I refer to Michael Falzon’s reaction (MaltaToday, 27 September) to my letter of the 20 September. He says that one of my sentences was “a disgusting falsification” of what he had written and therefore this “left no space for a reasoned debate”.
He had written: “It is the mishandling of these protests by Lawrence Gonzi and his acolytes that is responsible for the mess that has ensued… As a result of this appallingly poor mishandling the Prime Minister has come across as someone who cowers whenever the likes of Astrid Vella and Lino Bugeja open their mouth. This is actually not true at all, but truth is irrelevant in this game. It is perception that counts.”
And I had said, “Mr Falzon says that the PM cowers when AV or LB open their mouth”. Not the same thing, true, and ‘cowers’ is indeed a rather strong word; and surely Mr Falzon does not use this word haphazardly. People who admire our PM are likely to develop a certain hatred for people who make him cower, namely the NGOs, more specifically the Ramblers and FAA.
We ask: how many are those who think the PM cowers, and who are they? Is there really anyone who thinks that the PM cowers when LB and AV speak? Ramblers certainly do not think they have ever made him cower, nor do they harbour any illusion that they can; nor do they have any wish to do so, in any circumstance.
Mr Falzon could not expect us to remain passive in the face of such provocation. We had to react; using the same word. For if Mr Falzon never said that the PM ‘cowers’ his piece was not exactly a paean to Dr Gonzi’s qualities. I will quote just another three barbed remarks: “the evident lack of determination and resolve that are a sine qua non to the manner in which a leader behaves” and “the PM and his acolytes decided to ditch Victor Scerri, myopically thinking, etc”. “An indomitable leader would have explained…” (Dr Gonzi did not explain, hence he is not indomitable). This is not public perception; all Mr Falzon’s.
He goes on to speak of the Dr Scerri’s Bahrija case and the St John’s Co-Cathedral “fracas”; in both cases, he says, the government “appears weak”; they “exacerbated the perception of a weak government …bowing to pressure (my italics) of whoever screams most”. Can Mr Falzon honestly tell us whether this is not his perception too? No, it is not ‘cowering’, but is this just ‘mishandling’?
Having reached the end of his article one could perhaps be forgiven for suspecting that “this is actually not true at all” (quoted above) is tongue in cheek. I, for one, thought it possible.
It was not, so it behoves me to apologise; because in truth I did not quote him correctly. Not through malice though, but for the reasons given. From my side these are the facts.
I should like to hope that Mr Falzon will kindly accept my apology and that he will now graciously answer our questions and publish the cases of permits similar to Dr Scerri’s, so that we Ramblers can start taking the actions that are still possible. We will also appreciate hearing the reasons why he has kept these cases close to his chest for so long; it would help us understand each other better.
Mr Falzon cannot be so unkind as to pick on a single quote to declare a reasoned debate impossible. He is too intelligent and too well informed to be doing this to avoid having to substantiate any of his statements, assessments and accusations. The Ramblers’ Association of Malta (RAM) believes that this could really be the beginning of a reasoned debate. We might even convince him that there are no political motivations in our actions. None at all. Never have been.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
