Fr Joe Borg, author of a so-called “analysis” (Jan 20) of the Sunday Times’ alleged “duty” to publish the controversial article detailing Dr Alfred Sant’s recent ailment, may be regarded by the editor as “an expert in media affairs”. But in putting forward the case for the newspaper, Fr Borg exposed his serious shortcomings when he drifted into legal matters.
My own opinion is that the motive for Fr Borg’s “analysis” was nothing more than an exercise intended to justify to the uninitiated The Sunday Times’ stand that, in publishing the  report on Dr Alfred Sant’s illness, the newspaper was acting in the public interest.
Fr Borg’s article is flawed by a crucial omission which clearly reflects his lack of knowledge or, even worse, his complete disregard for Human Rights law. To convince readers that the Sunday Times was merely fulfilling a duty when it published the gory details of Dr Sant’s ailment, Fr Borg quotes chapter and verse of Maltese subsidiary legislation and the Code of Ethics of the Maltese Institute of Journalists. What Fr Borg omits to tell the Sunday Times’ readers is what any first year law student knows: i.e., that the Malta Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights supersede all laws and Codes of Ethics where fundamental rights are concerned and, more importantly,  do not deny anyone his or her right to privacy and dignity. The right to privacy and dignity obviously includes the  Leader of the Opposition.
Fr Borg built a castle in the air with which he attempted to justify the publication of details of Dr Sant’s illness by The Sunday Times. His argument goes like this: rumours are caused by lack of information. A lack of information amounts to misinformation. Misinformation is tantamount to misleading the public. The law states that when misinformation occurs, media reporting serves the public interest. Hence, the report in the Times about Dr Sant’s illness was published in the  public interest. 
The article, which has since been condemned by many contributors, cleverly bundles together the actions of rumour mongers, individuals and organisations, allegedly all responsible for a lack of information which the author equates with misinformation which, according to Fr Borg, the newspaper was allegedly in duty bound to balance in the public interest. 
The inference that  organizations – probably in the form of MLP high officials who released information about Dr Sant’s illness – were responsible for lack of information as interpreted by Fr Borg, is subtle but not subtle enough. The full interpretation of Fr Borg’s argument  may be considered so: The MLP and its secretary general Jason Micallef have been responsible for a lack of information, which is just another expression for misinformation, which is not allowed by law and which the Times had a duty to balance by publishing the details of Dr Sant’s illness. This is just vintage Fr Joe Borg of pre-election Beirut fame. 
I believe that under those difficult circumstances, Jason Micallef exercised the right amount of discretion when he released information regarding  Dr Sant’s illness and operation in stages. The information was given without histrionics, in the good taste demanded by such a delicate situation. Sadly those who I believe may have a hidden agenda still  cannot bring themselves to accept that in such difficult circumstances, a democratic society such as ours rightly expects due discretion, a high regard for a person’s privacy and the protection of dignity, not spin or sensational tabloid journalism.

