“int taf xi ġralha Daphne u ma naħsibx li trid tispiċċa bħala”

L-istorja dwar il-korruzzjoni konnessa mal-konċessjoni tal-isptarijiet issa qed tiżviluppa b’pass mgħaġġel.

L-artikli ippubblikati mit-Times huma tat-biża’.

Dak li hu rappurtat li qal Ram Tumuluri minn Vitals Global Healthcare l-bieraħ hu mill-iktar gravi: “int taf xi ġralha Daphne u ma naħsibx li trid tispiċċa bħala” (You know what happened with Daphne and you don’t want to end up in that position.) Kliem attribwit lil Keith Schembri, li naturalment jiċħad li qalu.

Ix-xhieda dettaljata fuq 500 paġna li tirreferi għaliha t-Times għad irridu nisimgħu iktar dwarhom kemm-il darba Tumuluri jingħata l-protezzjoni li talab fl-Istati Uniti bħala whistleblower.

Hi interessanti li propju issa tfaċċa xi ħadd li qed joffri li jixhed.

Dan kollu qed jiġri waqt li l-Pulizija hi siekta. Qiesa ma teżistix!

Pajjiżna ma jixraqlux dan kollu. Nittama li dan jwassal biex il-kobba tinħall u kulħadd jerfa r-responsabbiltà tiegħu. Jidher imma li fl-aħħar ser tagħqad. Il-biża’ tinħass!

Skuża (komda) ta’ Kabinett kompliċi

Ħareġ rapport ieħor tal-Awditur Ġenerali dwar il-kuntratt li l-Labour fil-Gvern ta’ lill-Vitals Global Health Care. Kuntratt li spiċċa għand Steward Health Care.

L-Awditur Ġenerali qed jirrapporta li l-Ministri,msieken iħossuhom li ġew żgwidati minn Konrad Mizzi, seħibhom fil-Kabinett!

Melal0Ministri mzazen, jilbilgħu kull ma jisimgħu?

Xi skuża komda biex tagħlaq għajnejk għall-korruzzjoni! Kollha flimkien iridu jerfgħu l-piz ta’ dan il-ħmieġ. Il-Kabinett kollu hu kompliċi. Il-Kabinett kellu l-poter li jwaqqaf dan il-ħmieg u ma għamel xejn. Anzi għalaq għajnejh.

Profitti għas-settur privat, riskji u kontijiet għall Gvern!

Nhar it-Tnejn li għadda l-Parlament iddiskuta s-sentenza mogħtija mill-Imħallef Francesco Depasquale fuq il-konċessjoni dwar tlett isptarijiet tal-Gvern lill-Vitals Global Healthcare liema konċessjoni eventwalment għaddiet għand Steward Health Care. Id-deċiżjoni li ngħatat hi kontra l-Prim Ministru bħala kap tal-Eżekuttiv, kif ukoll kontra l-Avukat Ġenerali, kumpaniji diversi mill-grupp kummerċjali ta’ Steward Health Care u xi korpi pubbliċi u r-rappresentanti tagħhom.

Din hi kawża li ppreżenta Adrian Delia meta kien għadu Kap tal-Opposizzjoni. Il-parti kbira tad-diskussjoni parlamentari dwar din is-sentenza iffukat fuq nuqqas ta’ governanza tajba, dwar tmexija ħażina u dwar frodi flimkien mal- korruzzjoni, assoċjati ma’ din il-konċessjoni sa mit-tnissil tagħha.

Dan kollu joħroġ ċar mis-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-ġimgħa l-oħra. Imma għal min kien attent, dan kien diġa jidher ċar fiż-żewġ rapporti dwar din il-konċessjoni tal-isptarijiet, rapporti li ħareġ l-Awditur Ġenerali f’Lulju 2020 u f’Diċembru 2021. Is-sentenza tal-Qorti qed issaħħaħ u tirrinforza l-konklużjonijiet li wasal għalihom l-Awditur Ġenerali.

