instances in the past when the political parties in Parliament have succeeded in overcoming partisan squabbling and reached agreement on many a sensitive matter. Including the appointment of a Head of State. Then it was good politics to do so. Now it is also a must!

The art of compromise is good politics which, unfortunately, is not sufficiently mastered by many in the political world. It does not mean giving up any of your views, values or beliefs. It rather signifies that you also see the good in what others do and factor it in what you do or say. It is a point that is often sadly missed in this polarized society which we call home!

I still fail to understand why, for example, the Opposition in Parliament failed to accept former Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. I had then stated that the Opposition had the right to block the proposed appointment, but it also had the duty to give reasonable explanations for doing so. It failed to give reasonable explanations, because none, in my view, existed. Playing party politics with our institutions is not on.

The rest is now history, except, that, in my opinion, Joseph Azzopardi has proven himself to be a good choice as Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. Both PN and Labour, unfortunately, acted irrationally in this matter. The PN was intransigent while Labour over-reacted.

It is appropriate that both Government and Opposition learn lessons from their past mistakes. It is in the interest of the country that they do this the soonest possible.

The fact that talks are proceeding constructively, maybe, is an indicator that, possibly, there is still some flickering hope for this country. We can only wait and hold our breath: possibly for not too long!

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 24 March 2024

Lil hinn mit-tumuri u kliem iebes ieħor

Li tiddeskrivi persuna bħala tumur hi gravi. Tfisser li l-persuna hekk deskritta tqisha bħala s-sors ta’ inkwiet u aġitazzjoni.

Li Franco Debono għandu personalità ikkulurita hu fatt. Mhux waħdu fil-ħajja pubblika!

Kull min hu fil-ħajja pubblika hu suġġett għal kritika, kultant anke dik mhux flokha. Fid-dibattitu, imma, li għaddej, ma tistax tgħid biċċa mill-istorja u tieqaf hemm.

L-avukat Edward Debono fuq il-programm ta’ Andrew Azzopardi tas-Sibt filghodu fuq l-RTK fakkarna fuq meta Franco Debono, fil-Parlament ivvota kontra l-budget u riżultat ta’ hekk waqqa’ l-Gvern.

Kien ikun ħafna interessanti kieku l-avukat Edward Debono fakkarna ftit meta l-Gvern ta’ Lawrence Gonzi fittex lil Franco Debono bis-servizzi sigrieti ghax ma kienx il-Parlament biex jivvota. Forsi nesa, u biex jiftakar nissuggerilu jaqra hawn.

Jista’ forsi jiftakar meta fil-Parlament kienu ġew ippreżentati għad-diskussjoni żewġ mozzjonijiet dwar il-politika fil-qasam tal-ġustizzja u l-intern. Waħda kienet ippreżentata minn Franco Debono. Oħra kienet ippreżentata minn Michael Falzon u Jose Herrera għall-Partit Laburista.

Il-Gvern ta’Gonzi, injora l-mozzjoni ta’ Franco u ressaq għad-diskusjoni l-mozzjoni tal-Partit Laburista. (ara hawn xi ktibt dakinnhar)

Kien hemm differenza waħda bejn iż-żewġ mozzjonijiet: ta’ Franco kienet mozzjoni dwar politika tal-Gvern li kellha tkun aġġornata, tal-PL kienet tispiċċa b’dikjarazzjoni ta’ sfiduċja fil-Ministru.

Lawrence Gonzi dakinnhar għażel li jisfida r-raġuni u spiċċa jerfa’ l-konsegwenzi.

Standards in Public Life: Labour’s new benchmark

Robert Abela has embarked on an exercise to exorcise his Labour Party from its recent past. His ultimate aim is (most obviously) the rehabilitation of those who have pigged out.

He has already rehabilitated Joseph Cuschieri, former CEO of the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA). Cuschieri had resigned from his post in November 2020 on the eve of the publication of a report investigating his behaviour at MFSA, which report was highly critical of his behaviour.

