“Change we can believe in”: this is Barak Obama’s campaign slogan in the US. In Malta we have Dr Sant harping day in, day out that “the Maltese people want change” and that Labour is ready to give us that change. Why is Labour not specific about the change it is proposing? What kind of change would the Maltese people like to have? Can Dr Sant deliver to us voters the change we want?
I remember a word concocted by a French Ambassador in Malta referring to Chirac’s party downfall in some French election before 2002 , which chose the unwanted extremist candidate Le Pen by default. He called it “FEDUPISM”.The French got sick and tired of voting for this old guy, who had become a permanent feature in French society , so some of them simply did not go to vote and others voted for change.
In 2002, the French political parties voted Chirac in, to save France from this change they did not believe in.
In Malta we have a similar situation. Notary Charles Mangion, Dr Francis Zammit Dimech, Dr Alfred Sant and Dr Harry Vassallo, just to mention a few, are permanent features in the Maltese political arena for these last 15 years or so. I am not stating that these gentlemen are not valid politicians; all I’m saying is that the people get tired hearing the same messages, and seeing the same old faces on TV and in the papers. Politicians need to understand that there is a “sell-by” date for each and every one of them. If there was a clear sign that the people wanted change it was when, in the referendum for Malta’s entry into the EU, the people gave a loud and clear YES.
After that, Labour was sent by the electorate for another five years in opposition to change its unconvincing expired leadership. Unfortunately for Malta , Labour did not rejuvenate itself and “update” its policies , so that they can have some Obama energy here in Malta. They have not yet embraced the EU and its policies, and the underlying message is always “I don’t really believe in Malta as an EU country , but if you get me into power, I will see how to get by with this unwanted burden”.
If one wants Labour to lead this country all he has to do is stay at home on Election Saturday, or do like the French did: vote for the change they did not believe in.

John Schembri
Żurrieq

In concluding its derisive critique of coalition governments, the Malta Independent editorial of Monday 28 January rhetorically asked, ‘Do we want Malta to become like Italy?’.
Though the Times leader of the same day echoed identical fallacies about the ‘dire consequences due to the inherent ‘instability’ of coalitions’, it effectively invalidated its own misconceived notions, as well as those of the Independent, by prefacing its claims as follows: “Italy enjoys the highest Gross National Incomes per capita in the world ($31,000). Its men folk have a life expectancy of 77, its women, 83.”
Given the choice between a standard of living of that excellence and a quality of life of that calibre, who would sanely opt for rigid autocratic rule, assuring yet more of the same woefully low standards perpetuated by the execrable incompetence of “stable” single party governments in Malta, of whichever political hue?
Real change, however, can, and does happen.
Despite European Community membership, the Republic of Ireland was an economically depressed, stagnant country throughout the1980s, chronically beset and destabilised by a highly divisive national fixation on absolute majority single party rule which inexorably led the country nowhere.
Ireland, frequently but fancifully cited as the exemplary success story to be emulated by Malta, has since emerged as the much extolled ‘Celtic Tiger’.
So, how did Ireland’s remarkable ‘reversal of misfortune’ come about?
Ireland is, like Italy, a coalition administered nation that continues to reap significant, sustainable economic and social benefits deriving from the collaborative commitment and steadfastly responsible Green Party participation in government.
Ireland now boasts the second highest per capita income of any country in the EU and fourth highest in the world based on measurements of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.
Can Maltese and Gozitans therefore, really afford to be routinely gripped by the extreme unsteadiness, uncertainty and instability of recurrent ‘election fever’, spawning economic paralysis and administrative atrophy for a year and more prior to general election outcomes, just because they are traditionally expected to result in exclusionary, ‘we-win-big: you-lose-huge’, absolute majorities?
Given that successive coalition governments have achieved such spectacularly fruitful results in Italy and Ireland, imagine what this nation could similarly accomplish by authentically embracing a genuinely “new way of doing politics’: that of enlightened consensus governance, and a truly reforming change for the better.

