Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1037099
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 OCTOBER 2018 8 October 2008 Divorce Bill Doomed IF Labour leader Joseph Muscat presents a private member's bill to introduce divorce and allows his MPs a free vote, the motion will almost certainly be shot down by the current parliamentary set-up. This emerges from an in-house survey conducted by MaltaToday among members of the House of Representatives yesterday, in the light of Muscat's proposal to initiate a parliamentary debate on an issue which has traditionally set Church and State on a collision course. The Malta Labour Party appears to be divided on this particular issue, with a small number of com- mitted anti-divorce MPs, as well as a large swathe of undecided or non-committal parliamentarians. There were six Labour respondents who claimed that they would vote against divorce legislation, and although outnumbered by pro-divorce MPs in the same party (13), the MLP's "No vote" would cer- tainly be enough to doom any divorce bill to failure, unless there is a radical shake-up on the Labour benches after the next election. As for the government MPs nearly all opted to reserve judgement on an issue which has for dec- ades been fiercely resisted by the Christian Demo- crat ruling party. Six Nationalist MPs declared their outright opposition to the bill, and none came out officially in favour. But it is debatable whether their party will allow them the luxury of a free vote to begin with: a fact which, added to the clear division within Labour ranks, strongly suggests that the bill proposed by Labour leader Joseph Muscat will not garner majority backing in the House. Recent surveys suggest that popular opposition to divorce is dwindling among younger generations, and MaltaToday's Sunday survey also revealed that the proposal enjoys more backing among Labour voters (58.3%) than Nationalist (34.2%). The same survey revealed that although a slim majority (50.2%) opposes divorce on a national level, 60% expect divorce to be introduced within the next 10 years. Muscat's decision to float the idea of a free vote on the issue of divorce appears to have unsettled many within his own party, placing the MLP at log- gerheads with a growing portion of its support-base which now actively supports their leader's proposal. Categorical in their opposition to any divorce law were Carmelo Abela, Silvio Parnis and Joe Debono Grech: the latter two citing personal beliefs to jus- tify their position. Anthony Agius Decelis said that while he was still uncertain, he would "definitely vote with a Catholic conscience", while Joe Mizzi said that while he was a Catholic, he was "aware of the problems that ex- ist". Elsewhere, MPs Adrian Vassallo, Justyne Caruana and Marlene Pullicino have already declared that they would vote against the bill. In favour of Muscat's proposal are veteran MPs Evarist Bartolo and Leo Brincat, who wrote un- equivocal opinion articles to this effect in recent weeks, as did Luciano Busuttil in yesterday's l- orizzont. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Striking not always an an end in itself Editorial "We are moving nearer to the demise of business models based on centralisation of data." Joseph Muscat addresses the Delta Summit THE right to strike is sacrosanct, and no one can realistically deny that the Malta Union of Teachers has every right to resort to such ac- tion if it feels necessary. Its decision to call a strike as of Monday – in protest against new legislation on education and teaching - must, for that reason alone, be respected. Nonetheless, strike actions are by their very nature drastic: usually, the decision to hold a strike is indicative of the failure of all other possible means of resolving any given dispute. The dispute itself traces its origins to new legislation that was recently subject to pub- lic consultation. But when the new bill was tabled in parliament, the MUT complained that it differed from the bill agreed to at consultation phase: instead of the 'Educa- tion Act' that was originally discussed, three separate bills were actually proposed in the House. Moreover, the wording of certain para- graphs suggests that some of the former bones of contention – in particular, the proposed changes to the warrant system – were retained in the final legislation, despite previous assurances to the contrary. Of par- ticular concern is that, under the new law, teachers' warrants would no longer be 'per- manent', but renewable depending on factors such as 'continuous assessment'. Regardless of private opinions about the proposed changes themselves, it is manifestly unfair to surreptitiously inject such provisos into law, after having assured the union that there would be no such changes. From this perspective, the MUT was manifestly within its rights to call a strike if the situation was not rectified. That was effectively the situation until last Friday, when Prime Minister Joseph Muscat announced that government would withdraw the new bill altogether, on condition that the MUT called off the strike. Muscat was criticised for making this statement while a conciliatory meeting be- tween Minister Bartolo and the MUT was in progress. The criticism is understandable; but it was also somewhat petty, given that Muscat was replying to a question put to him during an unrelated event – the opening of a retirement home in Fgura – and that, in any case, the same proposal was put directly to the MUT during the meeting itself. Nonetheless, the MUT stormed out of the meeting, claiming that the conciliation pro- cess had been "undermined". It then issued a statement that the planned strike would go ahead, regardless of government's offer to withdraw the legislation…. thus further em- phasising the question of what the MUT is actually striking against. The next day, the MUT called off the strike. The MUT emerged from that meeting to say that it had "listed, earlier this week, a number of highly objectionable principles found in the tabled bills and the Minis- try still fails to explain the reasons behind them." "Educators are not reassured by claims that the situation that developed regarding the education act is due to a misinterpretation of a particular clause as repeated by the govern- ment," it added. This would be reason enough to go ahead with the strike, if the law was still being de- bated in parliament. But now that it has been withdrawn, the MUT's previous objections to the new bill have clearly become irrel- evant. As for the Union's other complaint – i.e., that it was not just protesting the "current abominable proposed law," but also the way the whole saga had developed before Fri- day – one struggles to comprehend how the strike would have in any way affected that situation. One cannot go back in time and undo the mistakes of the past. The most one can do is to use different tactics in the pre- sent… something the government seems, on the surface, to be doing. Indeed, the MUT's decision to forge ahead regardless also raises the question of how its own demands can realistically be accommo- dated. What can government do to meet a un- ion's demands… when its previous stated demands have de facto already been met, and its current ones are by no means clear? As things stand, the MUT has only opened itself to criticism for being intransigent. It may complain that 'government is using stealth and bullying tactics to turn society against teachers'… and it may even have had a point, until recently. But it must also bear in mind that its own actions are intentionally disruptive, and that it is not just the government that will bear the brunt of the inconvenience. Parents are unlikely to be sympathetic to a decision that will create more inconvenience for them, while not offering any realistic hope of a solution. One possible explanation is that the MUT is trying to compensate for a previous laxity in accepting the terms of the last collective agreement. The union was privately criti- cised at the time, for accepting unpopular conditions in exchange for a pay-rise for teachers across the board. This may well explain the tough approach the union has chosen to take on this occa- sion; but it doesn't add up to a justification of its decision. The MUT must at least provide a viable route whereby this dispute can effectively be resolved. Otherwise, it will merely be a case of striking for its own sake.