Cuschieri has now been appointed as CEO of Project Green. We were told that Cuschieri is a doer. As if this, in any way, absolves him of his highly errant behaviour in the public authorities with which he was entrusted over the years.

A clear pattern is now emerging, in that others will probably be absolved of the consequences of their actions. A clear message is being transmitted: accountability is now another dead letter.

Should those who resigned or were fired from their political posts or position of trust be rehabilitated? Definitely, not all misdemeanours necessitate a political death penalty. Everybody is entitled to a second chance. However, where do we draw the line?

Consider the case of Rosianne Cutajar. She is currently an independent Member of Parliament, having resigned from the Labour Party Parliamentary Group, in anticipation of her being dismissed. This came about after the publication of hundreds of chats between Rosianne Cutajar and Yorgen Fenech, currently accused with master-minding the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

On the basis of the information in these same chats, the media had reported Rosianne’s Cutajar involvement in facilitating a €3.1 million Mdina property deal and her pocketing slightly under €50,000 for her trouble, curtesy of her friend Yorgen!

The resulting investigation by the Commissioner for Standards in Public life had concluded that Rosianne Cutajar had committed a number of ethical breaches. Cutajar had earlier resigned as Junior Minister, pending the outcome of the investigation.

In addition to all this, at the Council of Europe it was queried whether Rosianne Cutajar’s critical interventions in the Parliamentary Assembly were motivated by undeclared financial interests associated with Yorgen Fenech. This was emphasised by Peter Omtzigt, the Assembly’s Dutch Special Rapporteur into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

If this was not enough, the Auditor General, some weeks ago, concluded an investigation into an employment agreement as a result of which the CEO of the Institute of Tourism Studies had engaged Rosianne Cutajar as his consultant. She was engaged as a management consultant in matters in which she had no known competence. It was therefore not surprising for the Auditor General to conclude that her engagement as a consultant was actually a phantom job.

This was consistent with her aim to pig out, as she confidentially declared to her friend Yorgen in their now public chats.

This behaviour does not merit the consideration of a second chance for Rosianne Cutajar, as Robert Abela is suggesting.

Considering the above behaviour, a political death penalty for Rosianne Cutajar is more than adequate if we are to have the most basic standards in public life.

In contrast, the new benchmark which Robert Abela is suggesting, would transform Parliament’s Code of Ethics into one fit for Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 21 January 2024

Love and tears: the theatrics of the speculative brigade

During the conference launching the KPMG annual review of the property market held last week, Michael Stivala, Malta Development Association Chairman, in a tear-jerking intervention, told us that the developers love us. Developers, he emphasised, need to treat third parties neighbouring their development as part of the family.

There is only one reply to these theatrics: we have had enough.  Much more than enough, in fact.

Redevelopment works in most of our towns and villages are, many a time, carried out without sufficient attention to the needs of and impacts on those living and working in the vicinity. At times it is seems as if they don’t even exist. They are considered by developers to be a nuisance.

ADPD-The Green Party has been at the forefront, over the years, in emphasising the need to apply a moratorium on large-scale development. It is welcome news that former Prime Minister and Labour Leader Alfred Sant is now singing from the same hymn book.

Too much damage has been done over the years through the continuous support of over-development by the state.

The rationalisation exercise approved by Parliament in 2006 had then added two million square metres of ODZ land to the development zone. A substantial portion of this land is now in the process of being developed and most localities are at the receiving end. To date ADPD-The Green Party is the only political party advocating the reversal of this exercise. We have been constantly harping this point since the day the rationalisation exercise was approved way back in July 2006.

To add insult to injury, the state does not fail to take up opportunities to join the speculative industry as is currently being done by Enemalta at il-Qajjenza, limits of Birżebbuġa. Earlier this week it has been reported in the media that Enemalta Corporation as well as the Lands Authority are supporting a planning control application by a private developer, which application is proposing the development of the site of the former gas-bottling plant. This site was decommissioned some years back when the LPG sector was privatised and the plant moved to another site at Bengħajsa.

