Why the ‘airport tax’ on car rental?

I’ve just returned from a short trip to Malta. 

One quick question:  how serious is the state of the economy on the island that the tourist now has to be punished with a furtive airport tax on car rental of €25 on arrival?

I arrived at the fully staffed ‘Addcar’ rental office at about 4pm, the aircraft having landed at 2.45 pm. The yellow sheet which listed the charges they debited my card with, and which was taken off me when I returned the car, specifically stated “arpt tax”. 

I couldn’t believe my ears at first! Then I remembered elections had just taken place and I thought perhaps all the money in the treasury was used to buy votes. Why on earth would anyone want to bite the hand that feeds it?

First, there was the 50c a day that the tourist has to pay on arrival. Now it’s €25 for wanting to avoid tediously queuing to take tortuous journeys by local transport and, at the same time, helping the Maltese economy to thrive.  

My car voucher said: “There’s nothing more to pay.”  Wrong! 

Now this could be another one of those corrupt bare-faced practices sprung on tourists  (like the fee charged by some rentals for collecting a car after 5pm, etc.) just as they have disembarked and having walked a quarter of a mile from the terminal to the car park in baking heat (another Planning Authority achievement) pulling luggage and with kids tagging behind them.

This is not a couple of euros on each rental.  In my case, it was a 39 per cent hike on my rental. It’s literally like daylight robbery. That’s not tax, that’s being mugged.

I’m no good at going viral on the net but I’ve handed over my complaint to my kids so at least tourists are warned.

Paul Brincau, Uxbridge, UK

Femicide law shortcomings

A protest against femicide in Floriana last January. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

The legal amendments, tabled in parliament as Bill 261, aim to direct our criminal courts to give due consideration to whether a homicide or attempted homicide has any femicide hallmarks that can range from intimate partner violence to misogynist motives. When that results, the court is prohibited from showing any leniency in punishment.

As the intended law currently reads, it raises a number of questions the answers to which are nowhere found in the Bill.

Who will have the final word as to whether the particular offence amounts to femicide or not? Will it be the presiding judge or will it be left to the jury to decide?

Save when it is committed while acting under the first  transport of a sudden passion or mental excitement, will it mean that the elements giving rise to the defence of either excusable or justifiable wilful homicide, provided for in other sections of our criminal code, no longer apply? And would a decrease of punishment in case of a supervening accidental cause apply?

Furthermore, will this prohibition of showing leniency also apply in cases of voluntary grievous bodily harm committed in circumstances mentioned in the proposed new article 211A of the Criminal Code?

One augurs that when this Bill is duly analysed by Parliament’s Consideration of Bills Committee, the above points will be duly rectified or, at least, clarified.

That apart, having sensible legislation in place is only one in a series of holistic measures needed to thwart femicide. Not all men practise violence against women but all women live with the threat of male violence every single day.

It is on allaying that threat and fear that we should be concentrating and spending our creative and remedial energy.

Mark Said, Msida

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.