Oisin Jones-Dillon
St Pauls Bay

No one in his right mind would be deceived into not believing that the two major parties are in agreement with each other over the construction of the Sant’ Antnin recycling plant in Marsascala.
Both parties feignedly committed themselves strategically in opting for three to four alternative plants but neither of them is willing to name the location before the General Election. Probably not to rock the boat any further with this controversy. It’s all a question of votes.
I happened to be listening to the debate on the Environment and was left without any doubt of my convincement. George Pullicino arrogantly without any regards rhetorically regurgitated how in future the Malta Environment and Planning Authority can be more transparent. Could this Minister be more impertinent knowing that, for the first time since Mepa’s inception, the authority managed to block its own Auditor’s report regarding the process of the Sant’ Antnin plant with the doubtful advice of the Ombudsman. Is anybody anymore responsible in this country of ours? To add insult to injury the opposition are none the better. Both Roderick Galdes and Dr Joe Brincat did not have the audacity to ask the Minister to produce the report and be made public in order to be credible and transparent. It’s all a question, who is scratching whose back? I have not once heard the MLP leadership insisting on the report to be published.
To crown it all, Dr Brincat happened to be a member of the Mepa board representing the Malta Labour Party. One might ask has he got the right to see the report. I say yes, for when the report was completed in February 2007 it was sent to the Mepa board for their comments and not to Chairman Andrew Calleja, who in turn decided alone to put the lid on it. Almost a year has passed and the report is still hidden from the public eye with George Pullicino making a song and dance in the highest institution of our country, the Parliament. One would have thought a brilliant lawyer like Dr Joe Brincat would have made use of the Development Planning Act under article 17c (3), that the Audit office is bound to give a copy of his findings to the Mepa Board! This would have given him the right to see it. Is it just that the complainants in this case are the only ones who have not seen the report? Mepa, which is doing its utmost to block the report, knows of all the irregularities inflicting this case. Minister Pullicino no doubt has seen it for under the same article 17c (4), the Mepa board is obliged to furnish his Ministry with a copy. Presumably the Ombudsman is also aware of its contents on giving his advice to the Mepa Auditor. On the other hand, if the MLP has not seen it, they cannot be bothered. In a nutshell: who is going to be responsible when the truth comes out? And above all who is going to guarantee the health of residents knowing such studies were never carried out?
On Saturday 5 January Prime Minister Gonzi, accompanied by Pullicino, announced that the first phase of the plant will start operating at the end of this month. What is good for the goose its good for the gander. It will be interesting to see the interpretation of the Ombudsman, once again confronted with another dilemma by the Committee against the Sant’ Antnin recycling plant, and whether the Prime Minister will abide by the same ruling knowing that since all procedures are still pending both in front of the Law Courts and the Planning Appeals Board, through no fault of the Committee, the plant cannot start functioning!

Mary Calleja
Marsascala

I have been to your beautiful islands many times. I adore the people and the easy lifestyle. Every time I sit above Grand Harbour I can imagine the battered remains of a wartime convoy struggling into port and the relief it must have brought to your wonderful people after the pounding they received from the Axis forces.
I shall never return now to Malta and I am so, so sad at the thought of never returning.
I was ripped off by the RCI Timeshare Group a fortnight ago. I stupidly signed up with them at the Porto Azzurro hotel. My wife became ill on our return to Scotland and I decided to cancel my contract within the legal 14-day cooling off period. I then found out that, because after I signed they gave us an upgraded room for the rest of our stay, by accepting the room I invalidated my right to cancel my contract.
Nobody, nobody, at any time, told us of this – there is nothing in the small folder about it. It is a total rip off.
They are operating this scam on your own soil and I cannot imagine that you are aware of this rip off. I just cannot believe I could be so wrong about the moral fibre of the gentle Maltese people. There are not many people in the world I envy, but your people I certainly do. We are so used to being hassled and harassed at home, that coming to Malta was a pure delight. Now I have lost that.
I know the country relies heavily on tourists – you only have to look at the constant building work being done.
I work for a huge bus company back here in the UK and I now feel obliged to memo every depot in the company and warn them of this scam if they are coming to Malta.
Much as I loved Malta, I shall not let my fellow workers walk into this scam. It is not fair on them.
I cannot believe I would ever have done anything to harm your island, but this cannot be allowed to continue.
My sincere apologies to you for any detrimental action I have to take to protect my fellow employees. I know there are more than a dozen couples due out this coming season and they need to be made aware of this scam.
Many thanks for the warm welcome I received on each – I looked forward to it. Unfortunately I cannot return; I feel ashamed that I allowed this to happen to us in Malta.

