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.

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

Is-skiet tal-Ministri fiż-Żurrieq

L-attivisti li waħħlu messaġġ mal-uffiċini tal-Ministri Miriam Dalli u Stefan Zrinzo-Azzopardi, fiż-Żurrieq, għamlu sewwa. Bil-bibien kollha magħluqin dan kien l-uniku mod kif setgħu jikkomunikaw mar-rappreżentanti tagħhom fil-Parlament: mal-Ministri tagħhom.

Il-messaġġ li wasslu lill-Onorevoli Ministri ifakkarhom li huma kienu siekta waqt il-kontroversja dwar l-art tan-Nigret. Wara kollox huma responsabbli politikament għal dak li għaddej. Stefan Zrinzo-Azzopardi bħala Ministru għall-Ippjanar tal-Użu tal-Art u Miriam Dalli bħala Ministru għall-Ambjent.

L-attivisti setgħu żiedu lit-tielet Ministru, Robert Abela. Anke hu jiġi elett mill-ħames distrett elettorali li minnu ż-Żurrieq jifforma parti.

Matul dawn l-aħħar għaxar snin, il-Partit Laburista ma għamel xejn biex jaġġusta, jemenda, inkella jħassar il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni li kien ippreżenta fil-Parlament George Pullicino fl-2006, dakinnhar Ministru responsabbli kemm għall-Ippjanar għall-Użu tal-Art kif ukoll għall-Ambjent. Robert Abela, dakinnhar, kien wieħed mill-konsulenti tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar permezz tad-ditta legali ta’ missieru Abela & Stafrace.

Il-PN, li, bħalissa, fil-Parlament, qed ixerred id-dmugħ tal-kukkudrilli dwar id-drittijiet ambjentali tagħna hu resposabbli għal din il-mandra li qed tiżviluppa quddiem għajnejna. Il-Partit Laburista, min-naħa l-oħra, li fil-Parlament fis-sajf tal-2006 kien ivvota kontra l-proposta tar-razzjonalizzazzjoni ukoll irid jerfa’ parti mit-tort, għax għal għaxar snin sħaħ ma għamel xejn dwar din il-problema. Ħalla kollox miexi waħdu.

Mill-Qrati hemm bosta deċiżjonijiet li juru li ma jkun hemm l-ebda dritt għal kumpens kemm-il darba il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni kellu jitħassar immedjatament. Imma l-Labour fil-gvern, kontinwament jipprova jbeżża’ bil-babaw tal-kumpens biex jipprova jiġġustifika għala ma għamel xejn dwar dan.   Għaxar snin ta’ skiet li matulhom żewġ miljun metru kwadru ta’ art ingħataw għall-iżvilupp. Żewġ miljun metru kwadru li sal-2006 kienu kollha ODZ, jiġifieri barra miz-zona ta’ żvilupp.

Waħda, waħda, qed induru diversi lokalitajiet li, illum, 17-il sena wara li l-Parlament approva l-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni bdew iħossu l-impatti tiegħu. Iż-Żurrieq missu wara Marsaskala, l-Iklin, Marsaxlokk, il-Mosta, Santa Luċija, Ħ’Attard, is-Swieqi u bosta lokalitajiet oħra. Bla dubju ser ikun hemm iktar lokalitajiet li jintlaqtu għax il-Labour m’għandux il-kuraġġ li jmur fil-Parlament biex iħassar il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni. Jippreferi jilgħab bis-€700 miljun, jikkonvinċi lilu nnifsu li taparsi qiegħed joħloq xi spazji miftuħa ġodda, meta, kien ikun ferm iktar effettiv kieku beda biex iddefenda l-kampanja, l-ispazju miftuħa li diġa għandna għax ipprovdietu n-natura bla ħlas.

Min-naħa l-oħra, il-PN irid jipprova jingħoġob ma kulħadd. Il-Membri Parlamentari Nazzjonalisti li jiġu eletti mill-Ħames Distrett (Toni Bezzina u Stanley Zammit) kienu in-Nigret b’appoġġ u b’solidarjetà mar-residenti.  Imma ftit siegħat wara, il-kelliemi tal-PN għall-politika dwar l-ippjanar tal-użu tal-art, (Stanley Zammit) iddikjara bi kliem ċar daqs il-kristall li l-PN kien għadu favur il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni u ma jrid li jinbidel xejn minnu.  Għall-PN jigifieri l-art tan-Nigret għandha tinbena.  Ma nafx x’ġew jagħmlu n-Nigret!