Niftakru li f’Lulju 2020 l-Awditur Ġenerali kien ippubblika l-ewwel rapport tiegħu, rapport li hu mifrux fuq iktar minn 200 paġna u li kien jiffoka fuq il-proċess tal-offerti għall-konċessjoni dwar l-isptarijiet. Dan kien supplimentat b’addendum ta’ 20 paġna oħra. Iktar tard f’Diċembru 2021 l-Awditur Ġenerali kien ippubblika it-tieni rapport tiegħu b’467 paġna, li kien jiffoka fuq il-qafas kuntrattwali tal-konċessjoni u kif dan ġie mħaddem.

L-Awditur Ġenerali kien ikkonkluda fir-rapporti tiegħu li l-preparazzjoni li wettaq il-Gvern in konnessjoni mal-konċessjoni kienet waħda superfiċjali, u li meta ħareġ is-sejħa għall-offerti kien fil-fatt diġa ftiehem u fuq kollox lill-Kabinett bosta drabi kien iħallieh fil-għama. Anke l-Ministru tal-Finanzi kien imwarrab, qiesu kien qiegħed hemm għalxejn!

Punt interessati li isemmi l-Awditur Ġenerali hu li Vitals Global Healthcare ippreżentaw garanzija bankarja mill-Bank of India li kienet datata 13 ta’ Marzu 2015, ħmistax-il ġurnata qabel ma fil-fatt ħarġet is-sejħa għall-offerti. Dan sar għax il-ftehim kien diġa sar u s-sejħa li ħarġet għall-offerti kienet waħda finta! A bażi ta’ dan, l-Awditur Ġenerali kien tal-fehma li Vitals Global Healthcare kellhom ikunu skwalifikati milli jippartiċipaw fis-sejħa għall-offert għall-konċessjoni dwar l-isptarijiet.

Dan hu kollu importanti u separatament wassal għal konklużjonijiet li issa wasal għalihom ukoll l-Imħallef Depasquale fis-sentenza li qed nitkellmu dwarha. Ifisser li Gvern serju, kieku ried, seta jaġixxi. Kellu biżżejjed informazzjoni biex jibgħat lil Steward Health Care isaqqu. Imma b’mod ċar dan ma setax jagħmlu għax il-Gvern kien parti integrali mill-ħadma li saret.

Imma hemm affarijiet oħra, daqstant importanti, ta’ natura fundamentali u li huma presentment skartati mid-diskussjoni pubblika. Kemm jagħmel sens li qasam sensittiv bħas-saħħa ikollu parti sostanzjali minnu taħt kontroll kważi assolut tas-settur privat. Jagħmel sens il-Public-Private Partnership fil-qasam tas-saħħa?

Din hi mistoqsija li hi kompletament skartata fid-dibattitu pubbliku li sar u li għadu għaddej. Hi mistoqsija fundamentali li mit-tweġiba għaliha tista’ toħroġ il-fasla ta’ kif is-settur privat jista’ jikkontribwixxi u jipparteċipa mingħajr ma jikkontrolla: kif kulħadd jitħallas ta’ xogħolu imma li ħadd ma jitħalla jberbaq il-ġid tal-pajjiż.

L-esperjenza li għandna f’dan il-pajjiz dwar l-involviment tas-settur privat f’dawn it-tip ta’ proġetti hi waħda ta’ problemi kbar: problema ta’ deċiżjonijiet ħziena u ta’ abbuż ta’ poter, kif ukoll suspetti kbar ta’ frodi u korruzzjoni. Dan b’referenza kemm għal din il-konċessjoni tal-isptarijiet, il-progett tal-enerġija f’Delimara u anke fil-progett ta’ San Vinċenz f’Ħal-Luqa. F’kull kaz hemm rapporti voluminużi tal-Awditur Ġenerali li jispjegaw dettaljatatment it-taħwid li ġie iġġenerat mill-Gvern immexxi mill-Partit Laburista wara l-2013.

Huwa mudell ekonomiku fallut li jarmi l-assi pubbliċi. Mudell li intuża ukoll f’ċirkustanzi oħra bħall-bejgħ tal-art f’Pembroke bir-ribass biex ikun iffavoreġġat il-proġett spekulattiv tal-Grupp dB.  Il-profitti li jirriżultaw mill-ispekulazzjoni, sfortunatament għandhom prijorità fuq il-ġid komuni għal dan il-Gvern.