Dr Lynn Zahra,
Sliema  

In response to Reggie Debono’s recent letter published in Malta Today entitled “Illegal Migration Is The Issue” (January20), he states that Azzjoni Nazzjonali is the only political party that has a principle to tackle this problem. He mentions Europe being impotent to tackle this issue and says complacency does not work. He also insists on calling these people “illegal immigrants” and professes to understand the English language better than journalists of The Guardian (UK) who call them “migrants”. He also takes do-gooders to task for attempting to change that reference.
I agree with him on one point; that the problem must be solved at source, that is, in the country of origin. However, how does he propose to solve the problem in the short term? Maybe he agrees with AN’s suggestion that migrants be kept in custody for only one month, then packed on their way and abandoned at sea? Or should we just let them drown? Is this AN’s plan based on a strong principle that he mentions?
Another suggestion he put forward was that the United States accommodate half the Maltese population who want to escape from what we are allowing to be created. Does he know that the United States has a much bigger problem than Malta with thousands crossing the border from Mexico to enter the US illegally?
People like Mr Debono and his adopted political party Azzjoni Nazzjonali should stop grumbling about this problem. We should all adhere to our duties to provide humane housing conditions for these unfortunate people as we are obliged to do as members of the EU. We cannot expect to take, take and take from the EU without giving anything in return. These people take offence when they are labelled racist or xenophobic, but that is exactly what they are. The religious and family values they try to make everyone think they champion are contrary to their actions. Action speaks louder than words.
The problem of migration in Malta should not be a political issue but a humanitarian one. We have the moral and Christian duty to put our religious beliefs into practice and provide food and shelter for these migrants and stop complaining to the EU or anyone else to solve our problem. Other countries have much worse problems than us regarding migration and they don’t complain to all and sundry but just get on with the job and honour their international obligations. Unfortunately, these migrants don’t have votes so they are being used as a political weapon to gain the sympathy of voters who are xenophobic or racist.
They say you can’t have your cake and eat it and the same goes for us. We can’t expect to benefit from millions of euros derived from planes flying through our air space and then complain that our search and rescue area is too large for us and we don’t want to rescue migrants in distress. There is a price to pay for everything in life – nothing comes for free. If AN wants to abdicate our responsibility to rescue, house and feed these migrants who find themselves on our shores through no choice of their own they should come out in the open and declare themselves willing to hand over Malta’s extensive air space and search and rescue area to other neighbouring Mediterranean countries who, I’m sure, would be only too happy to benefit from the millions paid by overflying aircraft and in turn be responsible for migrants rescued in that area. Statistics have never been made available by the government as to how much Malta actually earns from overflying aircraft but I’m sure it greatly outweighs what we pay to house and feed these migrants in our midst.
Another issue that Azzjoni Nazzjonali are using for political gain is the hunting issue. On their website AN mentions the agreement they made with hunters for what they call “responsible and regulated hunting” and what they describe as tradition. How can anybody call hunting a tradition when it pleases the few but deprives the majority of enjoying the wildlife? It is a barbaric and cowardly tradition to shoot at creatures who can’t fight back, and everyone knows that hunters can’t be trusted to respect the law. There can be no deals with hunters, especially regarding spring hunting. The EU will soon open infringement proceedings against Malta and it will be you and I – the taxpayers who will have to fork out the hefty fines we will be obliged to pay, not the hunters. They know that their days are numbered, and any party that tries to appease them to get their votes at the next election will be making false promises and betraying the rest of us.
Or maybe we should listen to Dr Josie Muscat’s claim than he will consider withdrawing Malta from the EU if the hunters don’t get their way. AN cannot deny that their leader made these comments as they try to do on their website’s guestbook. Maybe we should all suffer for the benefit of hunters? Throw away years of hard work trying to join the EU and reach the high standard of living we enjoy to go back to the dark ages of the 1970s or early 1980s. This new political party will continue to play on people’s fears to try to desperately win votes from these two groups of people – the hunters and xenophobes. Of course they will tell everyone it’s not true but the facts and words speak for themselves. Don’t let these people try to fool you into giving them your vote, you would do well to give it to any of the other three parties than to them. Let me say in plain English the ideals of AN go against the teachings of the holy Catholic church and Christianity. A true Christian can never vote for AN. One look at the guestbook on their website and you will find such comments as “Viva il Duce”. These are the supporters Azzjoni Nazzjonali attracts. Enough said.
On a final note, don’t let these so called “conservative people” lie to you about the truth in Malta. These people, despite what they say, want Malta out of the EU unless the EU bows down to their demands on hunting and migration. But the EU doesn’t work that way. It is we who have to abide by the rules of the EU, not the other way round. 400,000 people can’t dictate to 300,000,000 people. The spirit of the EU and the free world is what we and our fathers have fought for for many years including the Second World War, and we cannot allow anyone to take this freedom away from us.