Robert Wood
Scotland

Some weeks ago, this newspaper, of all the Sundays, reported of what Dr Josie Muscat had said about the hunting problem here in Malta. Among other things, Muscat said that his party is ready to relinquish the EU membership.
I am sure that the hunters were very pleased about having another cushion to rest on. Dr Josie’s party, Azzjoni Nazzjonali, is a new party and they are very in need of votes in this coming election, and these votes must come one way or another, even at a cost. If this is so, then I will call that unprincipled politics, in other words “Politics of Opportunities”.
Josie knows that the hunters, and there are quite a number of them, are against the present government and the EU behind it because of the strict control they are using against these cowboys of the countryside. But Josie, like the hunters, is not ready to accept these rules, and he is not even ready to fight it out in our Courts or the European Courts of Human Rights; instead, he is ready to threaten to relinquish the membership. What opportunism! Josie seems to have forgotten that this membership was obtained, not by an imposition of a dictator, but by the will of the majority of the Maltese people, and he most probably was one of them, through a democratic referendum and an election.
Josie also said that his party is in favour of the EU membership, but it looks like he wants to renegotiate this membership. It’s a pity that his party was not born six or seven years ago; perhaps he would have been the main negotiator, with his hunters as consultants. Does Josie support that episode of five years ago, when six beautiful swans were blasted out of the sky at his beautiful Marsaskala? I do not think so, but if he does, I wonder why the people out there support him. The only thing if any, Josie and his hunters have in their defence is tradition; and what is tradition? To me, and I would like to be corrected, tradition is a mixture of good and bad habits. I know that is very hard to stop hard habits, but at least one should not encourage them.
It is true that in Britain there is fox hunting, and they too call it traditional sport, and in Spain there are bullfights, and it is a shame that people, sometimes tourists, flock to see them, but is a greater sham for the EU not try to stop them, as far as I know.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention my own disgust, when a hunter friend of mine boasted to me that he went to Egypt few months ago. No, not to see the pyramids but to do a massacre of all kinds of birds that come into his eyesight. This human being told me that he, and of course others, spent a whole week shooting birds of all sorts that they did not even pick up to keep as souvenir. And here I ask the EU: what is the logic of controlling the hunting season here in Malta, where birds migrate, and not those countries where birds settle in to spent a whole season as a sitting duck? To me it is a case of two weights and two measures. I know that these countries like Egypt are not in an EU; but Europe at least should make some representations to these countries not to accept these kind of tourists.

Joseph Muscat
Mosta

As a member of Azzjoni Nazzjonali (AN), and a party official present for all of the party’s official activities, I can take issue with virtually every line of the letter by Philip Micallef published in Malta Today (27 January 2008). Mr Micallef chooses to adulterate, deform and invent AN’s political platform as the following excerpts show: “ Maybe he agrees with AN’s suggestion that migrants should be kept in custody for only one month, then packed on their way and abandoned at sea?”
Mr Micallef knows full well that the party has proposed sending illegal immigrants (not “migrants”, as he conveniently terms them) on to Brussels given the lack of support shown by the EU for the problems created by illegal immigration. Furthermore, will Mr Micallef shoulder the responsibility for all the problems unleashed on Maltese society created by the presence of illegal migrants among us? Will Mr Micallef kindly inform us where Malta’s responsibilities stop in terms of search and rescue operations in other countries’ territorial waters? Is it Christian to force a country to do more than it can afford in terms of its available resources?
“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.”
So Malta joined the EU to provide housing for illegal immigrants in addition to sorting out its own population’s housing problems! With such distorted logic, one may legitimately ask Mr Micallef if he is willing to take a number of illegal migrants into his own residence that would appear to be part of his duties. Are the present conditions provided for the illegal migrants inhumane? Does Mr Micallef realize that a small country can only do so much? Clearly not.
“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”.
So far this is what we have done. Yet with Philip Micallef’s distorted notion of Christian rights and duties, we should give freely without harbouring any responsibility for our own population’s welfare. Taken to its logical conclusion, Philip Micallef’s assertion translates into a host population fulfilling its duties and more while the immigrant population just takes, takes and takes. Such is Mr Micallef’s notion of social justice! Nay, our moral and Christian duty is to assist these persons within the limits of our possibilities without (Mr Micallef please note) adversely burdening our country or the families that constitute our nation. We are bound to love our neighbour as ourselves, not more than ourselves as Philip Micallef implies.
Mr Micallef then makes gratuitous and rather ludicrous assertions regarding Malta’s Flight Information Region (FIR) and its Search and Rescue Area (SRA). For the correspondent’s information, it was Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg who first floated the possibility of Malta giving up her FIR in exchange for a sizeable reduction in its Search and Rescue Area. The FIR nets the country annually around Lm4-5 million or €11.6 maximum. If this government stuck to its budgetary planning on one project alone, namely the Mater Dei Hospital, it would have saved this amount in terms of project capital expenses! If Mr Micallef is serious about the economic and financial impact of illegal immigration, then he should conduct a proper Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) including by way of costs: Army fuel and marine transport costs; army overtime and other personnel related costs; hospital treatment costs for army personnel and police officers injured while supervising illegal migrants; phone card, pocket money and other costs for those in Open Centres; court-related costs for illegal migrants who have been arrested for crimes committed to date; costs covering damage to government property inflicted by the illegal immigrants at Hal Far, Ta’ Kandia Barracks, Lyster Barracks and the Police General Headquarters; costs of time wasting by bogus refugees (the majority); accommodation costs; food costs; low wage costs in whole sectors of the local economy fuelled by abundant cheap labour; costs to the country due to tax evasion by both unscrupulous employers and immigrant employees.
One wonders what an economist of Micallef’s ilk would list under “benefits”.
Mr Micallef calls hunting a barbaric tradition. Presumably such Christian saints as St Julian and St Hubert were barbarians for they themselves enjoyed this pastime. Contrary to Philip Micallef’s ranting, Azzjoni Nazzjonali believes that the countryside belongs to everyone, ramblers, bird watchers and hunters, and that in a civilized society, a modus vivendi is possible with proper laws and strict enforcement. He is also incorrect in stating that the party’s ideals are contrary to Catholic teaching and to Christianity. The party’s founding document explicitly proclaims its Roman Catholic inspiration. Which is why we will not permit the removal of crucifixes from public buildings in order to satisfy a growing Muslim minority fuelled by illegal migrants. This is what was attempted in Italy, Spain and France. Where we part company with Mr Micallef is that whilst AN looks to the experiences of other European nations with illegal migration and the threat this has posed to national identity, national customs and Christian heritage, Mr Micallef prefers to look the other way.
One parting thought. In 2000 former Archbishop of Bologna Cardinal Giacomo Biffi strongly admonished the Italian Government to severely limit illegal, disordered immigration with these words: “Italy is not a semi-deserted or semi-inhabited land, bereft of history, of traditions and of a clearly identifiable cultural physiognomy to populate indiscriminately as if it has no heritage of humanism and civilization that could be lost”.
Two years later the Bishop of Como, Mgr. Maggiolini warned that “ there is no such thing as a right to invade Italy through illegal migration, nor does Italy have a duty to allow itself to be invaded”.
Azzjoni Nazzjonali shares these sentiments that are easily applicable to Malta’s current situation. Between the Christianity of the likes of Mgr Maggiolini and Mgr Biffi and Philip Micallef’s utopian liberal-inspired “Christianity”, AN stands on sure ground in choosing the former.

