On her first day at San Anton Palace, President Myriam Spiteri Debono speaks to Mark Laurence Zammit about waning values, Joseph Muscat’s cabinet members, and the murder of a journalist.

MLZ: You’ve been president for less than 24 hours. Have you got used to your new home, the palace? Do you know where everything is located?

MSD: Not at all. I asked staff to show me the plans of the palace, maybe it helps me picture where everything is, where the corridors lead to. At the moment I feel like I’m in a labyrinth.

MLZ: Did you already get lost?

MSD: Not yet, but only because staff were accompanying me.

MLZ: The president is Gozitan, a cardinal who is sometimes touted to become pope is Gozitan, two of the most influential government ministers are Gozitan, the Eurovision winner is Gozitan, one of the country’s biggest developers is Gozitan... do you think it’s because we are good, or because we know our way around?

MSD: This is not the first time in history that Gozitans have occupied a string of high positions. I think that short stretch of sea detaching Gozo from the mainland gives us a special drive and stamina to work harder to succeed. It’s a mindset that trains you to strive to do your best mentally and physi­cally. And that helps you succeed even more. We mature earlier as well, because we are forced to leave home when we’re young.

MLZ: Did you want to become president?

MSD: I have never wanted that position or any other. My name was touted in the corridors [of power] for quite some time.

MLZ: And did you wish to be chosen?

MSD: I always felt I would be good to take on the role.

MLZ: During negotiations with the Prime Minister, Bernard Grech imposed a condition on Robert Abela. He told him the opposition will not support the nomination of any politician who served in Joseph Muscat’s 2017 cabinet. Do you agree it was a fair condition?

MSD: In the position I am now, I don’t think I should comment on it point blank. It was the opposition’s prerogative to impose its conditions and the discussion needed to end in an agreement between both sides.

MLZ: But Labour felt the condition was unfair.

MSD: The point is both sides were constrained to find common ground – otherwise they wouldn’t have found a solution.

MLZ: In your inaugural address you spoke about corruption and greed. Who were you referring to? Who are the greedy people?

MSD: Those who harm the environment...

MLZ: The developers, you mean?

MSD: Yes, and I’m glad to see the industry starting to become regulated after the conclusions of the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry. We’ve had too many tragedies, and we cannot go on like this. Not to mention the harm that is being done to the environment and to our health.

Let’s not be delusional about this issue – people feel corruption has seeped [into our culture]. The people behind it, the way it’s being done, and who is benefitting the most is another question. But the point is that people feel it. I don’t believe corruption can ever be eradicated anywhere in the world, but we must find ways to control it.

MLZ: But who are these corrupt people?

MSD: It is not I who will tell you. Any person of good faith can look around them and immediately understand what I’m talking about. And they will understand that certain people who should have led by example when it comes to good governance, gave a scandalous example instead.

MLZ: Like who?

MSD: I won’t mention names.

MLZ: But you’re thinking of someone for sure because you wouldn’t have said it otherwise.

MSD: Of course, I am, but I won’t mention names – I’m not here to smear people, neither judge them.

MLZ: So how are we going to control corruption?

MSD: People send out signals...

MLZ: Not really, because Labour continued to win elections with 35,000 and 40,000 votes.

MSD: But that’s because people feel that some issues are a greater priority to them, and I understand that because everyone’s first priority is to improve their life every day.

MLZ: So, what you’re saying is that we should vote for clean politicians?

MSD: No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that voters’ priorities are not the same.

MLZ: But how does that solve corruption?

MSD: I never said it solves corruption. To solve corruption, we must rekindle values.

MLZ: So we don’t have enough good values...

MSD: Values have been waning lately.

MLZ: Why?

MSD: Who knows? Probably due to rampant materialism. Some people have begun to aspire to be like others who have amassed a lot of money. We must educate people in what is morally right – because we’re slowly losing that sense. We should never abandon the values of what’s right and wrong, and I feel we’re losing that. We’re losing the motivation to condemn what’s wrong and to encourage what’s good, irrespective of who did it. I feel we have lost that.

MLZ: Is it because we’re obsessed with making money?

MSD: Partly, but it’s not just that. We’re failing to condemn methods of money-making that are morally wrong. This rampant materialism gets to me too much.

MLZ: To what extent do you feel the Labour government is responsible for this mentality?