This planning control application (PC 22/23) involves land having an area of slightly under 24,000 square metres and seeks to change the zoning of the site of the former Enemalta gas bottling depot to one of mixed residential and commercial development spread over six blocks. The proposed blocks vary in height from four to eight floors.

Do we need this? Isn’t enough damage already in hand? The question which begs a reply is the need to explain why Enemalta and the Lands Authority are joining the speculative brigade: bulldozing over the rights of the residential community. Enemalta has caused too much damage to the Birżebbuġa community over the years. Isn’t it time for some form of atonement?  Enemalta should commence planning for reparations, to make good the damage done over the years.

It would be of considerable interest to know the views, on the proposed Qajjenza development, of the three government MPs elected from the Birżebbuġa electoral district. These being Robert Abela, Prime Minister, Enemalta and Environment Minister Miriam Dalli and land use planning Minister Stefan Zrinzo-Azzopardi. It would not be in my view incorrect to assume that they support this application, as otherwise they would have stopped Enemalta from giving its consent.

It is no use that they now join Michael Stivala in shedding tears in sympathy with the Qajjenza residential community. It would have been more appropriate if the political appointees which they have nominated over the years took the appropriate decisions immediately.

Shedding tears is not a newly invented gimmick. Fortunately, most can see through such theatrics.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 12 November 2023

The developing scandal: beyond the obvious

On 20 December 2021 the media informed us that Labour MP Silvio Grixti was resigning his Parliamentary seat. The reason for his resignation was not clear. It was however understood to be connected to “fraudulent sick leave certificates” in respect of which he was interrogated by the Police and subsequently released on police bail.

No details were released twenty-one months ago. The media were most probably given false leads as a number of outlets compared the Silvio Grixti case to the probe on sickness certificates then under way on PN MP Stephen Spiteri.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that Silvio Grixti needed to shoulder total responsibility for whatever had happened, immediately. It was on the eve of a general election and the actual scandal details had to remain under wraps. Otherwise, it could develop out of control, and that was too risky on the eve of a general election. It would have defeated the whole purpose of the scam: the purchase of votes through the fraudulent use of social services.

The scandal, briefly explained, so far is known to involve around 800 persons who received a “severe disability pension”. The amounts involved vary and are in the region of €450 per month per person. To benefit, proof in the form of specialised medical certification has to be submitted.

In a highly organised manner, a number of Labour Party supporters who were declaring with their social contacts that they did not intend to vote during the 2022 general elections were approached by persons linked to the Labour Party. This Labour Party “customer care group” offered these voters the possibility of receiving a financial benefit in the form of a severe disability pension. A number took the bait and were supplied with forged medical certificates to submit to the Social Security authorities in order that they start receiving a monthly cheque.

Some queried how this was possible when they did not have the ailments which would entitle them to receive the pension. Last week Newsbook published an interview with one such person. She explained how on the eve of the general election she received a phone call from the customer care unit of the Office of the Prime Minister. The person calling, whom she identified, discussed with her the reasons for considering not voting. She then suggested that she apply for the severe disability pension. As she queried her eligibility, she even received emails from the OPM customer care officer with details of the application.

There are other similar stories linking persons close to the Labour Party to this social benefit scam. It is also being claimed that in some cases kickbacks were involved! The allegations are being made relative to middlemen and canvassers of some Minister currently in office!

This is a case of organised crime. The mastermind/s have kept their distance from those actively involved in order to try and avoid identification!

More details are being published as individual cases are being decided by the Courts. The misapplied social benefits are being refunded and suspended prison sentences are being applied. However only some 20 per cent of the identified cases have been concluded. Moreover, it is only the beneficiaries that have been arraigned to date. The middlemen and those producing the forged documents have not been publicly identified so far. It is clear that Silvio Grixti is definitely not alone! However, no one has been publicly identified yet, except the customer care officer at the OPM! Who are the others?

