Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/527016
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 14 JUNE 2015 26 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. Letters Simon Busuttil's march on Zonqor Just when horrific details have emerged about the quality of con- crete found throughout Mater Dei Hospital, which had cost Maltese taxpayers anything from €600 to €700 million, Simon Busuttil and his motley crew had a brainchild! Why not deviate attention from the Mater Dei "State-of-the-art" scandal by calling on the many thousands of PN foot-soldiers to descend on Zonqor in order to defend this God-forsaken area – which a PN government had once considered for the possible location of a rubbish-dump, in polite terms "a landfill", as well as a possible site for a reverse-osmosis plant – from a government which wants to turn a small part of it into the new American University of Malta campus, which would inject €70 million a year into Malta's economy, particularly that of Marsaskala and the South of Malta, and create 400 jobs and a lot more ? And so, to encourage his foot- soldiers to turn up in huge num- bers, Simon Busuttil succeeded in convincing MP Marlene Farrugia, who I now, more than ever, con- sider as more of an "independent" MP than a PL one, to attend at Zonqor and also to address the multitude who were expected to descend on Zonqor. Transport for the PN army was provided from around the island. Nothing was left to chance in order to force the prime minister to concede defeat and give up his plans to bring so much-needed economic progress to the Marsaskala area and the South of Malta Alas, Simon Busuttil's dream of using Marlene Farrugia as bait to attract huge numbers of PN supporters to Zonqor, came to an abrupt end when he saw just around 500 PN diehards turning up, though the PN has at least 900 councillors, besides many more members in section committees alone! And yet, Simon Busuttil believes he can stop the AUM project from being realised in any part of Zon- qor. No wonder I keep repeating that this man is not fit for purpose. Eddy Privitera Mosta THE launching of the new Labour move- ment, Moviment Laburista Popolari, sig- nificantly using the MLP acronym, while confessing the same aims deserves critical analysis. The launch by means of a wreath at the foot of the Sette Giugno monument was a media scoop. The event achieved maxi- mum media coverage and brightened an otherwise dull day with little news events to report. It gave some spice and food for thought. The aims of the movement appear similar to the intention of the founding fathers of the Labour Party – protection of the weakest sections of society and social justice. The matter which seems to have triggered off this movement is its opposi- tion, as opposed to that of the Labour Party, to the ratification of the European constitu- tion. It considers that the Labour Party is an accomplice with the Nationalist Party in restricting national sovereignty and liber- ties by means of ratification. To this extent the movement considers itself as the true soul of the party, true to the principles and ideals of its founding fathers. They affirm that unlike Alfred Sant, they have not transgressed. They are no revisionists. In its effort to justify its existence, the movement equates today's prevailing social situation with that in 1919. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such compari- sons are historically incorrect. The political formation certainly serves as nuisance value and a distraction for the Labour Party strategists. Knee jerk reac- tions from both Alfred Sant – 'gimmick' – and Jason Micallef – calling Anna Mallia a 'reject' – betray Labour's irritation. Anna Mallia, who has established herself as an outspoken critic, is to be credited for calling a spade a spade especially when having the guts to ask Alfred Sant to stand down for being a liability for the Labour Party. She uttered what many in the party believe but fear to express publicly. We can only hope that she is not being Mintoff- or Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici-driven. Having however entered the political fray she should not be over concerned when labelled a reject since this is a fair comment uttered against a now public figure in a democratic society. She must get used to the fire in the political kitchen she has chosen to enter. Labour would be unwise to simply dis- miss this new formation as a distraction. Their concerns over ratification are widely shared by many Labourites who find in Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici a champion of their rights. The new formation must however be seen for what it is. It is essentially a regrouping of the Mintoffian elements in the Labour Party. Alex Sceberras Trigona, a former foreign minister under Mintoff, and Maria Camilleri, a close confidante of Mintoff, are hardly new let alone fresh with ideas