Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1519042
TRADITIONALLY, Maltese are hesitant to speak out against the medical profession. They always imagine that someday they could find themselves under the sur- geon's knife and the last thing they really want is an irate surgeon with a vengeful streak. Joking apart, the other posse of professionals who seem to be con- sidered sacred are the judiciary. There is nothing wrong in crit- icising the judiciary when and if need be. There are those who made it a pastime to denigrate the judiciary whenever the bench took a decision that did not quite tickle their fancy. We need not go far to recall how some magistrates and judges had their private lives exposed just be- cause they took certain decisions. This very week, there were two interesting court sentences. One from Judge Franco Depasquale and another from Judge Lawrence Mintoff. When faced with a decision on the opening of a spring hunting season, Depasquale departed from looking at the facts presented and expressed his views on why he thought hunting for turtle dove in spring was not a big thing in Malta. Depasquale argued as if he were an ornithologist representing the hunting lobby - there was no doubt that the turtle dove popula- tion was in decline but expressed scepticism at the claim that the principal cause for the loss of the species could be mainly attributed to "two weeks of hunting in April on the tiny island of Malta, which this court observes is nothing more than a rock in a big sea divid- ing Africa and Europe." The judge also observed that this was the third time that BirdLife Malta had applied for a similar in- junction on identical grounds. Depasquale dismissed the in- junction aimed at preventing the opening of the spring hunting sea- son this year. BirdLife Malta requested the in- junction based on scientific stud- ies which showed that turtle dove populations were falling on a re- gional level and not just locally, in- sisting that this was principally due to Malta permitting the hunting of the species in spring. Now, Depasquale has every right to express his personal opinion and to equate conservation criteria with the size of the country but in- ternational commitments do not work that way. For example, Malta's commit- ment to reduce the carbon foot- print is obviously irrelevant com- pared to what other country's produce in terms of greenhouse gases. And yet as a sovereign na- tion we are obliged to implement targets and reach legal thresholds. When it comes to spring mi- gration for wild birds, Malta's ge- ographical position offers a very important route for the declining species. So Depasquale's puerile com- ment on Malta being a rock is rather irrelevant. Additionally, when he takes the government's report on wild birds captured at face value, Depasquale is being na- ive and gullible. Who can believe the veracity of this report which is based on the imagination of hundreds of Mal- tese hunters who are expected to provide accurate details without verification of their bird killings. The other judge The other judge who left a mark this week was Mr Justice Wenzu Mintoff. Now, I to have to make a dis- claimer here: I knew Mintoff rath- er well, perhaps too well. No prob- lems with that, I have no issues at all, even though he has sentenced me several times over when in fact he should have recused himself. Yet, I respect his decisions even though I disagree with their final outcome. Mintoff is a unique judge. He is erudite, well-read and driven by a strong sense of propriety. Integri- ty and justice are at the top of his agenda. His past life in politics is domi- nated by events that prove without any doubt that when push comes to shove he will take a decision that will favour the right thing from the wrong thing. But Mintoff who has all the mak- ings for a chief justice and gives the impression that he would embrace such a post, was brilliant if not as- tounding with his 155-page judg- I have already explained in a pre- vious article why Bernard Grech must bow out of the leadership. My previous article was based on the principle that if people are not in any way interested to listen to the messenger, they will not be able to hear his message. This means that the party mes- sage will not filter down to the electorate and voters, National- ists or Labour, will not be able to understand what the party in Opposition intends to do or not to do once in power. Of course, this accounts for present circumstances wherein the Labour Party seems to be losing votes, while the Nation- alist Party is not gaining any of them. The Opposition's message out- lining its policies for a possible future return to power is being missed by both sides. But a more important aspect of the malaise in which the Op- position finds itself in is because Bernard Grech fails the test of leadership. A good and true leader should be able to unite his forces and not break them up, leaving only factions with inter party rivalries or disinterested party followers. The biggest mistake for Ber- nard Grech was his policy to get rid of the old guard at all costs; to get rid of all those who re- sisted his appointment as lead- er; and remove those whom he considered as radical. In the idealistic dreams in which he seems to be living, Grech wanted to create a clean slate, with new young inexpe- rienced appointees many of whom seem to be coming out of their seventh-grade school. Hopelessly lost, these well-meaning individuals, with good qualities and all, can in no way stand up to the harsh reali- ties of parliamentary life, where one is expected to stand up to be counted. Instead, we have a bunch of well-meaning political stu- dents, whose only job seems to be saying yes to whatever Ber- nard Grech talks about. And he seems to be doing all the talking these days. What Bernard Grech does not seem to realise is that his so- called new team does not enjoy the support of the electorate as these individuals are hardly known. They are not being ex- posed to the media in a sufficient way as to command respect and allegiance, and therefore they are contributing practically nothing to the party goals of keeping ex- isting Nationalists loyal to the party or perhaps more impor- tant, winning over the sympathy of those Labour supporters who are finding themselves disillu- sioned with their government's policies. In simple terms, their pres- ence is not contributing to the Nationalist Party's popularity among the electorate, and are hardly taken seriously even by the Labour side. One is bound to ask why Ber- nard Grech was hell bent in putting the Nationalist Party in such a predicament. It was so obvious that his policy of creat- ing a clean slate would doom the Nationalist Party to the opposi- tion benches for the next two or three decades. Again, this is simply lack of good leadership. A good leader does not live in dreams but in political practicalities. A good leader must be able to rally his forces, make the best of avail- able resources irrespective of personal clashes or different ap- proaches to party ideologies. Look at Erdogan in Turkey and Scholtz in Germany, and Net- anyahu in Israel; they are all in power because they accepted in their ranks members from oth- er parties, formed realistic coa- litions and learned to live with them. And these three leaders are acknowledged as strong leaders not only in their country but even so at the international level. Come to our country and the longstanding icons of the Na- tionalist Party have been antag- onised and scattered with the winds. Take Paul Borg Olivier who was a stalwart of the Valletta district and Austin Gatt, Jason Azzopardi, Louis Galea, and so many others. Why should such stalwarts not to be seen in any party event or at the party head- quarters in Pietà where they spent most of their lives sweat- ing it out leading the party to victory after victory. Why is it that these party icons are made to feel that id-Dar Ċentrali is not part of their lives anymore? Bernard Grech keeps insisting on alienating these staunch true blue Nationalist Party members when he should be seeking ways to bring them back to the fold and use them as tools for promoting the Nation- alist Party manifesto. The failure of Bernard Grech as a leader is precisely because he fails to realise that thousands of Nationalist Party supporters knew and accepted these party stalwarts as the elements which formed the party. Thousands felt a strong bond with these ex party members which bond extended to the unquestioned acceptance of party policies that eventually led to election suc- cesses. What Bernard Grech does not seem to realise is that plugging these ex PN members, ex min- isters, or whoever, has left a void in the electorate. This has diluted allegiance to the party because many feel they have no one to attach themselves to as in the good old days. That is why Labour wins in the surveys and the Nationalists do not budge. This is certainly not the way to win elections. The many ex PN ministers and other party functionaries should be used as reference points in their former districts to rally support among the grass roots and enable the party's message to filter through. Their names still carry weight, and their words still hold, be- cause they all had credibility. Today credibility has been lost with the electorate. And all this because of wrong leadership. However well-in- tentioned Bernard Grech is, he must go… unless the PN is to re- main doomed in opposition for the next millennium. Frank Camilleri Saviour Balzan The erudite judge Frank Camilleri is a company director and holds an MBA from Queen's University Belfast maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 APRIL 2024 4 OPINION Why Bernard Grech must go