Hu ċar li jekk irridu l-involviment tas-settur privat fi proġetti pubbliċi, dan l-involviment għandu jkun regolat sewwa u din ir-regolamentazzjoni għandha tkun infurzat biex tkun assigurata governanza tajba mill-bidu nett, mill-ewwel ideat sat-twettieq ta’ proġetti ta’ din ix-xorta.  S’issa kollox qiegħed jitħalla jimxi għal riħu bil-konsegwenzi li qed naraw b’għajnejna u li qed insiru nafu bihom ftit ftit. Nuqqas ta’ regoli ċari li jkunu infurzati jwassal inevitabilment għal taħwid, għal frodi u għal korruzzjoni. Riżultat ta’ hekk ibati l-pajjiz kollu.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 5 ta’ Marzu 2023

Private profits public risks

On Monday Parliament discussed the decision delivered in Court by Judge Francesco Depasquale relative to the Government hospital concession awarded to Vitals Global Healthcare, eventually substituted by Steward Health Care. The decision delivered is against the Prime Minister as head of the Executive, as well as the Attorney General, various companies in the Steward Health Care Group and a number of quangos and their representatives.

This Court Case was presented by Adrian Delia when he was Leader of the Opposition. The major part of the Parliamentary discussion has focused on bad governance, fraud and corruption which were all associated with the hospital concession process since its inception.

All this emanates from the Court decision delivered last week. However, those who observe the political scene attentively would be undoubtedly aware that all this was already evident in two reports published by the Auditor General on this hospital concession: the first one published in July 2020 and the second one in December 2021. The Court’s decision, in fact, reinforces the Auditor General’s conclusions.

We do clearly remember that in July 2020 the Auditor General had published a first report running into over 200 pages focusing on the hospital concession tendering process. This was followed by an addendum and later, in December 2021 the Auditor General published a second report, 467 pages long, which reviewed the contractual framework of the hospital concession.

In his reports the Auditor General concluded that the preparatory work carried out by the public sector in relation to the hospital concession was very superficial. The Auditor General’s reports also identified that even before the request for proposals was published Government had already concluded on awarding Vitals Global Healthcare the hospitals concession! Cabinet and even the Finance Minister were generally kept in the dark. 

The Auditor General, in his investigations, found a bank guarantee presented by Vitals Global Healthcare. It was issued by the Bank of India on the 13 March 2015, a fortnight before the request for proposals was even published. This clearly established that the agreement was already sealed even before the public request for proposals had been published. The Auditor General had clearly identified this as a definite proof of collusion. On this basis, the Auditor General had in fact expressed a strongly worded opinion that Vitals Global Healthcare should have been disqualified from participating in the request for proposals relative to the hospitals’ concession.

All this is of paramount importance. Way back in 2020/21 it had led to the Auditor General conclusions which have now been confirmed by Mr Justice Depasquale in the decision delivered last week. This means that government should and could have acted then: it had sufficient information to send Steward Health Care packing. However very clearly it could not act as it was part and parcel of the deceit at hand.

There are however further matters, just as important as the above, which the current debate unfortunately avoids. We should ask: does it make sense for a sector as sensitive as health to be controlled in this manner by the private sector? Does a public-private partnership in the health sector make sense?

These questions are being ignored in the public debate currently at hand. These questions are of a fundamental nature as the replies thereto could identify the manner as to how the private sector can be involved without having a controlling interest and how all those involved can be fairly remunerated without squandering public funds.

The local accumulated experience resulting from this kind of projects is very problematic: we are continuously faced with incorrect decisions, abusive decision-taking as well as substantial suspicions of fraud and corruption. This is being stated with reference not just to this hospital concession but also to the energy deal at the Delimara Power Station and the project at the Luqa elderly residence: St Vincent de Paul. In each case the Auditor General has produced voluminous reports detailing the mayhem generated by the post 2013 Labour government.

