Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/424604
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2014 32 Letters Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. What are the implications of this bill on children and adolescents – both those who are transgender or intersex and those who are not? What do our doctors, sociologists, psychiatrists, educators have to say about it, both coming from the LGBTIQ field and those who are not? What implications will it have on our educational sys- tem? Once we recognise that there are no longer only boys and girls but that there are six, seven or more genders, will teachers still be allowed to say "boys and girls" in class? How will sex education be taught? Physician and philosopher Carl Elliot (The Atlantic, 2000), asks whether our cultural and historical condi- tions have just revealed trans- sexuals or also created them. "That is, once 'transsexual' and 'gender-identity disor- der' and 'sex-reassignment surgery' became common lin- guistic currency, more people began conceptualizing and interpreting their experience in these terms. "This is not to say that there is no biological basis for gender-identity disorder. No. But... that certain social and structural conditions – diagnostic categories, medical clinics, reimburse- ment schedules, a common language to describe the ex- perience, and, recently, a large body of academic work and transgender activism – have made this way of interpreting an experience not only pos- sible but more likely." We acknowledge the sen- sitivity of this bill and how important it is to ensure non- discrimination, the rights of the LGBTIQ community, and support – for example when someone is in the proc- ess of accepting one's body with ambiguous genitalia or experiencing social isolation in school. For too long society has set aside or brushed off these issues with cynicism or humour. However, when such bills, which touch the deepest core of the human person, are legislated without any discus- sion, they feel like an imposi- tion on the rest of society. We should strive to move towards an inclusive society where LGBTIQs feel comfort- able and happy to be them- selves and where straight people who are not only tolerant but also welcoming towards the gay community but do not fully endorse all their values, such as family values, are not afraid to be themselves or speak their minds either. Suzanne Vella, Martha Fitz Naxxar The current controversy raging between MaltaToday and Government rotates around one fundamental issue namely whether the surcharge on utilities imposed in the budget truly reflects the increase in the fuel oil (not to be confused with crude oil) prices in the last year. The undeniable facts indicate that fuel oil was cheaper in 2004 than in 2003. Can government justify the surcharge of 17 percent on electricity and water tariffs on the basis of the prevailing increases in crude oil prices? MaltaToday has stated and reconfirms its belief that the surcharge was not introduced to reflect the prevailing in- creases in the price of oil. Prior to the budget the Govern- ment, aided by its Party media machine, meticulously put in motion a communications strategy preparing the public for the eventual announcement of the introduction of a surcharge on utilities. This surcharge was repeatedly justi- fied on the basis of a direct increase in the price of oil. MaltaToday at no stage denied that crude oil prices were increasing but as custodians of the public interest lay bear a number of relevant points. At no point, prior to the explosion of the controversy did government make any reference at all to the different types of oil Enemalta imports, no reference at all was ever made to the type of oil used for generating electricity. Indeed none of the minutes of details relating to the mechanism of the purchasing of oil were at any stage made known to a public that, in the meantime, is being asked to foot an increased utility bill. The public was not taken into the government's confidence prior to the story being made known by MaltaToday. It now transpires that government acted on the basis of a commis- sioned report drawn up by PricewaterhouseCoopers, only publicised and made known after and in response to our story. Revealingly, the report includes a disclaimer whereby the auditing firm escalpates itself from any responsibility for figures provided by the ministry. Importantly, the re- port benchmarks today's prices of oil and Enemalta Corpo- ration costs with the 1999 costs when the utility rates were reviewed downwards. It would appear that in a like manner government, with the benefit of the report, privately based its argument on 1999 increases yet publicly based its arguments on today's increases in oil. Herein lies govern- ment's deceit. We fear that government is simply using the increase in crude oil prices as a pretext to introduce the surcharge while the true reason for the increase in utility rates are the losses that Enemata has incurred since 1999. Yet again it is the consumer that is being asked to foot the bill for the inefficiencies of a government corporation. This is the irrefutable truth and no hysterical government press releases will change this reality. Spin-doctors may consider it their role to manage perceptions; MaltaToday reconfirms its total commitment to acting as the custodian of the public interest. The facts speak for themselves. There is irrefutable proof that the price of fuel oil utilised by Enemalta was more expensive in 2003 than 2004. The value of the dollar, the currency in which oil is purchased has weakened since 1999. As a consequence the justification of the surcharge on prevailing crude oil prices is erroneous and deceptive. Government must come clean with the public by means of an inquiry. The public is all too often being squeezed financially to subsidise public sector mismanagement and over- manning costs. Government must go back to the drawing board, it must rethink its surcharge policy with the same attention to detail that it gave when it span the increases in the prevailing prices of crude oil as the reason for the introduction of the surcharge. We are encouraged that the social partners too are now demanding an explanation on fuel prices. However it is disturbing to note that none of the social partners had the time and the sense to interpret or ask about the data presented to them by government. This reflects very poorly on the social partners acting as guarantors of the public. MaltaToday has every intention to carry on acting as the custodian of the public interest. A glut of untruths Editorial • December 05 2004 Witness fees revision overdue A long outstanding issue which is rarely mentioned is the compensation due to a witness in civil lawsuits. At present such compen- sation is regulated by the Witnesses (fees) Ordinance (Chapter 108 of the Laws of Malta). According to this law a person called as a wit- ness can claim from the party summoning him/ her to give evidence up to a maximum of 70 cents, which fee varies according to the profession or trade of the witness. In addition the person in question can claim travel expenses and if a sitting is held in the after- noon an additional 12 cents per hour or part thereof. These fees may have been reasonable when they were made way back in 1940, but are certainly not in 2014. For some unknown reason these fees have not been revised in line with current realities and obviously no one bothers to make any claim for compensation on the basis of these outdated fees. Yet clearly it is high time that the fees are revised and people made aware of their right to claim compensation. While it is the right of litigants to be able to call upon witnesses in support of their case, it is equally right that people called as witnesses are adequately compensated for their time and possible loss of earn- ings. Paul Edgar Micallef Valletta The outer space epic Inter- stellar is a "don't miss" movie, Time reported on 10 November. The review of the film started as follows: "There is no reason at all you should care about the universe. For one thing, it doesn't care a whit about you. It's huge, it's cold, it's soulless. It's possessed of forces that would rip you to ribbons the second you dared to step off the tiny planetary beachhead it has permitted us." Sooner or later, Chris- tians have to come to terms with the fact that we live in an impersonal universe. As Richard Tar- nas wrote in The Passion of the Western Mind, "it is starkly implausible that the universe as a whole should have any pressing interest in this minute part of its immensity – if it has any 'interests' at all." John Guillaumier St Julian's Gender identity bill An impersonal universe