Flimkien, il-PLPN huma responsabbli għall-ħerba li qed tiżviluppa quddiem għajnejna. Il-PN fil-gvern ħoloqha. Il-Labour fil-gvern sostniha u dan meta seta faċilment ġiebha fit-tmiem, darba għal dejjem.

ADPD hu l-uniku partit politiku li b’mod ċar u konsistenti tkellem favur it-tmiem tal-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni u l-qerda ta’ żewġ miljun metru kwadru ta’ art, il-parti l-kbira raba’. L-oħrajn, kontinwament iddefendew ir-rebgħa u l-iżvilupp esaġerat. L-effett ta’ dan kollu jista’ jarah kulħadd: qerda tal-kampanja, il-ftit li għad baqa’.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 11 ta’ Ġunju 2023

In Żurrieq the Ministers are silent

The activists who fixed banners outside the Zurrieq constituency office of Ministers Miriam Dalli and Stefan Zrinzo-Azzopardi were right in what they did. All other channels being closed, this was the only way they could communicate with their parliamentary representatives, “their ministers”.

The message conveyed to the Honourable Ministers underlined their silence in view of the Nigret land controversy for which the two Ministers are currently politically responsible. Zrinzo-Azzopardi as Minister for Land Use Planning and Dalli as Minister for the Environment.

The activists could easily have added a third Minister, Robert Abela. He too is elected from the fifth electoral District of which the Żurrieq locality forms part.

During these last ten years, the Labour Party, did nothing to adjust, amend or repeal the rationalisation exercise piloted through parliament by George Pullicino in 2006 when he was the Minister responsible for both Land use Planning and the Environment. Robert Abela was then one of the Planning Authority’s legal advisors through his father’s  legal firm Abela & Stafrace.

The PN in Parliament, now shedding crocodile tears on our environmental rights is primarily responsible for the developing land use planning mess. Yet the Labour Party, whose Members of Parliament voted against the rationalisation proposal way back in summer of 2006, have to shoulder the blame too, as for ten whole years they did nothing about it. They did nothing to translate their party’s political stance to concrete action.

As evidenced by a never-ending case law, no compensation whatsoever would be due if the rationalisation exercise is immediately abrogated. Yet the labour party in government continuously uses the fear of compensation to absolve itself of not acting for ten whole years. Ten years of silence, during which each and every one of the two million square metres taken up by the rationalisation exercise is slowly being developed. This is a two million square metres area which until 2006 was an area outside the development zone (ODZ).

One at a time we have been at a multitude of localities which today, 17 years after Parliament approved the rationalisation exercise, are feeling the pinch. Żurrieq follows Marsaskala, Iklin, Marsaxlokk, Mosta, Santa Luċija, Attard, Swieqi and many other localities. More will undoubtedly follow as Labour in Parliament does not have the courage to proceed with the cancellation of the rationalisation exercise. It prefers to play around with €700 million thinking that it is creating new “open spaces” when it can be much more effective if it starts by defending the countryside, the existing open space provided by nature for free.

The PN on the other hand excels at a particular sport: simultaneously running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Its fifth district Members of Parliament (MPs Toni Bezzina and Stanley Zammit) were present at in-Nigret in a show of solidarity with the residents. Yet some hours later, its spokesperson on land use planning (Stanley Zammit) declared in crystal clear language that the PN was all for more development in the ODZ land annexed as a result of the rationalisation exercise! Why, then, did they turn up at Nigret?

The PLPN are together jointly responsible for the developing mess. PN in government created it, and Labour in government is now sustaining it when they can very easily bring it to an end, once and for all.

ADPD is the only political party which has clearly and repeatedly advocated the cancellation of the rationalisation exercise and the ruin of two million square metres of land, mostly agricultural. The others have continuously defended greed and overdevelopment, in the process slowly ruining the countryside that we have left.

Published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 11 June 2023

Inħarsu l-ambjent, bil-Kostituzzjoni

Fi żmien għaxar xhur, tkun intemmet il-Presidenza ta’ George Vella. L-entużjażmu tiegħu għall-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali, s’issa, ma wassal għall-ebda riżultat konkret magħruf. Bla dubju, l-Covid-19 ma kienx ta’ għajnuna.

Id-dibattitu dwar il-ħarsien ambjentali permezz tal-kostituzzjoni hu tajjeb. Dan jista’ jwassal biex inaqqas jew saħansitra jelimina d-diskrezzjoni tal-Gvern dwar meta jaġixxi f’dan il-qasam. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien li m’għandniex fiduċja li l-eżekuttiv jista’ jeżerċità diskrezzjoni b’mod raġjonevoli, u dan għax sal-lum, ftit li xejn aġixxa b’mod raġjonevoli fir-responsabbiltajiet ambjentali tiegħu.