It is a failed economic model which discounts public goods. It has also been applied in other sectors: a case in point being the Pembroke land “sold” at throwaway prices in favour of the speculative project of the dB Group. Speculative profit is unfortunately being continuously prioritised over the common good by the present government.

It is crystal clear that if we want the private sector involved in public projects its involvement must be regulated, and the said regulatory regime must be adequately enforced in order to ensure good governance throughout, from inception right through to implementation. So far it is a free for all: the consequences are for all to see.  A lack of clear rules and their enforcement inevitably leads to confusion, fraud and corruption. The whole country, as a result, has to pay the consequences.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 5 March 2023

Fil-Parlament il-lejla: x’faqar!

Smajtuh id-dibattitu tal-lejla fil-Parlament dwar is-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-ġimgħa l-oħra?

X’faqar! X’mistħija ta’ Parlament!

Il-pajjiż jixraqlu ferm aħjar minn hekk!

It-taħwida hi kbira: flok “world class medical system” għandna kaz ta’ “world class fraud” li nħolqot minn Vitals Global Healthcare u Steward Health Care u mill-Gvern Laburista.

S’issa insterqu €300 miljun!

Għadu kmieni biex wieħed jgħid x’ser jiġri u dan sakemm jinqata’ l-appell, jekk ikun hemm.

Jinħtieġu tweġibiet diversi.

Meta ser jibdew l-investigazzjonijiet mill-Pulizija fil-konfront ta’ dawk involuti? Il-Pulizija sfortunatament mhemmx ħosshom! Fejn hu l-Kummissarju tal-Pulizija Angelo Gafà?

Robert Abela, Konrad Mizzi, Edward Scicluna, Chris Cardona, Keith Schembri u Joseph Muscat: meta ser jintalbu jwieġbu ta’ egħmilhom, jew tan-nuqqas tiegħu?

Il-membri tal-Kabinett immexxi minn Joseph Muscat: ħadd ma jaf xejn. Wieħed iwaħħal fl-ieħor. Kellna Ministru tal-Finanzi (Edward Scicluna) li ma kienx jaf x’inhu jigri fil-Ministeru tieghu!

Chris Fearne min-naħa l-oħra, ħlief għal xi botta, kien kawta ħafna! Hu imħasseb dwar x’inhu ġej!

Il-parti l-kbira tal-membri tal-Kabinett ta’ Joseph Muscat baqgħu fommhom magħluq. Ħlief Varist Bartolo, li bħas-soltu jibqa’ jdur mal-lewża.

Hemm responsabbiltà politika kbira. Hemm ukoll responsabbiltajiet kriminali. Min ser iwieġeb? S’issa ħadd ma wieġeb.

Robert Abela kien skomdu ħafna huwa u jipprova jwieġeb waqt is-seduta Parlamentari tal-lejla. Inevitabilment ħarab mis-sustanza tal-argument. Sa ċertu punt wieħed dan jifhmu għax il-konsegwenzi mhumiex żgħar u għandu bżonn iż-żmien.

Għad nispiċċaw li jkollna ninvestgaw kull kuntratt li ngħata minn dan il-Gvern. Ħadma, waħda wara l-oħra.

Din hi storja li għad trid tinkiteb fid-dettall. Fl-aħħar, kull min hu responsabbli jrid iħallas ta’ egħmilu.

Il-ħrafa tal-Isqof

Id-dibattitu dwar l-abort, kif mistenni hu wieħed qalil. Hu ħafna emottiv.

Imma minkejja dak kollu li qiegħed jingħad hemm sinjal żgħir ta’ qbil.

Il-parti l-kbira ta’ dawk li jgħidu li ma jaqblux mal-abort, jgħidu ukoll li jagħmlu eċċezzjoni waħda biss: meta l-ħajja tal-mara tqila tkun fil-periklu. Dawn ukoll, minkejja, dak li jgħidu,  qed jaċċettaw l-argument baziku tad-diskussjoni dwar l-abbozz ta’ liġi. Ċjoé li l-abort għandu jkun aċċettabbbli biss f’ċirkustanzi straordinarji. Dan hu tajjeb. Pass kbir il-quddiem. Jidher li b’hekk hemm qbil ma’ waħda mir-ragunijiet bażiċi għall-abbozz ta’ liġi: f’kaz li l-ħajja tal-mara tqila tkun fil-periklu. Irrispettivament minn dak kollu li qed jgħidu, dan hu abort ukoll. Imma hu aċċettabbli għax hu ġustifikabbli b’raġuni validissima.

