Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/643092
25 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2016 Opinion consistency's sake, it would have to be. But we will probably never know, because any attempt to elicit some kind of explanation from AD's current leadership will get you nowhere. Prof. Cassola has ignored all messages I sent to him – as a voter who has supported his party for over 20 years, please note – asking for a confirmation of this utterly bizarre state of affairs. And he would later ignore requests for an explanation of a second, even more inexplicable AD position. In recent weeks, an ALS sufferer came out with an impassioned plea for the government to introduce legislation governing euthanasia and assisted suicide. As we all should know from the recent 'ice bucket challenge' – which everyone was only too happy to participate in, without actually taking stock of the implications – ALS is a ghastly neuro-degenerative disease that eventually reduces sufferers to a vegetative state. The sufferer in question is acutely conscious of the fact that he may soon become a burden on others. Yet under Maltese law as it stands today, any doctor who assists him in terminating his own life – which, let us not forget, is his own life, and no one else's – might face murder charges. It is an issue that is topical and current all over Europe. Moreover, euthanasia is an issue that any serious political party would be expected to debate and eventually take up a clear position on, either in favour or against. That is after all what political parties actually exist for. Not in Malta, however. When this newspaper contacted exponents of various political parties to ask about their views… it was as though we were asking about life on Mars. Eutha-what? Why are you bothering us about serious social issues that affect people and families in a huge way? We're only in this for ourselves, remember? The most bizarre reply, however, came from Arnold Cassola. I'll quote the article verbatim, because I still can't get my head around it: "On his part, Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Arnold Cassola cryptically said that while the Green Party has no position on the issue, IT HAS NO INTENTION TO DISCUSS THE MATTER." (my emphasis) There is actually nothing 'cryptic' about that reply, by the way. AD has no intention of discussing the matter. It's a pretty straightforward, uncomplicated position… which can only trigger the same old question asked earlier. If AD has no intention of interfering with the state of political play… then what the bleeding hell is it even doing on the pitch? As with all other questions Cassola has routinely ignored, it is not rhetorical in nature. As a long-time supporter of that party, I struggle to understand what AD even represents any more. How can the leader of a 'Green' party so complacently reject the idea of even discussing a topic… still less one so deeply relevant to the European Green movement? AD may not have realised this yet, but precious little of its 'Green' credentials is still visible from the outside. All European Green parties discuss euthanasia; it would be unthinkable not to. Every single one that I looked at this week has taken a position in favour (within different limits and parameters). Yet here we have a party that calls itself 'Green' – and which, bizarrely, purports to promote a 'socially progressive agenda' – that somehow views a discussion on euthanasia as a waste of time. Meanwhile, it also espouses the exact same conservative ideology as the Nationalist Party on other social issues. What is the difference between AD and PN when it comes to their respective positions on embryo freezing, anyway? OK, this is one I can actually answer myself. There is no difference. They are identical. Makes you wonder why AD would expect anyone to vote for them, really. If I wanted to be represented in parliament by a staunchly conservative party that makes no distinction between a human embryo and a child… I may as well just vote for the PN. If I wanted to be represented by a party that doesn't give a toss about end-of-life issues – to the extent that it would dismiss an impassioned plea for a discussion on euthanasia by a terminally ill man – once again, there's always the PN for that. This brings us to another reason why Brian Clough's question is intensely relevant to Maltese politics in the 21st century. MaltaToday recently published its latest survey on current electoral trends. As usual, the results were presented to the public only through the prism of how the two major parties were affected (like that's the only that has ever mattered). As a consequence, the survey's most astonishing revelation was entirely ignored. As of February 2016 – i.e., now – AD's current share of the vote stands at less than 1%. Fewer people would vote for AD if an election were held tomorrow, than voted for them in the first election they ever contested (i.e., in 1992). That's really saying something, by the way. In 1992, there was the danger of accidentally re- electing Labour when it was still led by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. In 1996, 1998 and 2004 there was the danger (endlessly fanned by the PN) of jeopardising Malta's EU bid by electing Alfred Sant. None of that exists any longer. Voters can freely vote AD, or any other party, without worrying about any of those things. Yet more did so in 1992, than would do today. Clearly, something is wrong. And I don't think we need a PhD in political science to understand exactly what. AD has found itself in an offside position: it is quite content to simply not interfere with play at all; to not even engage with voters; to not even bother discussing issues, still less forming policies... So why would liberal voters be expected to engage with AD under these circumstances? And that, of course, is another question for Alternattiva Demokratika to simply ignore. R ecent events made me realise how important it is to adapt our education system to the needs of different individuals: I understand the frustration of dyslexic and autistic students who feel they can do better and the anguish their parents go through because they want to offer their children all the possible opportunities like all other students. I recently had the opportunity to meet a group of students who are part of the Dyslexic Teens Dialogue. Individuals with dyslexia may experience difficulties in literacy, interpreting the alphabet, and in understanding mathematical processes. Discussing with these determined young people made me understand better why dyslexic students are experiencing some tough challenges, often related to a more difficult academic life and difficulty in progressing with their academic journey. Thanks to this meeting I could understand better the need for a more holistic educational system that does not exclude any students. Academic life brings about sacrifices, but for some students, this experience may be more difficult, not because they are less capable of success, but because our educational system is not easily accessible to them. I had the opportunity to admire Emily Slater's courage and truly remarkable speech during the 'Euroscola' plenary session at the European Parliament. Emily spoke OF the need to have an inclusive educational system in Malta and the difficulties students with autism encounter to further their studies at the University of Malta. This is because many autistic students speak only one language. These students often learn the English language, with the help of technology, but in turn, encounter difficulties with learning the Maltese language. This fact is hindering these students from continuing with their education not because they are not intelligent enough or unable to specialise in their chosen subjects but mostly due to the lack of f lexibility that is being adopted and the lack of attention by people who matter and who can make a difference. I do not want to minimise in any way the importance of the Maltese language, because I am one of those who believe that we need to work harder to retain and protect our language. However, it is equally important to be f lexible and not undermine any categories of students and obstructing them from furthering their studies. Emily's speech was honest and genuine, it was touching and it shed light on the difficulties experienced by these youths and the need to act to change things. As for students with dyslexia, I believe that we require more f lexibility, particularly when students have to sit for their exams. I learned that students with dyslexia find it difficult to follow the same exam format that many other students follow. For example, some students find it difficult to follow an exam paper written in black ink on a white paper and a different paper colour can help some of these students. I am aware that the educational system already considers individual student cases, but it is of utmost importance to be more f lexible in our approach to make sure that we are really helping dyslexic and autistic students, whilst reducing further bureaucracy in our processes. I hope that when the new rector of the University of Malta will be appointed, he or she would change the approach that is currently adopted and adapt our systems to consider the difficulties encountered by these students in their academic life. We do not have the luxury to lose any young people, particularly those who are so determined in moving further that are willing to challenge the status quo. I for one, will make sure to encourage such young people and I am never willing to let that determination die down. Miriam Dalli is a Labour MEP Miriam Dalli Autistic students need more flexibility Alternattiva Demokratika: Ralph Cassar, Arnold Cassola and Carmel Cacopardo