Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1085429
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 • 24 FEBRUARY 2019 25 February 2009 Shipyard bids fall below expectations LAWRENCE Gonzi's plan to recoup a re- ported €49 million which his government paid in early retirement schemes appears to have foundered, as bids for the Malta Shipyards have fallen short of this figure. Sources privy to the privatisation process described government's expectations to be "misled" if it was seeking to recoup the golden handshake it paid for 1,567 of the entire ship- yards' workforce – 96% of all workers at the Malta Shipbuilding, Malta Ship Repair, Malta Superyachts, and the Manoel Island Yacht Yard. The four entities attracted 14 offers from prospective bidders, out of 52 expressions of interest. But none are deemed to have satisfied government expectations, because they are reportedly too low. Now plans are in place to soften the blow from the fallout of the revelations. Finance Minister Tonio Fenech had no comment to make on the development last Sunday. He later told The Times it was too early to reach any conclusions, without deny- ing that the offers had fallen short of what was expected. He also said the criteria for the winning bid was not the financial bottom line, but primar- ily the "investment projections" and "the wider benefit for the economy and employment." "Bidders have clearly done their homework," an industry source said. "They have considered the value of the emphyteusis for the land, and the value of machinery and equipment on each of the four sites." But expectations of offers running into "the tens of millions" for each of the four entities would be "misleading", they said. The companies are being sold solely for maritime activity purposes. The €49 million in early retirement schemes put government and the General Workers Union at loggerheads over the fate of the ship- yards workers. While government was steadfast in its belief that the shipyards had to be downsized from 1,600 to 700 to be made more attractive to pro- spective buyers, the GWU exhorted workers not to accept the retirement schemes before they knew who the buyer of the shipyards was. In the process, 1,567 workers took up the retirement packages – costing the Maltese economy 1% of its GDP, according to the Eu- ropean Commission. Last week, the EC said Malta had breached its 3% deficit threshold due to higher wages in health, absorbing the sharp rise in oil, and early retirement schemes in preparation for the pri- vatisation of the shipyards. Many of the ship- yard workers took up the retirement schemes after Neelie Kroes, the European Commission- er for Competition, insisted government could not absorb the shipyards' debt under state aid rules, and should declare bankruptcy. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Let's not abort all discussion... Editorial ''This is a crime in all civil jurisdictions... A spirit of collaboration will benefit both the Church and society in general.'' Archbishop Charles Scicluna at an extraordinary Vatican summit on the protection of minors in the Church A public call for a 'national discussion about abortion' seems to have elicited heated reac- tions from many quarters. Up to a point, this is to be expected. Abortion is a sensitive topic, both locally and abroad. There is, in fact, noth- ing remotely 'exceptional' about such reactions: similar, if not identical, responses would have been forthcoming in almost any country in the world. There is, however, much that is exceptional about the context in which this debate Is unfolding. Malta is unique in the European Union, in that our legislation prohibits abor- tion in all circumstances, without any pro- visos to (among other things) safeguard the health or life of the mother. There are other factors that set Malta apart: with the excep- tion of solitary (often stifled) voices here and there, all parties seem to converge on a pro- life, anti-abortion platform. This is, in turn, buttressed by surveys which indicate an over- whelming majority against the introduction of abortion in this country. From this perspective, public reactions do appear a little disproportionate. Given the unassailable political cross-party consensus that exists, it is inconceivable that abortion will be introduced any time soon. Why, then, the outpour of shock and outrage at the mere suggestion that the issue should be debated? Is it propelled by fear of any real, possible change to the status quo? Or is it fear of the discussion in itself… on the grounds that it might force us to look also at the street-level realities surrounding this issue: the fact that a considerable number of Maltese women travel abroad each year to seek abortions… or the possibility that unsafe backstreet abor- tions take place here in Malta? If so, the fear is – like all phobias – entirely irrational. To 'discuss abortion' does not au- tomatically mean to debate the pros and cons of the issue itself. It does not have to entail taking any decision to change the legal status of abortion in Malta (which is, in any case, practically impossible under the present cir- cumstance). One aspect that has never been discussed is the price to be paid for avoiding the discussion. For while the law offers only punishment (18 months imprisonment) for 'women;' and 'doctors'… it does not lay down clear, modern parameters that define the crime to begin with. This, in turn, explains why there have nev- er, in recent years, been any successful pros- ecutions of abortions or attempted abortions: put into practice, the relevant article of the Criminal Code proves to be worthless. To banish all discussion is therefore also to banish ways in which existing legislation can be made more effective… from the perspec- tive of those who agree with the concept of 'punishing' women under these delicate cir- cumstances. Here, however, the scope for discussion broadens considerably. If one agrees with the scope of the law, it does not follow he or she must also agree with the details. Privately, many people might disagree with the penal provisions in this law. Depending on the circumstances of any given case, they may feel uncomfortable that a woman (or doc- tor) should be further penalised after already having had to take a difficult and possibly traumatic decision. One could argue, therefore, that a national discussion is needed to see if Malta's abor- tion law is fit for purpose in the 21st cen- tury… without necessarily also discussing the introduction of abortion, per se. Nonetheless, in a free and democratic country, one cannot shut the door even to this possibility. No matter how small in num- ber, minorities should have the right to freely express themselves on any topic, within the parameters already proscribed by law. Argu- ing in favour of abortion – considered a right in many other countries – clearly falls well within the fundamental right to free speech. (How effective such a discussion could be, in the present climate, is however another mat- ter altogether). There are other concerns also. It is debata- ble whether present legislation is serviceable, in light of recent reforms that also touch on reproductive issues: primarily, IVF and em- bryo freezing. And yet, despite so many valid points for discussion… what passes for a political debate has so far been characterised mostly by loud proclamations of personal opinion. It seems that, on the rare occasions when Maltese politicians even speak of such matters at all… they feel the whole point of the discussion is to provide themselves with an automatic bandwagon to jump onto. This may even be a politically rewarding tactic, in a country where so many share those views anyway. But from the perspective of addressing the issue on the ground, it is entirely useless. Knowing that such and such a politician is 'firmly against abortion under all circum- stances' adds nothing to a debate about – for instance – what services exist locally for unplanned pregnancies? What level of re- sponsibility does the State have to assume for children born as a result of its own policies? Can the situation be made safer for women caught up in these circumstances? Should the law be clearer on the precise legal parameters for the medical profession? These are all questions that will have to be answered sooner or later. It would be unwise to abort the discussion before it even starts.