Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/240181
13 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 JANUARY 2014 As Malta prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary as an independent state, veteran broadcaster Charles Xuereb argues that we have yet to establish an identity which is truly our own PHOTOGRAPHY BY RAY ATTARD he quest goes on – on a clause that would allow them to practically have the last say in the choice of the Bishop of Malta. Believe it or not, this was the situation up till Independence…" The resulting hierarchy placed the Bishop of Malta as de facto secondin-command after the British Governor: enjoying a higher rank than the highest authority of the Royal Navy. And even after Malta obtained limited self-rule in 1921, the Bishop continued to enjoy diplomatic precedence over the first minister. "George Borg Olivier wouldn't stand for it, however; and after independence the Bishop lost precedence…" But it was a rare moment of selfdetermination, in an age when decisions over the fate of the country were by and large taken by outsiders without any input by the locals at all. Xuereb adds that, incredibly, this situation remained almost unaltered until the Republic Constitution of 1974. "The 'privilegium fori' – which meant that priests could not be tried for crimes by the civil authorities – was only removed in 1975. And it was the same reform that also introduced civil marriages to Malta for the first time…" To put that into perspective: the same privileges were removed for British priests during the reign of King Henry II in 1180, at the time of the martyrdom of St Thomas Beckett. Meanwhile, some aspects of the same resistance to secularisation still remain, despite various objections. "One could argue that in certain respects we still have strings to a confessional state, 200 years after Bonaparte tried to secularise us," Xuereb adds. "Look at our Constitution. One could discuss how the right and duty of the Church to teach what is right and wrong clashes with civic authority." Perhaps unsurprisingly, Xuereb argues that the most prominent of our national symbols – the flag – itself embodies the same contradiction, in the form of the George Cross: an essentially military insignia, which – like Valetta's lions and unicorns – has no business to be there at all. But before discussing the reasons for wanting to remove the George Cross from the flag… what does he envisage replacing it with? "Nothing," comes the immediate reply. "For hundreds of years the Maltese flag was just two colours – red and white. What's wrong with that?" Xuereb argues that the decision to place the George Cross on the flag was unilaterally taken by King George VI on 29 December 1943… and in so doing the British monarch was defending his own country's interests, not ours. "For one thing, the award in itself was a classic case of 'too little, too late'. One thing many have forgotten is that it was not necessarily well received in its time. I still remember one wartime survivor from Rabat, who admitted that the joke at the time was that the letters 'GC' stood for 'Guh Kbir' (great hunger)… which in the language of the day was actually written as 'Guh Chbir'." Even if placed on the flag by direct request ("in other words, an order") by King George, there were subsequent attempts to have it removed. It seems in 1964 a Cabinet vote turned out 50-50, and then Prime Minister George Borg Olivier had to resort to a casting vote. "He voted to retain it, and this may well have had to do with the fact that many people in Malta owed their employment to the British, and the issue might have cost votes at the next election." Mintoff also had a chance to re- move it when amending the Constitution to herald the republic in 74. "Why didn't he remove it then? Probably for the same reason. He didn't want to lose votes. But what he did do was amend that part of the Constitution, so that a two-thirds majority is no longer required to remove the George Cross. It can now be removed by a simple majority in parliament." Charles Xuereb is confident that this is what will eventually happen. "As time wears on there is less attachment to memories of the war era. I do think the George Cross is something we should be proud of as a nation; but proud of as a war decoration, and nothing more. It should never have become a national symbol. As a nation Malta stretches back 7,000 years… and the old red and white flag served us well for over 600 years, during the French uprising and beyond."