Why is it taking so long to bring all those involved to justice?  This includes the identification and prosecution of the mastermind/s. The police have known about the case, at least, since when they interrogated Silvio Grixti, 21 months ago.

It is not only a case of the fraudulent receipt of social benefits. It is also an issue of corrupt practices. Unfortunately, no legal action can be taken in respect of corrupt (electoral) practices as such action is limited to a time frame of three days from the official publication of the general election results.

The police lack of action for such a long time enabled the scam to reap its primary dividends: that of exchanging votes with fraudulent social benefits. In addition, the police inaction ended up protecting the Labour Party which did not have to face the music when it really mattered: before the March 2022 general elections.

The public inquiry led by Mr Justice (retired) Antonio Mizzi will be examining the technical aspects of the social security application process to ensure that possibly there would not be a repetition of this scam. It is unlikely however that it will identify the masterminds and the middlemen and women! That is beyond its terms of remit. Only after the mastermind/s have been identified, and after they have faced the music, will justice have been served.

There is also a political responsibility to be shouldered. Everything points towards the Labour Party. If Robert Abela was a decent politician, he would have immediately accepted political responsibility as party leader and stood down. When he is eventually cornered, Abela will shift the blame on someone else. Decent men and women have resigned from public office for much less than that!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 17 September 2023

L-aħħar iskandlu: investigazzjoni miexja bil-mod wisq

Fit-Times tal-lum u fin-Newsbook tal-bierah hemm żewġ stejjer konnessi mal-iskandlu tal-benefiċċji soċjali.

Id-dettalji ħerġin ftit ftit. Il-Pulizija ilhom jinvestigaw minn meta ġabru lil Silvio Grixti għal interrogazzjoni f’Diċembru tal-2021, tlett xhur qabel l-elezzjoni ġenerali.

L-istorja tat-Times tal-lum titkellem dwar tpartit tal-vot ma’ benefiċċju soċjali li votant ma kellux dritt għalih.

Dan hu corrupt practice elettorali. Huwa ukoll kaz ta’ abbuż ta’ poter, korruzzjoni istituzzjonali, u ħasil ta’ flus.

In-Newsbook min-naħa l-oħra tippubblika storja dwar l-uffiċċju tal-Customer Care tal-Prim Ministru li issa, dwaru hemm prova fil-pubbliku li kellu sehem u rwol f’dan l-iskandlu.

Iktar ma jgħaddi żmien iktar qed jidher ċar li l-Partit Laburista qiegħed fiċ-ċentru ta’ dan l-iskandlu. Ippjanah u ikkordinah.

F’pajjiż serju kieku s’issa kellna skoss riżenji. S’issa kellna waħda biss: ta’ Silvio Grixti, l-ħaruf tas-sagrifiċċju, li kellu sehem important f’dan l-iskandlu, imma li ċertament ma kienx waħdu.

Wisq nibża’ li d-dewmien tal-passi li qed tieħu l-Pulizja hu parti mill-pjan biex inaqqsu l-impatti tal-iskandlu fuq il-Partit Laburista u fuq il-Gvern.

M’aħniex impressjonati b’dawk li jgħidu li ma jafu xejn u li ma kellhomx x’jaqsmu. Il-pjan ħadem bi kważi perfezzjoni u kull min kellu x’jaqsam, irid iħallas ta’ għemilu.

L-aħħar skandlu

L-aħħar skandlu tal-Labour hu abbuż mill-vulnerabbli. L-iskandlu ta’ Silvio Grixti. Abbuż minn dawk li kienu jeħtieġu l-għajnuna.

Il-Labour qegħdin fil-Gvern u ma kienux kapaċi jgħinuhom ħlief bil-qerq. B’dikjarazzjonijiet foloz. B’ċertifikati foloz.