Philip Micallef
Sliema

As a regular yearly visitor to Malta for the last 23 years, and owning property opposite the Mistra Village complex, I am writing to share my concern regarding the over development beginning to happen on your lovely island.
What a shame that the Maltese government is allowing the prospect of European money to turn Malta into another Spain, to allow high rise development at all cost, with disregard for its people and their environment.
As long term visitors to the Island, and with my husband being born to a Maltese mother, we are sad to see a gradual increase in the amount of shell buildings that have been allowed to stand unsold/unoccupied for several years. It is disappointing when speaking to Europeans that very often their view of Malta is nor “what a beautiful island it is becoming” but more “what a very untidy building site it is”.
We feel if Malta is to prosper like the rest of Europe, more consideration must be given to people like ourselves who invest heavily in Malta and wish to continue to do so. We feel if this does not happen then we will not be alone in removing our assets from the island and re-investing in places where sympathetic improvements are taking place. Having paid a premium for the luxury of a sea view for our current property, it would appear that MEPA thinks that it is quite acceptable disregard the money that has been introduced by us and many others into the Maltese economy, by considering high rise blocks in front of our property. I understand the necessity of large complexes for tourist areas, but fail to see why such large buildings are required in residential areas, where surrounding property is only four to five stories high, when so many buildings already remain empty.
It seems very underhand that these developments across Malta are being accepted by MEPA with no consultation with the residents living nearby, and are introduced as a fait accompli.
It will be interesting to see what will happen when Malta falls in line with the rest of Europe, where we have to pay a community tax on our properties, whether occupied or not. Will this mean that even more property will come onto the market, with no foreseeable buyers? MEPA needs to understand that without providing an attractive environment to encourage European investment, they may find that all they have achieved is a “concrete jungle” that no one wishes to visit or live in.
Thank God that Malta has a Green Party to champion these sorts of injustices that take place.

Susan Harris
Xemxija

I am writing this letter in the belief that yours is the only newspaper in English in Malta which would bring it to light.
I remember that on one occasion in the 1970s, the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Mintoff, said that because of its small size, it was not in Malta’s interest to attract multi-national companies as there was the danger that they would start dictating things to the government. This is exactly what I have reason to believe to have happened where HSBC is concerned.
In 1999, when HSBC took over Mid Med Bank, the financial legislation prevailing at the time was somewhat not in conformity with the HSBC standards and procedures where “nominee” accounts were concerned. Over the following year the HSBC management put enough pressure on the Government and instructions were issued to all banks – i.e. both onshore and offshore, as the latter still existed at the time – to obtain the identity of the end beneficiaries of “nominee” account holders, even though the relevant legislation was not amended, to put everybody in line with the HSBC standards and procedures. This I suspect brought about an exodus of funds out of Malta. Eventually amendments were made to the relative legislation.
Another occasion when the government had to bend over backwards to appease HSBC is of recent happening. After the robbery at the HSBC Balzan Branch on 30 November 2007, the management of HSBC become panic-stricken. However, in line with the policy that HSBC are always right no matter what, instead of taking a good look to establish why and how the security measures they had put in place as a substitute for any sort of access control at their offices, (i.e. remote monitoring) and failed; the blame was placed on the front loading of Euro currency notes. Thus, to put pressure on the Central Bank of Malta they started to transfer Euro notes to the Central Bank. As a result a meeting was convened at Castille which was chaired by the Prime Minister himself. Following this meeting all HSBC branches started to be guarded by police and army personnel on a 24 hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis. Needless to say this measure has put the already over-stretched resources of both the Police Force and the Armed Forces under pressure. But what is more troubling is that, as I am reliably informed, HSBC are insisting with the government that they are not to foot the bill for this service! Therefore if HSBC are going to have it their way, we poor taxpayers of Malta will have to make good for the hard-headedness of the HSBC management to do away with one of the pillars of security: i.e. access control; but, above all to ensure that the profits of HSBC shareholders are not adversely effected!
In my opinion this amounts to neo-colonialism and it should be one of the issues of the upcoming general election. Over the last years the government-owned companies that used to provide crucial services such as telephony, post, etc. were sold to foreign “investors”. This raises the question: is Malta going to be governed in the interests of the Maltese people or in the interests of the shareholders of these “investors” who may be in a position to hold the government at ransom on account of their position? Is this a future guise of attracting investment? I, who happen to be old enough to remember the 1960s – when Malta’s independence and autonomy was tarnished by the Defence Agreement with Britain, as a result of which larges expanses the Maltese Islands were out of bounds to the Maltese people; when on account of the fact that we had NATO Headquarters at Floriana, even though Malta was refused membership in this alliance, the American Sixth fleet used to give shore leave to its personnel and it became unsafe for Maltese girls to enter our capital city – know the answer if the Maltese people were to make the wrong choice.

