Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/534048
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 28 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 The Sea Malta controversy raises many issues both financially and ethically which require serious analysis. These include the role of the minister and the chairperson, the privatisation drive, the national strategic value of the company, and the resignation and particularly the timing of the resignation, of the chairperson of the company. All these issues, including the sustainability of the project, deserve comment. The decision to privatise Sea Malta is the prerogative of the government of the day as the elected representative of the people. This was announced during the last budget speech. Budget day was a defining day for the company. It is our strong belief that Mar- lene Mizzi, if she was uncomfortable with this policy once announced, should have tendered her resignation last November and certainly not in June. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi is equally incorrect in not having accepted her resignation on the 8 June and of hav- ing given her the impression that he had full faith in her when his letter two weeks later said the exact opposite. To resign when asked to sign a non-dis- closure agreement appears as an attempt to throw a spanner in the works and to prejudice the finalisation of an agreement between her shareholder and the new purchaser. Although not opposed to privatisation, it would be surprising as a private entre- preneur if she were to have misgivings of its value when applied to a strategically important company. Surprisingly she also extends her misgivings to include the telecommuni- cations sector too. Irrespectively of her stand government should, together with its announcement, have immediately of- ficially communicated this policy to her board and certainly not left the chairper- son come to know of this decision from the media. It is clear that there has been little communication between Dr Austin Gatt and the chairperson. This reflects very badly on Government. Boards cannot simply be viewed as rubber stamps for the administration of the day. The corporate responsibilities of board members are extremely onerous. Boards should run the company while the minister should set the corporate policy which members must scrupulously follow. The role of the minister is that of a policy maker which policies he is to com- municate to the board. It is clear that the minister and his ministry are playing a much bigger role than necessary in the running of these government companies. This undermines the authority of all chairmen and boards. The ministerial instinct is to intervene in the day-to-day running of the company. This is a politically dangerous path to follow. Government companies should be kept at arm's length by the minister. The major commercial decisions and all communication with the media are being centralised. This is politically unwise. The press is left to believe that per- sons leading the companies are not free to communicate with the media. This augurs badly for media company com- munication and the disseminating of information in the public interest. The strategic value of the company is a moot point with valid arguments for and against. There is little doubt that Sea Malta has rendered a valid strategic serv- ice to the country opening up sea routes to exporters and importers that, if left to a privately-owned company may have not materialised. However, the recent agreement entered into with the Italian company buying the company does place an onus on the company to retain these sea lines. Public service obligations have been sought and acquired. Once agreed to with the necessary guarantees, the strategic value argument is less significant. The cardinal question remains not just whether the company should be priva- tised but whether government should carry on subsidising a company which loses money at taxpayer's expense. This is the whole argument. In fairness this argument should be used in the context of all government companies and not just Sea Malta. This argument becomes ever more valid in the present context where taxpayers are being increasingly burdened with new taxes. This must however be seen in a background where companies are expected to keep investing in order to assure the survival of the project. It bears mentioning that apart from the substantial initial capital outlay, govern- ment has not invested in this company. The company has been allowed to enter into stormy seas. Urgent calls from the board for an injection of capital to help the company move forward, a correct business practice, all fell on deaf ministe- rial ears. Assurances given by ministers in previous years were not actioned. This edition of MaltaToday carries a news story which revealed that Lm2 million capital injection was specifically sanctioned for Sea Malta in 2002, but what came out of this remains a mystery. This inaction has certainly contributed to the dire financial straits the company is in today. If agreement was reached between the company and government on a restructuring programme which remained without action, as government never passed over the funds due to its lack of a commitment to the project than government has much to answer for. Government's reluctance to act is fast becoming a hallmark of this administra- tion. One must remember that a report whereby over a three-year period the company would break even after years of losses had been presented by Marlene Mizzi. The ill-conceived letter from Lawrence Gonzi to Marlene Mizzi adds fuel to the whole controversy. Its tone and innuen- does are