Għad jonqos li jkun hemm qbil dwar meta jkun hemm periklu gravi għas-saħħa. 

Sfortunatament, id-dibattitu, kif jiġri ħafna drabi f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, fih sfruttament tan-nuqqas ta’ informazzjoni u element qawwi ta’ misinformazzjoni. Fuq quddiem nett f’dan kollu hemm il-PN u l- Knisja li b’mod retoriku u f’sintonija qed jagħmlu użu mill-arma tal-biża’, bla ebda skruplu, flimkien ma doża qawwija ta’ miżinformazzjoni.

Hemm il-biża’ li l-proposta tal-lum tista’, fil-futur, tiżviluppa f’abort on demand. Din, iżda, mhiex il-proposta li hemm fuq il-mejda. Imma, minkejja dan, bi żlejaltà lejn l-opinjoni pubblika, l-PN u l-Knisja, f’sintonija, għaddejjin b’kampanja ta’ miżinformazzjoni dwar dan. Dak li jfissru l-ħrejjef dwar l-biċċerija! Ħrafa li ġiet imlissna minn wieħed mill-isqfijiet.

Il-proposta tal-Gvern għad tista’ tkun imtejba. Iridu jingħalqu t-toqob għall-abbuż. Dwar dan diġa ktibt u tkellimt. Ikun għaqli li l-ebda professjonist mediku ma jieħu deċiżjoni waħdu. Irid ikun ċar li dak li l-emenda mressqa trid twettaq hu li toffri soluzzjoni u empatija għall-każijiet ġenwini fejn il-ħajja tkun fil-periklu inkella fejn l-istat ta’ saħħa tal-mara tqila jkun tant gravi li dan jista’ jwassal għall-periklu għal ħajjitha.

Mhux kull kaz ta’ saħħa (inkluża s-saħħa mentali) jwassal għall-periklu għall-ħajja, iktar u iktar illum bl-avvanzi fil-mediċina. Imma fejn dan ikun il-kaz, anke jekk ikun kaz rari ħafna, għandu jkun possibli li t-tobba jagixxu bla biża’ imma dejjem b’responsabbiltà. Għalhekk l-abbozz ta’ liġi huwa meħtieġ. Għalhekk il-ħtieġa li naġixxu.

Il-fundamentaliżmu dejjem ixekkel id-diskussjoni matura. Jagħmel il-ħsara. Ħsara kbira. Fil-passat xekkel id-diskussjoni dwar id-divorzju, dwar id-drittijiet LGTBIQ u dwar l-IVF. Dejjem l-istess nies issib fuq quddiem, jostakolaw diskussjoni matura. Nieqfulhom kif sal-lum għamilna dejjem b’suċċess.

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

It-taħwida l-kbira dwar l-abort

Id-diskussjoni li qed tiżviluppa dwar l-abort hi taħwida waħda kbira. Taħwida li sfortunatament qed jikkontribwixxu għaliha kemm il-Knisja kif ukoll il-Partit Nazzjonalista.

L-abbozz ta’ liġi li ressaq il-Gvern hu dwar kif u meta, b’mod eċċeżżjonali, jista’ jkun hemm intervent mediku biex tintemm tqala. It-tmiem ta’ tqala hu definittivament abort: imma l-proposta hi dwar il-każijiet eċċezzjonali meta dan jista’ jsir u mhux kif qed jiġi kontinwament implikat b’mod malizzjuz.

Fir-realtà, anke dawk li qed jippontifikaw kontra l-abort qed jaċċettaw li hemm ċirkustanzi fejn dan hu permissibli. Id-dibattitu rejali għalhekk hu dwar liema huma dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi eċċezzjonali li fihom abort hu ġustifikat.

