For the sake of democracy

Now that the dust seems to have settled after the controversial manner in which the standards commissioner was appointed, it is high time that the whole legal procedure of appointment is revisited to avoid future similar crises.

Let us put the original law’s enactment in its proper perspective. In 2017, parliament unanimously approved the Standards Act, establishing for the first time an institution empowered to oversee the ethical conduct of MPs, ministers and persons of trust. However, the law did not effectively guarantee the independence of the commissioner, considering that parliament could repeal or amend the Standards Act by a simple majority at any time, including abolishing the Office of the Commissioner by a simple vote.

Therefore, once we are still at a stage where constitutional reform is on the agenda, is it not a golden opportunity to seriously consider having the process of appointment, role and functions of the commissioner included in the constitution? This is already the case with the National Audit Office and the Office of the Ombudsman.

An effective anti-deadlock mechanism for the standards commissioner’s appointment can be that, in the event that the House of Representatives does not vote on or successfully choose a commissioner, the Judicial Appointments Committee makes a binding recommendation to the president for the appointment of a commissioner.

Coupled with that, parliament could consider amending the Standards Act to allow for a five-year term with the possibility of reappointment for one consecutive term of five years, supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of MPs. This would bring the terms of appointment and reappointment in line with the ombudsman and the national auditor.

If parliament does nothing about it, it would only be a strong confirmation that our long-cherished democracy is truly in crisis.

The current anti-deadlock mechanism symbolises the ongoing instrumentalisation of parliamentary legislation which is manifesting itself in an increasing number of serious irregularities of our legislative process. Such legislative measures are slowly undermining the basic pillars of our constitutional democracy.

The governing majority is only using parliament for implementing its political programme in the form of statutory law. Parliamentary law-making has completely lost its value as it has become nothing more than an instrument in the hands of the government.

MARK SAID – Msida

Incorrect terms

Alan Cooke’s letter ‘Poor argument’ (April 2), refering to the Sunday Gospel Commentary ‘What if God had sent his daughter?’ (March 26), misses the whole point of the commentary and, moreover, uses the wrong terms in Latin rather than citing the original Greek words, namely noûs referring to divine reason, mind (soul), which is grammatically masculine, and sarx referring to flesh or to fallen body, which is grammatically feminine.

The Latin equivalent is caro, carnis for flesh or fallen body, which is also grammatically feminine and intellectus to divine reason, which is grammatically masculine.

REV. DR CHARLÒ CAMILLERI, O.CARM. – Msida

The bubble has to burst

Michael Stivala’s interview (April 2) was too painful to read. His Malta is just a developer’s paradise where money is the only thing that matters. It is our nightmare.

No, we do not need more, long-unsustainable construction with more tragedies, more suffocation everywhere and the related increase in traffic. We do not need more dehumanising, exploitation of cheap labour to keep this madness going. The bubble has to burst finally.

No Stivala, we do not agree with you. Your vision is definitely not ours. Hands off Malta we love.

CARMEL ZAMMIT – Naxxar