Abbużaw mill-vulnerabilità tagħhom u għaddewhom minn tbatija ikbar. Ġiebuhom kompliċi f’serq u frodi. Għaddewhom proċess kriminali u dak li taparsi għaddewlhom b’għajnuna  ġielhom iħallsuħ lura.

Araw f’liema stat ġiebu lil dan il-pajjiż.

Nistennew li min hu l-moħħ wara din it-tbatija doppja jieħu dak li ħaqqu. Illum qabel għada.

The abortion debate: just the beginning

The approval of Bill 28 is not the end of the abortion debate. It is just the beginning. Maybe, the end of the beginning! The original proposals of Bill 28 were promising, even if they were no big deal. As originally proposed, Bill 28 was a reasonable starting point to an abortion debate which has been stifled for years on end.

It is neither normal nor acceptable for the Head of State to take part in such a controversial political debate in whatever form he opts to participate.

“Everyone knows my position”, President Vella said, when queried by the press last December. His active lobbying of holders of political office against the introduction of any form of abortion in the Maltese Islands was substantial. To add insult to injury he also went public on his intention to resign office and ignite a political crisis, if Parliament approved an abortion bill. In so doing he was giving full and open support to the conservative elements within the Labour Party and beyond, as a result bringing Robert Abela and Chris Fearne on their political knees and forcing them to change the content of Bill 28.

The Labour Party has buckled under the intense lobbying to which it was subjected. As a result, Labour ended up adopting the conservative political position of the Opposition. It has thus once more illustrated that, in such matters, when push comes to shove, Parliament is led by a unified PLPN. George Orwell’s Animal Farm description is apt: they looked from pig to man and from man to pig again, and could not tell which was which!

As PN MP Claudette Buttigieg emphasised in the Parliamentary Committee for the Consideration of Bills, last Monday, the PN Opposition was consistently conservative throughout the debate. Labour, on the other hand, unfortunately, ditched a draft which was a reasonable start for a serious debate and at the end adopted the conservative PN position.

Where do we go from here? The conservative forces, represented by PLPN have presented a united front in Parliament through the unanimous approval of the amended Bill 28. There are however rumblings that the fundamentalist right is considering the possibility of collecting signatures to call an abrogative referendum as the abortion amendments to the Criminal Code, in their view, go too far!

Notwithstanding what the fundamentalists do, the abrogative referendum procedure, is a unique opportunity, to take the conservative PLPN establishment to task. It is also an opportunity to contest the artificial consensus leading to the approval of Bill 28 as well as an appropriate instrument to denounce the interference in the democratic political process by George Vella, President of the Republic.

On Monday, in their different ways, in Parliament, Professor Isabel Stabile, Integra Foundation leader Maria Pisani and ADPD Chairperson Sandra Gauci, exposed clearly that in view of the fact that Bill 28 as amended is a huge step backwards, it is worse than the status quo, as Rosianne Cutajar quipped after the parliamentary vote. The changes made will not save lives. It will only protect medical practioners, as ably explained by Professor Isabel Stabile.

The way forward is to scrap the approved amendments to the Criminal Code and to alternatively legislate in favour of decriminalisation of abortion. Any woman who opts for an abortion needs empathy and not persecution from the state. A limited legal access to abortion is essential, not only when the pregnancy is a potential threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. It is also necessary to legislate in favour of abortion in cases of rape and incest as well as in those cases where a non-viable pregnancy arises. These issues have to date been avoided in the public debate. They must be addressed the soonest.

We need to clearly identify this as the moderate way forward. Far away from the emotional appeals of the fundamentalist lobby. Also, considerably distant from the extreme position of those who insist on total individual liberty without any limits.

The 2011 divorce referendum entrenched ethical pluralism in Malta’s political agenda. This was an irreversible step which affirmed that different ethical views not only exist: they need the protection of the state.

The PLPN approved abortion amendments entrench a 19^th century-Malta in our statute books. They need to be ditched and replaced with decent legislation fit for the 21^st century. This is the only reasonable way forward.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 July 2023