Il-Gvern qed jargumenta li apparti meta l-ħajja tal-mara tqila tkun fil-periklu jista’ jkun meħtieġ intervent meta is-saħħa tal-mara tqila tkun fil-periklu: is-saħħa hi ikkunsidrata fit-totalità tagħha jiġifieri tinkludi ukoll is-saħħa mentali. Dan hu tajjeb.

Ir-raġuni għall-inklużjoni fil-proposta tal-Gvern tad-deterjorament tas-saħħa tal-mara tqila bħala raġuni għat-tmiem ta’ tqala hi li m’għandekx toqgħod tistenna sakemm is-saħħa tkun ideterjorat tant li dan iwassal biex tpoġġi anke l-ħajja tal-mara f’periklu.

Il-kontro-argument għal dan kollu hu li dan jista’ jwassal għal abbuż.  Hu argumentat li l-parametri mfassla mill-Gvern huma wisgħin wisq u jistgħu jagħtu lok għal abbuż. Irridu nirrikonoxxu li dan hu dejjem possibli li jsir anke jekk dan ma naħsibx li hu intenzjonat.

Dan kollu għandu jwassal biex niddiskutu bi ftit iktar serjetà dwar x’miżuri għandhom jittieħdu biex ikun evitat dan il-possibli abbuż.

Wieħed mill-argumenti fid-discussion paper dwar il-proposta tal-Gvern li ġiet ippubblikata minn grupp ta’ akkademiċi hu li d-deċiżjoni dwar jekk għandux isir intervent biex tintemm tqala m’għandiex tittieħed minn persuna waħda iżda minn numru ta’ speċjalisti mediċi flimkien. Din il-proposta tista’ tkun soluzzjoni biex biha jkun hemm kontroll adegwat li bih ikun assigurat li ma jkunx hemm abbuż. Proposta li fil-fatt nisslet kummenti favorevoli mid-Deputat Prim Ministru Chris Fearne huwa u jressaq il-liġi fil-Parlament nhar it-Tnejn li għaddew.

Hemm bżonn ftit iktar serjetà fid-diskussjoni. Sfortunatament din hi nieqsa bil-kbir. Il-proposta tal-Gvern hi tajba: jeħtieġ iżda li jkun assigurat li d-dettalji tagħha jassiguraw li tista’ titħaddem b’mod li ma jsirux abbużi.

Din hi id-diskussjoni reali li għandna bżonn! Sfortunatament hi nieqsa.

Proposta nejja tal-Labour dwar l-abort

Nhar it-Tnejn, il-Parlament approva fl-istadju tal-ewwel qari, l-abbozz ta’ liġi numru 28. Dan l-abbozz hu intenzjonat biex jikkjarifika l-provedimenti tal-Kodiċi Kriminali dwar l-abort terrapewtiku. B’mod speċifiku l-għanijiet u r-raġunijiet tal-abbozz huma biex “jipprovdu kjarifika dwar il-parametri fil-Kodiċi Kriminali li għandhom japplikaw għal cirkostanzi ta’ neċessità fejn ikun meħtieġ intervent mediku biex tkun protetta l-ħajja u s-saħħa ta’ mara tqila li tkun qiegħda tbati minn kumplikazzjoni medika.”

Uħud jikkunsidraw li l-abbozz numru 28 hu pass żgħir il-quddiem f’pajjiż li kontinwament ipprova jevita li jiddibatti l-abort. Sfortunatament, imma, l-proposta li ġiet ippreżentata hi waħda nejja.  

Wara snin jevita dibattitu nazzjonali, kien ikun ferm iktar għaqli għall-Gvern li jippubblika White Paper fejn jispjega b’mod ċar u dettaljat dak li jrid jagħmel dwar l-abort kif ukoll dwar dak kollu relatat miegħu. Tajjeb li nirrealizzaw li l-leġislazzjoni dwar l-abort tal-pajjiż ma hi tal-ebda siwi. Wara li ġiet injorata għal 160 sena l-liġi teħtieġ li tkun aġġornata għaż-żminijiet u li tkun tirrifletti l-avvanzi fix-xjenza u l-mediċina tul dawn is-snin kollha. Hemm bżonn li tinkiteb mill-ġdid u dan fid-dawl tal-fatt li tul dawn l-aħħar għaxar sninil-pajjiż ħaddan il-plurliżmu etiku.

