Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1473070
OPINION 12 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 13 JULY 2022 LOOK: I know they don't call it the 'silly season' for nothing… but aren't we taking things a lit- tle too far now? I'm talking about the endless game of 'Will he? Won't he?', cur- rently being played between Pres- ident George Vella and most of the Maltese media: "Oh! Will he, won't he, will he, won't he, sign the IVF bill into law?" (Repeat to fade). Believe it or not, that question has been put to President Vel- la at least four times, in the last seven days… and an unquan- tifiable number of times, since Parliament first started debating amendments to the 'Embryo Pro- tection Act' around four months ago. But the game itself started a lot earlier than that: all the way back when Vella resigned from parlia- ment in 2018, before taking up his new position as President of the Republic. Back then, it was another IVF reform bill that had posed a moral dilemma to the former Health Minister: i.e., his own gov- ernment's introduction of em- bryo-freezing (which is not exact- ly 'unrelated' to his more recent concerns with Pre-implantation Genetic Testing, is it?) On that occasion, the future President lambasted the bill as "a complete travesty of ethics, morality, and human dignity": so predictably enough, the very first question he was asked, was… … well, exactly the same as he's being asked today (only in the fu- ture conditional tense, of course: 'Would he?' 'Wouldn't he?', etc.) At the time, however, the de- cision itself still fell to former President Marie-Louise Coleiro – who, by the way, faced exactly the same sort of moral dilemma (as did all Malta's Presidents before her)… so in a sense, George Vella was spared having to actually re- ply, the first time round. It was only when yet another IVF reform bill was proposed in 2021 – this time, to permit the 'perma- nent freezing' of embryos with certain genetic/hereditary condi- tions - that the question suddenly resurfaced with a vengeance: and by then, George Vella was indeed the President who would have to sign the resulting bill into law. And how did he answer, in 2021? '"We will cross the bridges when we come to them…" Erm… much as I hate to point out the obvious: haven't we more or less 'come to those bridges' al- ready? Because last I looked, the IVF amendments (PGT and all) were duly approved by Parliament ex- actly a week ago, on Wednesday 6 July: by an extraordinary coin- cidence, the day before President George Vella got asked the same question… AGAIN! Now: I am not familiar enough with Malta's Parliamentary pro- cedure, to accurately predict how long it would take for the bill itself to physically land on President George Vella's desk, for approval. But if it hasn't already happened: it must surely be well into the process of 'happening', by now. Yet the President still flatly (and repeatedly) refuses to confirm whether he intends to sign the damn thing, or not – even now: when Parliament has already tak- en its first step in the act of 'cross- ing that bridge'. This, for instance, is a verbatim transcript from a press conference last Thursday, July 7: Journalist: 'Will you be signing the law?' President: 'The law will be signed.' Journalist: 'By you?' President: 'The law will be signed.' Another journalist, from a differ- ent newsroom: '[By] YOU?' President: 'The law will be signed. Now I've answered you three times…' Except that… he didn't really answer, did he? And it was a per- formance he would repeat two days later, when interviewed by Andrew Azzopardi on radio: Azzopardi: 'But this [Vella's re- fusal to answer] shows me you still have a moral doubt about this law; because if you hadn't, you would have no problem saying you're going to sign it off. There are two options, really. Either you sign it or the acting president signs it…' President: 'Let's not get into that argument…' OK: at this point, you might well be asking yourselves the same question that seems to be puz- zling George Vella himself, right now. Why, exactly, are those pesky journalists (and I include myself among their number) so insistent on eliciting a direct reply from the President of the Repub- lic? And what difference does it make, anyway, if he signs the bill into law himself… or leaves it to his second-in-command instead? [Note: who is rumoured to have even been chosen, specifically to provide George Vella with this sort of 'escape-route'?] After all, Vella has already con- ceded that: "Any law that goes through Parliament with the cor- rect democratic process has to be accepted. I can't send back any bill for a second consideration and once it goes through, it has to be signed." In a nutshell, then, there is no realistic danger that the President might succeed – intentionally, or