Editorial • December 07 2003

Christmas: a time for confidence

The decision to ban Christmas parties in parastatal and government bodies is a reflection of the serious financial crisis facing many of our institutions. The decision seems to have been taken after a series of events triggered off by some civil service circular informing staff that Christmas parties would not be organised on a departmental level. The untimely action led ministers to follow suit, a decision that did not go well with some ministers who have made it their mission to invite their constituency to lavish parties at, for example, St James Cavalier.
The decision not to reciprocate at Christmas is a mistake. If civil service or any other institution wish to save on money, they can start by cutting down on some of the extra costs with the unnecessary travel arrangements, where officials and top management seem to believe they are obliged to attend every insignificant seminar or meeting held abroad. They could also combine some of the activities in the many entities that are duplicating work.
Consumer confidence comes about through the little things in life. Sending out invitations for a Christmas party only to announce that the party has been cancelled sends a very bad signal that adds to negative feedback.
Morality Malta revisited
The decision by a court to block the deportation of a Russian woman after her companion alleged she carried his child and was planning to have an abortion highlights the mixed morality hanging on in our judicial and political systems.
To start with, the woman was to be deported because she is not married to a Maltese citizen. Her companion is a Maltese man, but he has not married her, perhaps he is already married or perhaps he does not wish to marry his Russian child carrying partner.
Whatever, the deportation was ordered because Ms Nadezda Gavrilova has no freedom of movement. And now, Ms Nadezda Gavrilova has been ordered to stay on because her companion, a certain Mr Borg, has intervened to allege that she will have an abortion in Russia. With this reasoning each woman facing deportation could claim she is pregnant by a Maltese man and argue that she should be kept here.
Morality stricken Malta is facing another credibility test. In fact it may be true that someone known to be carrying out an abortion in another country is breaking Maltese law and is liable to prosecution. Even here, one can surely argue that the legality of this could well be challenged. If Maltese law intends to prosecute or take punitive actions against all those who have been inseminated by a Maltese citizen and then abort abroad, then it faces a gargantuan task to track them down. That can only be achieved by implementing a religious police regime.
It is about time that we stopped applying these double standards and get on with living in the 21 century.