Hu ċar li l-Gvern qed jipprova jindirizza l-impatt politiku li rriżulta mill-kaz riċenti tat-turista Amerikana Andrea Prudente, f’liema każ Malta naqset milli tipprovdi l-kura medika li kienet mistennija.

M’għandniex ħtieġa ta’ proposta rejattiva, proposta nejja: imma għandna bżonn proposta li tindirizza ir-realtà tas-seklu wieħed u għoxrin.  L-abort hu parti integrali mill-ħajja Maltija, rridu jew ma irridux! L-indikazzjonijiet huma ta’ medja ta’ 400 abort li jsiru kull sena fost il-Maltin. Il-parti l-kbira jseħħu bl-użu ta’ pilloli li jinkisbu bil-posta.  Oħrajn iseħħu f’pajjiżi oħra, primarjament fir-Renju Unit kif jidher fir-rapporti mediċi annwali ippubblikati.

Il-Partit Laburista jidher li hu xott mill-ideat għax naqas ukoll milli jindirizza l-abort fil-manifest elettorali tiegħu għall-elezzjoni ġenerali ta’ Marzu 2022.

Dan it-tkaxkir tas-saqajn mill-Partit Laburista jikkuntrasta mal-proposti tal-partit immexxi minni li tul ix-xhur li għaddew ippreżentajna proposti diversi biex apparti iktar ċarezza fil-liġi nimxu lejn id-dikriminalizzazzjoni kif ukoll lejn l-introduzzjoni speċifika tal-abort limitat għal tlett ċirkustanzi partikolari u straordinarji. Il-proposta tagħna hi li l-abort ikun permissibli meta l-ħajja jew is-saħħa tal-mara tqila tkun mhedda, fil-kaz ta’ tqala li isseħħ riżultat ta’ vjolenza (stupru u incest) kif ukoll fil-kaz ta’ tqala li ma tkunx vijabbli.

Uħud jikkunsidraw li dak proposta hu ftit wisq, oħrajn li hu wisq. Fil-fehma tagħna il-proposta hi addattata għaċ-ċirkustanzi partikolari lokali. Hi proposta li mhux biss hi ferm aħjar mill-proposta nejja tal-Gvern, imma twassal ukoll biex il-liġi tkun aġġornata għal dak mistenni fi żmienna!

Hemm ukoll materji oħra li huma relatati u li jeħtieġ li jkunu diskussi. Matul din il-ġimgħa grupp ta’ akkademiċi lokali u oħrajn ippubblikaw dokument għad-diskussjoni in konnessjoni mal-proposta tal-Gvern dwar l-abort.

Il-proposti fid-dokument ippubblikat għad-diskussjoni jfittxu li jissikkaw id-definizzjonijiet dwar iċ-ċirkustanzi li fihom ikun ġġustifikat l-intervent mediku biex ikun possibli li tkun protetta l-ħajja u s-saħħa tal-mara tqila. Jeskludi ukoll kull xorta ta’ abort.

Il-punti mqajjma f’dan id-dokument hu dejjem utlili li jkunu diskussi. Għalhekk ilna ngħidu li hemm ħtieġa għal diskussjoni pubblika matura, diskussjoni li l-Gvern ilu żmien jevita.  Imma nistenna ukoll li jkun hemm akkademiċi oħra b’veduti u opinjonijiet differenti li anke huma jsemmgħu leħinhom. Għandhom bżonn joħorġu mill-friża.

