Editorial

There are occasions when La Rochefoucauld's maxim applies: What is called generosity is usually only the vanity of giving; we enjoy the vanity more than the thing given. Last Sunday, in response to the tsunami disaster that crashed over huge areas of the Indian Ocean, no vanity was involved. Waves of generosity from around the world ensured that to those who perished by the tsunami would not be added those who would die from its aftermath.

A flood of global charity embraced countries that had been swamped by the cruel sea.

Within that flood was Malta's contribution, nearly Lm500,000 of which were raised in the second part of L-Istrina TV charity marathon, a follow-up of the previous week's programme.

The Malta branch of the Red Cross, SOS Malta and Caritas and contributions made to HSBC/BOV/APS account numbers added many more thousands of liri to that figure.

In addition there were huge amounts of blankets, bottled water and tinned foods for the reception of which the organisers had not prepared themselves. The centre they had earmarked in Malta - there was another in Gozo - was soon overwhelmed and the counting hall at Ta' Qali had to be commandeered to cope with the deluge.

When one takes into account the Lm815,000 raised by L-Istrina last week and an amount in excess of Lm100,000 contributed to Dar tal-Providenza, we may safely talk of the bout of generous indulgence displayed by the Maltese people during the traditional time of giving. Over and above, the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party had collected Lm161,000 and Lm73,000 respectively for their own needs. A staggering Lm1.7 million odd, all in one month, excluding the donations in kind for the tsunami victims - worth about Lm3 million - and the various collections held all over the island for various causes.

We should be proud of ourselves as a country that we can act with such a sense of charity at so many levels. Nor should we be ashamed to boast of this gift of material giving; most of it has a moral dimension. It is marvellous the way we rise to an occasion and, when we consider how we spoil ourselves at Christmas time, we should be pleased that we find the wherewithal to give and give again.

But even as we preen ourselves it would not be amiss to ask how and why it is that this sense of altruism is not extended into other spheres of our lives, including politics. We do not expect our politicians to give up their political identity as an expression of charity; that would be stupid. But we can expect them to express their identity in charity, their opposition to one another in charity, their disagreement with wit not vitriol, with charm not cruelty, elegance not crudity and, finally, with as much truth as can be mustered. There is no need, nor should we find space, for viciousness in the political causes we advance and follow.

If we believe in good resolutions, this should surely be one of them: to act in charity at every level of existence, be this political, social, familial, even economic. How strange it must seem and is that we can so spontaneously be collective givers at a material level and yet find it so difficult to be collective creators of, say, our national wealth. How inexplicable that we can act with such generosity towards those in need and yet find so much difficulty with the notion of solidarity where it matters so deeply, where, indeed, our positive practice of it affects us all so deeply.

And yet, generous Malta deserves our praise.