Il-Kostituzzjoni tagħna, fit-tieni kapitlu tagħha fiha diversi dikjarazzjonijiet li permezz tagħhom huma stabiliti diversi miri bażiċi tal-Gvern fosthom dawk ambjentali. Il-miri ambjentali kienu msaħħa riċentement permezz ta’ emenda kostituzzjonali ppreżentata minn José Herrera, dakinnhar Ministru għall-Ambjent. Huma fundamentali għat-tmexxija tal-pajjiż, iżda ma tistax tmur il-Qorti, jekk il-Gvern jonqos milli jimplimenthom. Fil-prattika dan ifisser li dak li tgħid il-Kostituzzjoni dwar l-ambjent ma jiswa’ xejn.  Hu meħtieġ li l-iktar kmieni possibli, s-sitwazzjoni tinbidel kif repetutament emfasizza ADPD kemm fid-diversi manifesti elettorali kif ukoll fis-sottomissjonijiet li ippreżentajna quddiem il-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali li tidher li hi ġġammjata.

Il-PN issa qed jipproponi li l-ambjent għandu jkun meqjus bħala dritt uman fil-kostituzzjoni. Ma nafx x’iridu jgħidu biha din. Naħseb li qed jużaw il-kliem żbaljat għax l-ambjent ma jistax ikun dritt uman. Li probabbilment iridu jgħidu hu li l-aċċess għal ambjent protett għandu jkun garantit bħala dritt uman.  Din hi mira diffiċli għax tfisser, fost oħrajn, li l-PN ikunlu meħtieġ li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu fuq diversi materji biex ikun kredibbli: fuq quddiem nett nistenna li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu dwar il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni tal-2006, anke għall-konsistenza. Ikollna nistennew biex naraw kif ser jiżviluppaw l-argument.

Il-ħarsien ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni fil-fehma tiegħi ghandu jfisser li l-bniedem jirrispetta l-eko-sistema, li tagħha, aħna niffurmaw parti, flimkien mal-pjanti u l-annimali l-oħra.  Għandu jfisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-bijodiversita, kemm tal-fawna kif ukoll tal-flora, fil-kuntest naturali tagħhom. Ifisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-ilma tal-pjan li m’għandux jitqies bħala propjetà privata. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien ikbar tal-valur nazzjonali tal-wirt storiku.

Sfortunatament, il-Kostituzzjoni, filwaqt li tagħraf b’mod dettaljat il-ħtieġa tal-ħarsien tal-propjetà privata tonqos milli tirrikonoxxi s-sinifikat u l-valur intrinsiku tal-eko-sistema, li niffurmaw parti minnha u li hi tagħna lkoll.

Referenza għall-ambjent naturali fil-Kostituzzjoni għandha tkun waħda ekoċentrika u mhux antropoċentrika. Dan ifisser li meta tikkonsidra l-ambjent naturali l-Kostituzzjoni jeħtieġ li tqis il-ħarsien u d-drittijiet tan-natura u l-wirt naturali u mhux drittijiet umani. Huwa essenzjali li nibdew naħsbu bis-serjetà dwar id-drittijiet tan-natura u kif dawn jintrabtu mal-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri li ukoll għandhom dritt li jkollhom arja nadifa biex jieħdu n-nifs, ilma mhux imniġġes u l-possibilità li jgawdu n-natura fl-aspetti kollha tagħha.  Dan hu l-wirt komuni tagħna lkoll u għandna nieħdu ħsiebu.

Ir-referenzi ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni tagħna għandhom jassiguraw li wara snin ta’ prietki dwar is-sostenibilità, nistgħu, forsi, nittraduċu dak li nemmnu fih f’għodda legali biex il-Gvernijiet ikunu obbligati li jimplimentaw politika sostenibbli.

Kif inhuma l-affarijiet, illum, il-Kostituzzjoni tipprovdi linji gwida meta titħadded dwar materji ambjentali. Dan, iżda, irriżulta li mhux biżżejjed għax l-ebda wieħed mill-Gvernijiet Maltin mill-1964 sal-lum ma mexa ma’ din il-gwida kostituzzjonali.

Jekk għandna nitgħallmu xi ħaġa mit-taħwd li aħna mdawwri bih hi li t-triq il-quddiem hi li jkollna l-miri ambjentali miktubin b’mod ċar u li dawn jorbtu jdejn il-Gvernijiet.