or with earth-shattering policies to get this country back to work. They represent islanders, isolationist- protectionists with all the old recipes that ran this country to the ground. They are yesterday's men and women. They repre- sent old Labour in its latest effort to unseat Alfred Sant. What unites them more than anything else is their attitude towards Alfred Sant who dared take on Mintoff and lost, yet kept the helm of the party. As exponents of old Labour they should be shown up for what they are. There is much irony and bad taste in the coverage being given to these traditional foes of the Nationalist Party by the PN media itself. It all smacks of political op- portunism. Anything which bashes Sant is fair game. While having deep misgivings about Alfred Sant we believe the Mintof- fian political spectre should be put to rest. We credit Sant for at least trying to put an end to Mintoff's dominance in the party and even risking and losing his govern- ment in the process. Beyond criticism of this movement's Mintoffian pedigree, this newspaper cannot shoot down diversity in politics. Such developments are healthy in a democracy especially if they offer wider choice an input of fresh ideas. But this movement does not. We would have far preferred to see a new grouping with a liberal outlook and are concerned what a fragmented opposi- tion can offer as an alternative to a badly performing government. We retain serious misgivings on this new formation. It appears as a vestige of person- alities and ideas linked and cemented to our bad Mintoffian past. What's new? Editorial • 12 June 2005 Religious sideshows ON May 14, a local newspaper published an advertisement with the heading "Don Bosco Amongst Us" – which was nothing more than a display of an urn! The "official programme" in- cluded "worship by the faithful at St Patrick's, Sliema", a "carcade to Ta' Pinu", an "aux flambeaux pro- cession from Dingli Circus" as well as "the patronage" of the President of a supposedly secular state. A month ago, the same newspa- per advertised the "worship of the relic of St Faustina". Last summer, it was the worship of the "arm bone" of St George and of "the blood" of St Lawrence. On other occasions, it was the "worship" of some funerary fetish of Dun Gorg. "What would Jerome say," wrote Erasmus, "could he see the Vir- gin's milk exhibited for money; the miraculous oils; and the por- tions of the true cross, enough, if collected, to freight a large ship?" For some Catholics, the teach- ings of Jesus are not enough. They need sideshows to uphold their faith. "If religious teachings were sim- ple and clear," wrote a French par- ish priest in his testament to his parishioners, "they would have fewer attractions for the ignorant. They need obscurity, mysteries, fables, miracles, and incredible things." John Guillaumier St Julian's Need for clarity on rental law An item appearing this week on MaltaToday.com.mt reported justice minister Owen Bonnici saying that rental laws will have to be revised yet again if a just balance is to be reached between landlords and tenants who pay old rents. Since the constitutional court re- cently confirmed that the 1979 law converting temporary leases into permanent rental contacts was un- constitutional, the trepidation of such tenants over the recent court decision is an understandable one. Suffice it to say, that in my lim- ited knowledge of the law, tenants should also know that the land- lords taking court action against the government are seeking repa- rations for the unconstitutionality of the 1979 law – and not for the eviction of the tenants, who re- main to this day protected by the law from arbitrary eviction. Bonnici has hinted that his gov- ernment favours increasing rental rates for those whose temporary leases became rental contracts. I can understand that this is the minimum landlords can expect af- ter having spent the last 40 years receiving meagre rents. But the Labour administration should be wary of caving in to the unreasonable demands of land- lords to demand market rates for the rents. Many of the people who acquired a lease in the 1970s may be pensioners today, and it is not a given that they would have the necessary capital resources to pay market rental rates. Landlords have been encour- aged to act on their constitutional rights, but is it fair that an ageing generation is placed under this kind of pressure? Surely the gov- ernment should reassure tenants that they remain protected by the State as the law stands. Landlords should also apply some judiciousness in their bid, al- beit justified, to retake their prop- erties. This generation of tenants is in its twilight years, and they are certainly not able to bequeath their leases to their heirs. As these ten- ants grow old and pass away, a new stock of private housing will return to the owners. They can wait until then to take full control. Aldo Ciantar Marsaskala