Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/764316
Opinion 25 T he heated debate surrounding the Maltese language and how it should be represented in writing is becoming something of a worry. It's a worry because the debate shouldn't really be so heated any more. We may have reached a point where a calm consideration of the various options before us might be more profitable. Actually, there was calm consideration for a while, as il-Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Ilsien Malti beavered away, trying to understand the leaps and bounds that this lively language was making, and networking with entities like the local councils, or Transport Malta to try and get written Maltese visible. Recently though, the Kunsill came under attack over its proposals for how to represent – if at all – the written form of some of the newer words, particularly those borrowed from English. [See some of the proposals here http://www. kunsilltalmalti.gov.mt/news-details?nwi d=144&ctid=17&ctref=ortografija] Now, this attack and the resulting upheaval at the Kunsill has unfortunately derailed what was already a tricky, sensitive process for the Maltese language. We now need to get back on track fast, because until then, the general public, including teachers and their students, and even publishers who have worked so hard to make the Maltese language more visible, are all in limbo. Books can't be published, and lessons can't be learnt in this language we're all trying so hard to protect, while we're all v ying for the moral high ground, and throwing our weight around, stalling important decisions. As any self-respecting psychologist might tell you, decisions are best taken in an atmosphere of calm, not high emotion. In this case where decisions directly concern the public and the national interest, a healthy sense of perspective would help. To start with, we should remember that some of the most heated discussion concerns how to represent new words coming into Maltese in writing. In speech, we already comfortably use a lot of these words that are causing problems for the written form, and it's in speech that a language tends to be most alive. It might encourage us to know that most languages have had to grapple with how to accommodate and write new words at some point or another, particularly if the original language is not really related to the host language. Take two very important words in English: coffee and sugar. Both come from Arabic, and don't look anything like their early Arabic form as you can imagine. Or take "beauty", again in English. The Oxford English Dictionary lists well over 30 different spellings for the word – including an improbable "booty" – as it developed from its early introduction via French and Anglo-Norman somewhere around the fourteenth century. As I understand it, the Kunsill is suggesting a similar degree of f lexibility, together with an additional ingredient: consistency. English in the fourteenth century could afford to be f lexible without worrying about consistency because written text wasn't widespread in mainstream society. Malta needs the f lexibility until society determines the most acceptable versions of spelling, but because literacy is more universal now, we also need to demonstrate some control over what we write. The Maltese language question might be a sensitive one, but this is also an exciting opportunity to see the language evolve and grow. It's more a question about what the public will settle for as more or less acceptable, and less a question of what's right or what's wrong. It's an opportunity not to be passed over in favour of turf wars or posturing, and we should be beyond that now. In Malta we form a lively, rich, and energetic society, and I'd like to hope that the Maltese language is mighty enough to accommodate and integrate all the words our society needs, in whatever form will allow it to evolve most healthily. Dr Sarah Grech is a member of the Centre for English Language Proficiency, University of Malta maltatoday, SUNDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2016 The Maltese language question might be a sensitive one, but this is also an exciting opportunity to see the language evolve and grow This language debate must calm down To trust or not to trust Sarah Grech I n the past few weeks there have been several embarrassing (to the government and to the country) revelations and accusations regarding the actions of people enjoying positions of trust within the government. Let us analyse a little what a position of trust means. The idea of appointing people personally trusted by prime ministers and ministers directly does have some basis in good governance. It seems to be pretty reasonable that a member of cabinet would want to know that those closest to him could be trusted and that discussions overheard would not be leaked to the general public and the press prematurely. It would therefore be just as reasonable that he/ she would want to appoint people he/ she has known for years and with whom they have a long-standing relationship. Originally positions of trust were understood to be those literally closest to the high ranking official. Namely personal drivers and personal secretaries. As long as the appointments were limited to those in direct contact the system worked very well. Recently, however, we have seen an explosion of appointees in positions not only not directly in contact with the minister concerned, but with a considerable amount of authority and autonomy. This is where things have gone pear shaped. The civil service runs on career professionals who owe their allegiance, not to ministers, not to a particular political party, but to their employer, the state. They carry on doing the job they have trained and studied for, no matter who is in government, like all true professionals. And like all true professionals their political allegiance does not affect their performance. As a doctor I have often come across situations where I have treated people I don't particularly like, but does that affect my actions? Not at all. They get the best I have to give. This is the same with the civil service. And this is the crux of the current problem. Appointees of political trust have often been given positions of political, administrative and financial power, not because of their qualifications, as many are not qualified to do the job, but in return for a favour by the minister concerned for past services within their party or on the electoral campaign. And as they are basically political appointees they know that when the government changes they will be thrown out with the political party they support. The effect of this is two-fold. Firstly, their allegiance lies, not with their country, but with the person and party who appointed them. Their decisions are not taken on the principle of what is right for Malta but on political expediency. Secondly, a few, and fortunately it is a few, will try to make hay whilst the sun shines. By being given positions where they are able to sign off contracts and purchases of considerable value, human nature being what it is, they are exposed to the temptations of corruption, and do succumb. Having not gone through a proper vetting process, the moral character of these people has not undergone due scrutiny and the result is there for all of us to see. We need to change the law and limit appointments of positions of trust to those directly in contact with a minister. They should be barred from any position where decisions of national importance are made. They should be nowhere near the decision-making process where contracts and tenders are decided upon. And in the case where they stray from good governance, the person appointing them should know he/she is directly responsible for their actions and must pay for them, as it was they who vouched for them. Anthony Buttigieg is deputy leader of the Partit Demokratiku Anthony Buttigieg We need to change the law and limit appointments of positions of trust to those directly in contact with a minister