Anti-deadlock mechanism

The song and dance which the PN opposition is doing during the debate on the appointment of Chief Justice Emeritus Joe Azzopardi as commissioner for standards in public life keeps confirming that, for the PN, it’s always “our way or no way”.

Not only was it a PN government which had appointed Azzopardi as judge, hence proving that it trusted him to serve as a judge. But it was also the PN which had included exactly the same anti-deadlock mechanism the PL government is proposing today. The Venice Commission had even suggested this deadlock mechanism as is being proposed.

But the most convincing argument against the opposition’s stand is the fact, stated by the prime minister more than once, that he had reached agreement with the opposition leader on the appointment of the two nominated persons – Judge Zammit McKeon as ombudsman and the former chief justice as commissioner for standards in public life.

But, as we all now know, Bernard Grech, unfortunately for the PN and our country, knows that his leadership of the party is just a facade. He has to bow his head to what the PN “establishment” (which includes Repubblika), decide. They forced Grech to forget the agreement he had reached with the prime minister. And Grech turned tail and informed the prime minister that the PN (read Repubblika and the establishment) disagrees with the appointment of Azzopardi as commissioner for standards.

The fact that all opposition speakers failed to mention a single reason for their objection to Azzopardi’s appointment is more than enough reason for the government to go ahead with the anti-deadlock mechanism, which, to add salt to the PN’s wound, had also been suggested by their former leader, Simon Busuttil.

Eddy Privitera – Naxxar

Unjust expenses on pensioners

A few days ago, I was listening to the radio and the special guest was a representative from Transport Malta. During the programme, some people brought to the attention of the speaker some very interesting things regarding the hefty licence we are paying, with the excuse that our cars pollute more than others, while those who have a vintage car and do not exceed the 3,000 kilometres will pay a misery for a licence.

Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

It is important to point out that most pensioners can’t afford to pay a whole month’s worth of pension for a car licence and insurance.

They can’t even afford to buy a new car, especially an electric one. Also, the vast majority of pensioners, including me, don’t exceed 3,000 kilometres a year. As we are not producing more CO2 than a vintage car, why should we pay such a hefty licence? Or are CO2 emissions just an excuse to charge people?

Most cars owned by senior citizens are under 15 years old and most of them are hardly used, are in mint condition and pass their VRT test.

I hope that this discrimination will stop immediately and we will pay a licence fee according to the mileage we make each year and not according to the age of our car. Being vintage oneself is more than enough to get a discount.

I would like to remind those employed in our authorities that when they receive their wages they get them because we have worked for them a long time ago and we expect some respect, especially from those politicians who support their proposals. 

Frans Buhagiar – Safi