certainly unsuitable considering that they are the words of a Prime Minis- ter. It is unfortunate that her arguments are dismissed as evidence of her political allegiances. There is little doubt that there is much similarity between the arguments of the chairperson and the public state- ments of the opposition if government suspected of the two being in cahoots it should have insisted on her resignation years ago. When Marlene Mizzi tendered her resignation last March, she did not ask to be reappointed – it was Lawrence Gonzi who reappointed her. It was her seventh year under a Nationalist administration. All recrimination levied at her at this very late stage have a taste of sour grapes. Lessons to be learnt Editorial • 19 June 2005 Everybody starts forming an opinion of what is right and wrong from an early age. Most base their judgement on their parents' beliefs, which is quite often based on the teaching of the parents' religion. Some base the validity of their beliefs on the number of similar believers – and the more similar believers there are, the more their assumptions become entrenched. Some base their beliefs on a particular po- litical ideology. Many children are discouraged from asking why a certain law of behaviour should be enforced. Many leaders demand blind obedi- ence and discourage a question- ing mind. I still remember what happened to me when, as a young child, I used to ask questions to the catechist. She just refused to sign for me to receive Holy Com- munion even though I knew all the required knowledge. In the end, another catechist had to sign for me to receive the sacrament. Many leaders, to enforce their ideas on their followers, attribute their ideas to some high authority. Some do so to God her/himself. As a matter of fact, at one time the church had to declare that certain teachings were not the word of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. These teachings are called apocryphal. This practice of attributing certain laws to God etc., is still practised today. One would not be mistaken to believe that such a habit was practised in Old Testament days, and that the Church just missed declaring certain Old Testament books – such as the Genesis – as apocryphal. Schools should teach students to ask why a law is enforced, so that when it's no longer needed, they would find no qualms in abandon- ing said law. It is the citizens who should determine what is good or bad for a current situation. The future generation should be nurtured to establish the laws of right or wrong in accordance with their circumstances. We should stop imposing antiquated laws on the future generations. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong, but everything depends on the circumstances, so many laws cannot be but provi- sional. Some laws are anti-social and oppressive and it is our duty not to impose them on the future generations. We should not trust priests and scientists to establish ethical values, or better still, citizenship studies. Many people trust one of these categories blindly but both of these categories have vested in- terests. One has to remember that the greater a con artist is, the more likable and respected he is. Priests should not be trusted with this task, as quite often their first reaction to something new is negative. We have vast examples of this in history. On the other hand many scientists first proclaim a discovery, and then they say that there might be ethical problems in implementing it, quite often, so that they would sell it to very rich people through the black market. Then when the rich market is exhausted, the ethical problem vanishes and the market is opened to the middle class… and so it goes. The ideal law would be one in which the interest of others is also the interest of the individual. That's why I do not believe that ethical professionals, quite often self-styled or with questionable qualifications, should teach ethics. I prefer the teaching of citizenship. Also I consider this topic is far too dangerous to be subjected to exams. Many exam results are subjective. I still remember my level, of let's say the English language, used to fluctuate from very high to low depending on whether I reflected the beliefs of the examiner in question. Exams in ethics might very likely serve to enforce certain attitudes. I know that this subject is a new area in our culture and I am very grateful to the people working on it, but I advise caution, so that we do not change one dictatorial system with another. Josephine Gatt-Ciancio Kalkara I suggest that our parliamentary secretary for EU funds , Dr Ian Borg, change his name. "Borg" as a Maltese surname is as distinctive as a British "Smith" or "Jones." Numbers are often said to pro- vide safety. Safety can also mean obscurity, which is any politician's bugbear. If he really wants to stand out in a crowd, at any time of the year, or at any stage of any legislature, a slight adjustment to his name will work wonders. It will be the name on every- body's lips. So, go for it Dr Ian Borg. Don't you think this will be the hottest name on any roll call? Yes, Dr Ian Borgasm. Joe Genovese Birkirkara A n unused quarr y in Na x xar is slowly but surely being turned into a dump site by a construction contractor. This contractor has ac- cess to the quarr y and uses the adjacent area to store machiner y and construction materia l, apar t from hav ing some farm anima ls. Mi xed construction waste is being dumped into the quarr y and the tell ta le signs are the towers of debris run- ning from the bot tom to the top of the quarr y. C. Vassallo Naxxar From Borg to Borgasm Determining right from wrong Illegal dumping in Naxxar quarry