MSD: The mentality has been creeping in our culture for longer than that. I don’t agree with you.

MLZ: I’m not saying it’s Labour’s fault. I’m asking you to what extent do you believe the government contributed to it.

MSD: Labour continued to win many votes because people’s prio­rity is often to have a comfortable life. Some people find it difficult to understand what it means to be ethical, and we must elevate our ethics. But I’m not condemning people, because I understand they need to tend to their needs. Having said that, we must grow fonder of the highest ethical standards possible.

MLZ: Who are those who must do the most?

MSD: It has to start in families and schools. We must strive for higher ethical standards in children’s education. We must remember that five-year-olds today will be voters in just 10 years.

MLZ: Was it a good idea to lower the voting age to 16?

MSD: It’s very debatable in my opinion. Perhaps we shouldn’t have flung the doors wide open at 16.

MLZ: What do you mean?

MSD: To become mayors, for instance.

MLZ: Don’t you agree with it?

MSD: Not exactly. It depends on the person. There are some very mature and well-spoken 13 and 14-year-olds, and some 30-year-olds who never grew up. Therefore, people have a responsibility to choose wisely when they vote. It’s a quandary.

MLZ: Let’s speak about Daphne Caruana Galizia. In your inaugural address you said we must find ways to heal this wound that continues to bleed to this day. What are you going to do to help the wound heal?

MSD: This country never experienced anything like Daphne’s murder. Part of the solution is to protect investigative journalists. Investigative journalism is a strong foundation for democracy and good governance, and party leaders should clearly signal to their officials that unethical governance will not be tolerated. I’ve believed in that principle for as long as I’ve been active in politics. Investigative journalism must be protected in the constitution, but the media must also have rules on how to operate.

MLZ: Do you believe it should be enshrined as the fourth pillar of democracy?

MSD: That’s my wish, and I’ve been saying this for a long time. But we must get there through a mature discussion.

MLZ: Daphne’s public inquiry concluded that the prime minister and the cabinet back then created a culture of impunity that made Daphne’s killers comfortable enough to murder her. Do you think anyone in cabinet should have resigned following that inquiry?

MSD: The inquiry did not clearly mention names either. The ‘cabinet’ is a collective term. I don’t believe all of them had the same responsibility, and neither that they were all equally to blame.

MLZ: Should any of them have resigned?

MSD: Perhaps yes. But the inquiry didn’t single them out. The inquiry put everyone in one basket – can you imagine the entire cabinet resigning? It would have sent the country spiralling in crisis. You cannot throw the country in a crisis, no matter the magnitude of the sins of the leader or people in government. Ultimately, Joseph Muscat took the collective responsibility upon himself when he resigned.

MLZ: How do you look back at Joseph Muscat’s legacy?

MSD: He did many good things, in civil liberties, for instance. I was always in favour of civil liberties and had been advocating for them in the party since the 2000s. I was among the first to do that internally in the party structures. But Muscat had the courage to pass these laws swiftly without delay.

MLZ: Anything wrong that he did?

MSD: Haven’t we already mentioned those? I think my words have already been very strong in that regard. And I’m not just saying this because I’m speaking publicly. I spoke like this within internal structures as well.

MLZ: When you spoke about the constitution yesterday, you also said the electoral system may need to change to help small parties gain parliamentary representation. How would that work?

MSD: I’ve been saying it since I was speaker, but the two big parties did not support the idea of a national threshold in the past [a national threshold would allow small third parties to get a parliamentary seat if they get a certain number of votes nationally. As it stands, the district system only allows MPs to be elected if they reach the threshold in their district – which makes it practically impossible for small third parties to make it to parliament].

Let me take you back to the 1990s, when Alternattiva Demokratika, shortly after it was set up, reached a national threshold but was not elected to parliament because we only have a system of district quotas, and they could never get a quota in any one district.

MLZ: Do you think Malta should become one district then?

MSD: A mix of the two would perhaps be better.

MLZ: How would that work?

MSD: Just like we did with constitutional co-options for women, for instance, or when we changed the rules to give more parliamentary seats to the party who gets the majority of votes. In 1996, it would have been better to have had a small party elected to parliament representing more people, than to allow one MP in the Labour Party [Dom Mintoff] to create so much resistance. Maybe the situation would have been more stable.

