I was flabbergasted to read about the way MLP leader Alfred Sant pretended he did not notice the intensely racist undertones of the speech made by Labour MP Joe Sammut in Parliament recently. The speech included the incredible suggestion that problems faced by commuters on Bus 13 could be solved by the introduction of a separate bus service for black migrants, a suggestion that recalls the famous Rosa Parks incident in Alabama half a century ago.
Sammut has persevered saying that he had only spoken about what his constituents were feeling; as if what a socialist MP should believe in is of secondary import or of no significance at all. Asked by MaltaToday to comment on Sammut’s speech, Alfred Sant bizarrely pretended to ignore the obviously racist content of the speech of his MP and simply said that Sammut had highlighted the problems faced by residents in his constituency.
This ‘big problem’ regarding the presence of African immigrants in Malta is probably viewed with curious disdain by others. A report on Malta’s illegal immigrant problem in a recent issue of The Economist, in fact, ended by saying: “Malta may be densely populated (three times more than the Netherlands), but its immigrant population is still tiny. Officials say they have no precise total, but their estimate is below 3,000 – fewer than the commonly touted figure of 7,000 arrivals since 2002, and less than 1% of the island’s 400,000 population. Malta’s EU partners could be forgiven for feeling that, as in other respects, the union’s southernmost member is just catching up with them.”
The mathematical argument saying that we cannot take so many immigrants because of our small size has been turned upside down and does not seem to make any sense any more. Of course, as a percentage of our population, the number of illegal immigrants in Malta is much less than the percentage of all African immigrants – including legal ones of which we have practically none – in other EU states. But then when this percentage is compared with that of illegal immigrants entering other countries, the numbers game – for so it is – suddenly turns to Malta’s obvious disadvantage.
Yet the shock of so many African immigrants in Malta, when hitherto there were none, has uncovered a nasty racist streak in many Maltese and Joe Sammut’s speech could even be discerned as the kind of politics that is known as ‘race baiting’ in an attempt to win votes. Of course, Alfred Sant cannot afford to lose any Labour votes from Birzebbugia and this concern seems to have led him to completely disregard the socialist principles his party is supposed to uphold. Hence his sham pretence at not noticing the serious implications of Mr. Sammut’s stand. Principles have not only been thrown out of the window for vote-catching reasons by Mr. Sammut, but also by his leader Alfred Sant, for precisely the same reasons.
The problems of Mr. Sammut’s constituents stem from the unfounded belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures. In other words they are not really problems… but they are actually unjustified fears based on prejudice.

I am flabbergasted with the way some sections in the media are portraying the ongoing ‘difference of opinion’ regarding the possibility of Carmel Caccopardo being reappointed investigator in the office of the MEPA auditor.
Objectively, this appointment does not make sense when Caccopardo has an ongoing dispute about a job with MEPA itself – for which he unsuccessfully applied. If he was unfairly treated – as I am sure he thinks – making him investigator of MEPA’s ‘modus operandi’ is the perfect recipe for inculcating a popular perception of bias rather than of objectivity. His appointment does not make sense, either, considering the way that he has publicly criticized MEPA’s policies and attacked the Minister responsible for MEPA, accusing him of having misled Parliament. This smacks of an opportunity for personal vendetta – something that is not exactly unknown in this island imbued with Christian principles. Even if this is not what is on Caccopardo’s mind, his appointment in a position where his ‘conclusions’ could be immediately construed to be the result of a personal crusade against people in MEPA – and the Minister responsible for it – is not on. The point that such an interpretation would possibly, and probably, be just a tenuous perception in the public’s imagination is irrelevant, because the ‘conclusions’ of his investigations can never be above the suspicion that they were arrived at for ulterior motives.
I strongly believe that Carmel Caccopardo is not suitable for the job. I know how he goes about persecuting people whom he arbitrarily decides to put in his sights for one reason or another. I am quite familiar with what I am talking about, as he had decided to target me when I was Minister. I openly declare my bias, but this does not mean that I am automatically wrong in my analysis of his methods. When he decides to persecute someone, there is no way one can distinguish between the means and the end. Moreover he embarks on his crusades with the zeal of a Savonarola and the single-mindedness of a Darth Vader.
Why does he act like this? The nearest answer to this question is the story of the frog and the scorpion. In the story, a scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back.
The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?”
The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”
Replies the scorpion: “It’s in my nature...”
Frankly, I cannot understand why the MEPA Ombudsman, Joe Falzon – for whose integrity I profess a deep respect – is insisting that he must have Carmel Caccopardo as his right hand man. If he gets his way, I am sure that he will live to regret it.