Li nħaddru l-kostituzzjoni għandu jkun l-ewwel pass fit-triq tal-kisba tal-ordni ambjentali. Fl-aħħar, imma, għandhom ikunu l-Qrati li għandhom ikollhom is-setgħa li jiġbdu widnejn il-Gvern meta dan jonqos milli jagħmel dmiru.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 4 ta’ Ġunju 2023

Il-Gvern tal-Labour ABZ mill-ambjent

F’Jum l-Ambjent, il-Gvern ABZ mill-ambjent u mill-impatti ambjentali

Jum l-ambjent, din is- sena, għal darba oħra, ma jfissirx affarijiet sbieħ. Ġimgħa wara l-oħra ħlief aħbarijiet li huma ta’ ħsara ambjentali m’hawnx.

L-istorja tan-Nigret li, suppost tkompli għada, hi waħda minn tal-aħħar.  Art barra miż-żona tal-iżvilupp (ODZ) ingħatat għall-bini mill-Gvern tal-PN. Il-Labour fil-Gvern jista’ jżommha milli tinbena, imma ma għamel xejn u ma hu ser jagħmel xejn.

Il-bieraħ kellna lill-Ministru għall-Finanzi jgħidilna li bil-mudell ekonomiku tiegħu, f’Malta ser ikollna 800,000 ruħ sas-sena 2040. Meta ikkunsidrajt sur Clyde l-impatti ta’ dawn kollha fuq l-ambjent?

Ir-residenti tal-Belt huma irrabjati għax il-Belt Valletta qed tkun ittransformata f’ċentru ta’ divertiment, bi storjbu sotanzjali matul il-lejl.

Il-Gvern ma jimpurtaħx minn dan kollu. Għax filwaqt li għandna ħafna tejatrin għaddej dwar l-ambjent, fir-realtà il-Gvern tal-Labour hu ABZ mill-ambjent u mill-impatti ambjentali.

Greening the Constitution

Within another ten months, the presidency of George Vella will have come to and end. His enthusiasm for a Constitutional Convention, so far, did not lead to any known tangible results. Covid-19, definitely did not help.

The debate of entrenching environmental protection in the Constitution, thereby reducing or completely removing governmental discretion as to when it can act, is healthy. It signifies recognition that we cannot trust the executive with exercising reasonable discretion, as it has not to date been reasonable in the way it has acted on environmental stewardship.

Let us start at the very beginning. Our Constitution, in its second chapter, contains declaratory provisions which establish a number of basic objectives of government, amongst which the environmental objectives to be attained. The environmental objectives, which were amplified in a recent amendment to the Constitution, moved by then Environment Minister José Herrera, are, in terms of the Constitution itself, fundamental to the governance of the country. They cannot, however, be enforced in a Court of Law. This means that in practice these environmental provisions of the Constitution are for all intents and purposes a dead letter. They need to be enforceable, the soonest, as my party has repeatedly emphasised both in its electoral manifesto in various elections as well as in its submissions to the now stalled Constitutional Convention.

It is now being suggested by the PN that the environment should be a human right entrenched in the Constitution. What does this mean? I think that what has been stated so far is a wrong choice of words. The environment cannot be and is not a human right. What they most probably mean is that access to a protected environment should be a guaranteed human right.  This is a tall order and it signifies that the PN has to reverse a substantial number of its policies in order to be credible: first on the list it needs to reverse its commitment to the 2006 rationalisation plan for consistency. We will wait and see what they really have in mind.

Environmental protection in the Constitution should, in my view, mean ensuring that humans respect the eco-system of which, together with plants and other animals we all form part. It should mean protection of biodiversity, both fauna and flora as well as their habitats. It should also signify the protection of the aquifer as this is not and should not be considered as private property. It also signifies a recognition of the national value of historical heritage.

Unfortunately, the Constitution emphasises in the minutest of details the need to protect private property but then it ignores the significance and the intrinsic value of the eco-system of which we form part and which belongs to all of us.

Reference to the natural environment in the Constitution should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric. This means that when considering the environment, the Constitution should deal with the protection of the rights of nature and not human rights. It is about time that we should start thinking about the rights of nature and link this with the rights of future generations who have a right to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpolluted water and enjoy nature in all its aspects. This is our common heritage and we should handle it with care.

Environmental references in our Constitution should ensure that after years of preaching sustainability we can, maybe, translate our beliefs into legal tools in order that governments are bound to implement sustainable policies.

As things stand the Constitution provides guiding principles when dealing with environmental issues. This has proven to be insufficient as none of the Maltese governments since 1964 has acted in accordance with this constitutional guidance.

If we are to learn anything from the current mess it is that the way forward is to spell out clear environmental objectives which tie the hands of governments.

Greening the Constitution could be a first step in bring our house in order. At the end of the day, however, the Courts must be in a position to be able to instruct government to carry out its duty when it has failed to do so.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 June 2023