MLZ: You were speaker of the house back then. Do you think it was right for Dom Mintoff to behave in that way with Alfred Sant?

MSD: I was speaker, yes, but you never know what’s going on internally in the party. There is an anomaly in our constitution: MPs represent their constituents in parliament, so they have the right to speak freely and criticise their own party if they feel that’s how they are being loyal to their voters. But they also represent a party. When they run on a party ticket, they are also committing themselves to that party’s principles and manifesto. In those days this anomaly was stark, because what are you going to do? Allow that MP to behave as they feel was right for their constituents or insist they tow the whip’s line? It’s a foggy line.

MLZ: Let’s speak about abortion. Do you agree with any form of abortion?

MSD: I am against abortion.

MLZ: If parliament approves an abortion law would you sign it anyway? Would you resign? Would you go abroad to avoid having to sign it?

MSD: I, as Myriam, have a right for freedom of conscience like everyone else. Wherever I served I strived to do what is right. But from the position I have now, I don’t think I should commit myself further so that I don’t influence anyone. I just wanted to state that I’m personally against abortion and I won’t speculate further.

But let’s not be delusional about this – just like it was introduced in other countries, it will eventually be introduced [here as well]. I speak with many young people, and I’m astonished at how some of them – a few of whom even frequent church – come to believe that abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances. They compromise. That’s why I believe it will be introduced one day.

MLZ: But what will you do if an abortion law lands on your desk? It might happen in the next five years.

MSD: I won’t tell you. I already said I won’t tell you and I already told you I’m against [abortion].

MLZ: This is crucial, because in a similar situation President George Vella resisted the law until it was changed.

MSD: I’m not going to tell you.

MLZ: But why?

MSD: I don’t think I would be acting responsibly if I told you. I’ll just say this: if this country ever gets to a point when it introduces abortion, it shouldn’t be snuck in through the window in some electoral manifesto. Not even divorce was introduced in that manner.

MLZ: So, it should be decided through a referendum.

MSD: Of course. That’s what I believe at least, and that’s all I’ll say.

MLZ: Is there any law you wouldn’t sign?

MSD: We’ll cross those bridges when we come to them.

MLZ: Euthanasia. Yesterday, the Archbishop urged you to uphold life from the beginning till its natural end. A discussion on euthanasia has already been promised in Labour’s electoral manifesto. What would you do if a euthanasia or doctor-assisted dying law landed on your desk?

MSD: It depends on what the law says.

MLZ: Do you think George Vella did the right thing when he went abroad to avoid signing the IVF law?

MSD: How can I judge him for his freedom of conscience?

MLZ: Would you go abroad to avoid signing a law?

MSD: I don’t think so.

MLZ: It was also revealed that when he didn’t find direct commercial flights to London, George Vella spent €30,000 on a private jet flight to attend the Queen’s funeral in 2022, and another €30,000 in accommodation for the four-day trip. Do you think that was right?

MSD: Given Malta’s close relationship with the UK, do you think it would have been right for our head of state to be absent from the Queen’s funeral?

MLZ: Maybe he could have flown economy class?

MSD: If there were difficulties for him to attend, then the spend was justified. It would have not been right had we not gone to the UK to pay our respects.

MLZ: Would you do it?

MSD: I would weigh the options and take the decision in the best interest of our country, even if it goes against the grain.

MLZ: Was there anything that bothered you over the last four days?

MSD: Yes, there was. Some people are inflating me too much. I’m sure they’re doing it with all the good intentions and to encourage me, but they’re making me look like a person that I’m not. I do seek to help everyone as much as I can, but I’m no Mother Teresa.

MLZ: Did I make you feel uncomfortable in that way today?

MSD: No, I don’t think so. I enjoyed it.

MLZ: You’re also quite the technophobe, right? And you still use a flip-phone.

MSD: Yes, I still use one of those phones with the flap. [Jokingly:] So if we’re ever on the phone and you get on my nerves and I think we hung up but you’re still accidentally on the line, I don’t risk you hearing me offending you.

MLZ: So you don’t have internet on your phone?

MSD: I don’t even have an e-mail account. At home we use my husband’s e-mail.

MLZ: Five years from now, what do you want to have achieved?

MSD: I leave that judgement to the people. I will act in the best way I can and help however I can.

This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.

Watch the interview online on Times of Malta.