Irridu nħarsu lil hinn mill-proposti restrittivi li dan id-dokument għad-diskussjoni jippreżenta. Sa mill-2011, meta kien approvat ir-referendum dwar id-divorzju, Malta għażlet it-triq tal-pluraliżmu etiku: rispett lejn il-pluralità ta’ opinjonijiet u valuri etiċi. Id-dokument li qed nirreferi għalih hu negazzjoni ta’ dan u effettivament hu proposta biex naqbdu triq oħra u differenti. Għandna nirreżistu dan l-attentat.

Fl-aħħar għandu jkun ċar li din mhiex diskussjoni dwar x’inhu tajjeb jew ħażin imma dwar min għandu jieħu d-deċiżjoni kif ukoll dwar il-parametri li jiddeterminaw kif u safejn nistgħu naġixxu. M’aħniex qed ngħixu f’teokrazija: hu dritt li naffermaw illi hu possibli li jeżistu veduti u valuri differenti.

B’hekk beda d-dibattitu li ilu żmien maħnuq.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: 27 ta’ Novembru 2022

Labour’s half-baked abortion proposal

On Monday Parliament approved at first reading stage Bill number 28 which Bill seeks to clarify the provisions of the Criminal Code relative to therapeutic abortion. Specifically, the objects and reasons of the Bill seek to “provide clarification on the parameters that shall apply in the Criminal Code to circumstances of necessity in which a medical intervention is required in order to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman suffering from a medical complication”.

Some may consider that Bill 28 is a good first step in a country which has continuously avoided debating abortion. Unfortunately, government’s proposal is half-baked.

After years of avoiding a national debate, it would have been much better if government published a detailed White Paper explaining its views on abortion and the related issues and principles. It is about time that we recognise that the country’s abortion legislation is not fit for purpose. After being ignored for 160 years Maltese abortion legislation requires to be brought in line with medical and scientific progress over the years. It also requires a substantial redrafting in view of the fact that for over a decade Malta has embraced ethical pluralism.

It is clear that government has limited itself to addressing the political fallout resulting from the recent case of the American tourist Andrea Prudente as a result of which Malta failed in the provision of the expected medical care.

We do not require a half-baked reactive proposal but rather a proposal which addresses twenty-first century reality. Whether we like it or not, abortion is a regular occurrence among Maltese too! Indications point towards an average 400 abortions which are carried out annually, a substantial portion of which through the use of abortion pills acquired through the post. Others are carried out through abortion tourism, primarily in the United Kingdom as is evidenced by annual published medical returns for England and Wales.

Apparently, the Labour Party is short on ideas as it has even failed to address abortion in its electoral manifesto for the March 2022 general election.

In contrast to the reluctance of the Labour Party to come forward with proposals, the Maltese Greens, which I lead, have, over the past months presented proposals which in addition to the required clarifications in our legislation seek decriminalisation as well as the specific introduction of abortion in three extraordinary circumstances: namely when the pregnant female’s health or life is under threat, in cases of a pregnancy brought about violently (rape and incest) as well as in the case of non-viable pregnancies.

Some have considered our above proposals as being too little, others as being too much. We consider that in view of the prevailing local circumstances our proposals are just right, a substantial improvement over government’s half-baked proposals and an overhaul of the current mid-nineteen century legislation, which is out of tune with what is expected in this day and age.

There are other related issues which we should also discuss. During this week a group of local academics and some hangers-on have published a discussion paper which discusses government’s abortion proposal.

The proposals in the said discussion paper seek to tightly define the circumstances which justify a medical intervention to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman. It also seeks to exclude all forms of abortion by tightly defining the applicable parameters.

It is a point of view which should be considered and discussed. This is what a mature public debate should be about and what government has been continuously avoiding. I would however expect other academics having different views to come out of the deep freeze and speak up.

We should look beyond the restrictive proposals presented in the discussion paper. Since the 2011 divorce referendum Malta has embarked on a journey of ethical pluralism which respects a plurality of views and ethical norms. The discussion paper is a negation of this journey and an attempt to change course, which attempt should be resisted.

At the end of the day the debate is not about what is right and wrong but on who should take the decision and the parameters within which it is permissible to act. We are not living in a theocracy. Differing views and values can definitely co-exist.

Let the debate, at last, begin.

published on Malta Independent on Sunday : 27 November 2022