otherwise - in blocking this reform. As he himself said three times (before 'the cock crew', etc.): 'The law will be signed.' So ultimately, it's just a question of whose signature will be on the dotted line, that's all… And you know what? I'd prob- ably be arguing that way myself, too… if the only thing that hung in the balance, was the question of whether or not the IVF reform would eventually 'go through'. Unfortunately, however, there is a little more to it than that. If nothing else, the President's re- fusal to commit himself, one way or the other, invariably raises oth- er questions of its own. And not only do these questions go well beyond the immediate 'concerns with IVF'… but they are not even limited to the person currently occupying the role of President, either. No, indeed. They concern the role of the Presidency itself: what it is, what it isn't; and how it's expected to actually function, in a Constitutional set-up such as ours. For let's face it: George Vella is hardly the first President of the Republic to use his office to try and 'influence' governments, in the process of legislating. In fact: this isn't even the first time he himself has done this, as Presi- dent. As I recall, George Vella had likewise expressed 'moral dilem- mas' about the 2021 Cannabis Decriminalisation Act, too; and - then as now - he had even threat- ened to refuse to ratify it, at the time. The same sort of threat was made earlier by President Ed- die Fenech Adami: interestingly enough, also on the subject of IVF; and with the result that the country remained without any form of regulatory framework for years – even though the medical procedure itself was already being carried out (unregulated) in cer- tain private hospitals anyway… And all Maltese Presidents – including George Vella – have pre-emptively threatened to re- sign, sooner than sign off on any- law introducing abortion, in any shape, manner or form… Meanwhile, there seems to be no consensus on what the fall- out would actually be, should any of those threats ever be carried out. We are told, for instance, that "any act of parliament re- quires the President's signature to become law, and refusal to do so – an improbable prospect in Maltese political history – could create a constitutional crisis…" … and while past experience (including Vella's own U-turn on cannabis) suggests that the pros- pect is indeed remote: it doesn't really matter, because even just the threat of a 'Constitutional crisis' – caused by the Head of State, no less – would usually be enough to stop any government (in any country) directly in its tracks. Now: President Vella has al- ready made it clear that it is not his intention (or even within his power) to halt these latest IVF re- forms… but he is still very much in time to 'influence' any other future legislation that the present government might happen to be contemplating, right now. And in case there was any doubt which sort of 'reform' he may have in mind: "The President however said that the IVF bill did not pose the same morality issues as a potential abortion or euthanasia bill. 'In that case there would be not argument - I would leave. We're however not at that stage yet.'" 'We're not at that stage yet'; 'We'll cross that bridge when we come to it'… it's all one and the same answer, isn't it? (And just as flawed as the first one; for the same reason, too). Sorry, but… we might not be at the precise stage, right now, when a law introducing abortion is 'sitting on the President's desk, awaiting his signature on the dot- ted line.' But we're not that far off either, are we? It was only three weeks ago, in fact, that Health Minister Chris Fearne announced "a review of [abortion] legislation, to ensure medical professionals are not stopped from saving lives", in the wake of the Andrea Prudente case. Once again: I can't predict how long that reform will take, to physically pass through all the legislative hurdles – from consul- tation, to Parliamentary readings, to a final vote – and eventually 'land on the President's desk', for his signature. What I can safely say, however, is that President George Vella's antics, today, will no doubt affect the duration of that process – and that may, in itself, well be part of the entire motive behind his cur- rent, 'obstructive' approach to the IVF reform bill. Yet all along, I am unaware that the Constitution actually envisag- es that sort of role for the Presi- dency. And something tells me that, the longer our President carries on playing these 'Will he/ Won't he?' games… the more people will finally start question- ing what the role of Malta's Presi- dency actually entails… …and, much more pertinently: whether any of the more recent incumbents, really have been 'up to the job'. All the President's 'moral dilemmas' Raphael Vassallo