John A. Zammit
San Gwann

The stand-first of the interview with Fr George Dalli (23 December 2007 states that he “is a familiar face on TV, and he is also known for being the brother of Nationalist MP John Dalli. But it was his ‘innovative’ approach to religion which won him strong support from the l-Ibrag community, and it doesn’t seem to have left him yet.”
The use of the word “innovative”, as used by the interviewer, albeit qualified in inverted commas, might seem akin to “new”. I tend to disagree with the description simply because, if one reads the New Testament, one would immediately realise that Jesus was, and is, innovative for those who tend to stick to conservative old school religion.
Jesus Christ redeemed us all with his total and unconditional love. He taught us to always emulate Him and love one another as he loved us. Fr Dalli is doing precisely that.
He has always based his Christian life on Christ’s teachings. The well-liked priest practices what he preaches, or more precisely, what he advises others around him to be, more than to do. Never have I heard him praise his own work. I have always admired this man of God as he portrays a pragmatic, caring and loving charisma with anyone who seeks his help. He always reminds us that Christ is alive in us all, as He is in our neighbour.
Many Catholics still live the Pharisee in themselves and are more intent on semantics, rather than the essence of Christ’s message. They still exclude the sinner rather than forgive one for the sin. They still judge, even though Jesus tells us that we should never judge others. They still waste their time telling others what they can and cannot do. Then you get a majority who think they know it all, vide celibacy and woman priesthood. They impose on others what they themselves do not burden themselves with. Enlighten me please, as I never found one word from Jesus barring women from priesthood. Nor did I ever come across Him telling our Lady not to “do this in memory of me”. On the contrary, He always befriended women, whom he also had as his disciples, once repentant. He never told his male disciples to become celibate, either.
Fr George Dalli lives in this era applying Christ’s teaching to today’s way of life. Indeed Christ is here with us and his words are as valid now as they were 2,000 years ago. They shall remain cast in stone for all the future, because love is eternal. The hearts of those who have ears to listen, and eyes to see, irrelevant of time, understand his ‘language’, controversial as it might seem to those who prefer the rules. Christ does not command… He loves.
The strong support for Fr George is not from the Ta’ l-Ibrag community only. It has grown in his parish in Attard, to where the ex-archbishop demoted him to an apprentice, so to speak (the Pharisee in me makes me say this. Is this not a sore point I hold up my sleeve? But I am a sinner too). Christ never demoted anyone, not even Peter, after having denied him so many times! Alas, Fr George was removed from parish priest of Ta’ l-Ibrag for preaching and being the word of God.  
I am sure the happy and loving character in the priest does not need my accolade. He is humble enough to do away with praise for his most valuable work for the community, hence the admiration he receives from the Maltese society. But, then, what does one expect from a man who led such a humble life? Thanks to his mother and late father, he has all the good values, which are also ingrained in all his family members, brothers and sisters alike.
I assure readers that the support has not left him at all. It has grown immensely. That is because the man radiates happiness, love and comfort to all those around him. 
 
Jo Said
Selmun

I refer to Raphael Vassallo’s article “Absolutely Ratzinger” (20 January).
It seems that your correspondent has got his facts about the theory of relativity all mixed up. The principle of relativity, which dates back to Galileo, asserts that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. That is, the laws of physics do not change relative to the observer’s frame of reference. In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein added another physical invariant, the velocity of light. The velocity of light is the same for all observers, even those who are moving: unlike, say, the relative velocities of two moving objects.
Einstein’s theory, applied to the ethical issues discussed by your correspondent, would therefore lead to conclusions quite the opposite of the ones he draws. But then, applying the laws of physics, even if well understood, to ethical issues is, I think, a very dubious kind of activity.

Professor Josef Lauri
Department of Mathematics
University of Malta