Sandro Pace
Assistant Secretary General
Partit Azzjoni Nazzjonali.

It was simply hilarious to read how the PN described Dr Sant’s speech to the annual general conference on Sunday 27 January. According to the PN’s spin doctors, Dr Sant’s speech “failed to provide citizens with any form of vision”, when Dr Sant spent two-thirds or a good 40 minutes of his speech outlining Labour’s plans and visions for the future under a Labour government!
Unfortunately for the PN’s spin-doctors, Dr Sant’s speech could be followed live on ONE TV, and must have been followed by many thousands due to the fact that this was Dr Sant’s first public speech since his illness. All those who listened attentively to what Dr Sant said – and wore no blinkers – can only have been greatly impressed by the contents of his speech. Those who failed to listen to his speech, had the opportunity to read extensive and fair reports of the Labour leader’s speech in all the newspapers, except on the PN’s In-Nazzjon, which chose to focus on the few instances when Dr Sant criticised the PN government’s performance.
Important points made in Dr Sant’s speech included: when he referred to Malta’s need to catch up with other European countries as regards standard of living; the need to increase economic growth to 4% to 6% per annum; Labour’s commitment “to make sure that funds allocated to Malta are obtained on time and used wisely without any wastage and corruption”.
A very important point – and vision – was when he said: “We will be vigilant to make sure that measures that put everyone in the same boat will not be applied in the EU. Rather, every country and region should have their own special conditions”. This is an extremely important vision considering the EU’s supposed policy of “proportionality”, which is not being applied. We never hear Dr Gonzi say anything in this regard!
Another statement by the Labour leader which must have struck a chord with the vast majority of voters was when he said that a Labour government” “will insist on the need for Malta to be given a fair deal in the area of illegal immigration when it comes to burden sharing and security, a fair balance has to be kept between EU member states”.
Labour’s plans for Gozo, the South of Malta, the Bugibba and Grand Harbour areas were also a highlight of Dr Sant’s speech. Education and a framework that encourages the use of alternative sources of energy, added to his emphasis on the need to address poverty and to ensure the well-being of the elderly and the protection of children and their rights, were other important points made by Dr Sant.
And yet, to the PN’s spin-doctors, Dr Sant’s speech “has no new ideas and lacks vision”! Any further comment on my part would be superfluous.

Eddy Privitera
Mosta

In an article titled ‘Prosy points (46)’ written by Alfred Sant (The Times, 23 January), readers came across the following words in the concluding paragraph called ‘Change’: ‘It is untrue that there is no one big issue in the coming General Election. There is. The big issue is change. It is what most electors will be asking themselves: Do we really want change? All available indications show that a sizeable majority is tending to reply yes to this question…’
Kindly allow me to reply by asking the Leader of Opposition whether people are looking forward to a change in the Malta Labour Party leadership, should Alfred Sant lose the next General Election.

Edward Torpiano
Floriana