Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1538131
6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 AUGUST 2025 OPINION Alex Borg Making homeownership possible again Candidate for the PN leadership A home is more than a roof over one's head. It is the cornerstone of dignity, be- longing, and stability. For generations, this was the proud legacy of Maltese families. Parents worked hard, often sacrificing lux- uries to give their children a home to call their own. Today, that tradition is under pressure like never before. Too many young couples are realising that, despite working long hours and making sacrifices, the dream of owning a home is slipping away. Essen- tial workers are finding themselves priced out of the very communities they serve. Parents and grandparents now live with a growing concern: Will their children ever be able to afford a home of their own? Despite years of economic growth, Mal- ta's housing market has been allowed to drift into the hands of speculation and profit-driven development, while ordinary families struggle. This undermines our val- ues as a nation that has always cherished homeownership. If we are to give back dignity and oppor- tunity, housing must once again become a cornerstone of our social contract. This requires a long-term strategy that looks beyond short-term projects and election slogans. The first step is to make better use of the space we already have. Across Mal- ta, many buildings sit abandoned and ne- glected while new construction continues to expand into the countryside. Instead of approving further building on virgin land, we should regenerate these properties and bring them back into use. Through tax in- centives and partnerships with the private sector and NGOs, we can transform un- used properties into affordable, energy-ef- ficient homes. This is not just about hous- ing units but about restoring community life to our towns and villages. We also need to rethink our entire ap- proach to housing. This is why I am pro- posing a new social contract between the state and the people. At its core is a long- term housing strategy centred on dignity, opportunity, and fairness. The plan in- cludes several measures designed to reo- pen the path to homeownership. The first is a national rent-to-own scheme, where tenants contribute through structured rental payments that count to- wards eventual ownership. This is designed for those who can afford monthly rent but are blocked by the difficulty of deposits or strict lending criteria. Second is an equity sharing model, in which the government co-invests with first-time buyers to reduce initial costs. Over time, buyers gradually acquire the government's share until they achieve full ownership. Third is the introduction of subsidised home loans, backed by state guarantees and offered with lower interest rates and longer repayment terms. This will allow many more low and middle-income earn- ers to purchase a home without falling into excessive debt. Fourth, we need a deposit assistance grant scheme. For many, the main barrier is not the monthly payment but the abili- ty to save for a deposit while paying rent. A one-time grant or soft loan will provide that critical first step, especially for young couples, key workers, and families on mod- est incomes. Housing policy is about the kind of communities we want to live in. Families should feel safe, connected, and supported in neighbourhoods that offer green spac- es, local services, and cultural facilities. The government's recent initiative with the Church to build 260 affordable homes at below market value is a welcome step, but it is not enough. Malta needs a national strategy that provides long-term stability, not one-off projects. The housing challenge is one of the de- fining issues of our time. It demands lead- ership, vision, and a willingness to make choices that put people before speculation. I stand for housing with dignity—a strate- gy that restores hope for parents concerned about their children's prospects, and gives today's generation of first-time buyers the same opportunities their parents once had. The Nationalist Party is ready to lead this change by placing people back at the cen- tre of Malta's housing vision. Together, we can ensure that every fam- ily in Malta has not only a roof over their head, but a home they can truly call their own. The first step is to make better use of the space we already have. Across Malta, many buildings sit abandoned and neglected while new construction continues to expand into the countryside. Daniel Schembri The ethical failure of denying euthanasia Physiotherapist working in the public service IN recent weeks, we've heard people, including a well-known doctor, ar- gue that assisted voluntary euthanasia (AVE) should remain illegal, because, after all, "suicide is still legal". Few ar- guments are as disgusting and offen- sive as equating suicide and euthana- sia. Suicide is often panic driven and done out of despair or untreated men- tal illness. It leaves behind trauma, confusion, and grief. I have seen pa- tients survive their attempts and live with permanent disabilities. AVE, on the other hand, is controlled, effective and humane. It is a decision support- ed by medical and psychiatric assess- ments, reflection and informed con- sent. Telling terminal patients that we don't need AVE legislation because they can always commit suicide is the very opposite of compassion. It is an insult to those already enduring suf- fering, be it physical or psychological. It is obvious that such loud oppo- nents of AVE are not driven by a con- cern for vulnerable people being in some way coerced. What motivates them, is perhaps the inability to allow choice, and their fixation to hijack other people's suffering to validate their own beliefs and control issues. They will never admit this, but coer- cion already exists in a system banning AVE. By keeping euthanasia illegal, and denying terminal patients all op- tions, we're forcing them into medica- tion side effects, invasive procedures, lack of independence or the conse- quences of stopping treatment—we are coercing them to follow a path that does not include the AVE option. Car- ing for the vulnerable necessitates that we give them more choices, not less. Yet, in spite of having such a coercive system which ignores requests for a peaceful death, the anti-choice crowd were on the forefront to scream "coer- cion of the vulnerable!" as soon as the consultation process was launched. The hypocrisy is staggering. Some have expressed concerns that legalising AVE opens the floodgates to abuse. But if it is not safe to have a tool because it can be abused, then palliative care would have been out- lawed years ago. Doctors already con- trol morphine doses, sedation and de- cisions to withhold interventions. An unscrupulous doctor, perhaps in quiet agreement with family members, al- ready has the power to end a life. But we do not shut down palliative care— we keep it regulated. The same logic applies to AVE. You do not ban tools for fear of abuse. Instead, you build systems and legal frameworks to en- sure they are used ethically. The scaremongering around AVE is shameless. We've heard that leg- islation will turn hospitals into kill- ing factories, or that people will start killing their parents for inheritance. Yet, anyone who read the safeguards in the White Paper should know that such scenarios are heavily protected against. Now here's the part no one wants to say out loud: Keeping AVE illegal is not a neutral position. It's not some safer "default." It's an act of coercion against those who want the option. It is legally mandated suffering that has normalised lack of choice and dignity in death. In a scenario where the best pallia- tive care has its limits, even if only a handful of eligible patients want AVE, that right matters. Such people need to be given a voice, and I feel obliged to help in doing so. Human rights are not based on majorities, other- wise minority rights would not exist. You don't have to like euthanasia, or choose it for yourself, but I can nev- er agree with anyone being against choice and denying AVE to someone who needs it. The compulsion to exert control on other people's lives is not ethics. It is coercion in disguise. This is not a de- bate about life or death. It is a debate about who gets to decide—the person living through their suffering, or the rest of us watching from a privileged safe distance. The scaremongering around AVE is shameless. We've heard that legislation will turn hospitals into killing factories, or that people will start killing their parents for inheritance