Cabinet papers | Borg Olivier’s ‘no’ to Gonzi’s ‘morality police’

While a liberalisation of sexual mores was in full swing in the Western world following the 'summer of love' and the 1968 riots, the George Borg Olivier administration was still trying to strike a balance between projecting Malta as a "progressive and modern tourist destination", and requests by Archbishop Michael Gonzi to introduce a morality police to clamp down on public indecency.

Beyond these moral qualms, the new government was busy finding its feet in the international community of nations aspiring to full membership of NATO and the EEC, but increasingly frustrated at not being given sufficient help by Western powers in the task of building a national economy from scratch. The numerous Cabinet memoranda shed a new light on a meticulous Prime Minister equipped with sharp analytical skills and the remarkable gift of foresight, but somewhat reluctant to make any snap decisions which could stir the waters.

Borg Olivier's foresight is evidenced in plans for a new power plant and a Freeport in the south of Malta. Equally insightful were the government's detailed studies on the economic impact of the gradual removal of custom duties, in the long-term plan to seek full membership in the European Economic Community and the planned introduction of a purchase tax to make up for lost income from duties, a fiscal vision completed in the 1990s. Moreover, amidst a building boom, the government also showed the first signs of environmental sensitivity, as it sought help from the United Nations to set up an embryonic planning authority, a vision which came to fruition in 1992.   

When Gonzi demanded a morality police
A request made by Archbishop Mikiel Gonzi for the institution of a special branch of the police force with the "exclusive function to safeguard public morality" was discussed in a memorandum presented by the Prime Minister to his Cabinet on 17 July 1969.

The prime minister informed cabinet that the police commissioner did not consider the Archbishop's proposal of a separate branch of the police force dedicated to morality as feasible. But Borg Olivier himself expressed concern on deteriorating standards of decency.

"Admittedly there has been lately due perhaps to a marked influx of people whose moral values do not coincide with ours, an aggravation of the situation with regards to beachwear and decency in dress which calls for immediate action on the part of the government."

But the same Borg Oliver warned that "at the same time we have to safeguard our image as a progressive and modern tourist centre which we have laboured to achieve".

Borg Olivier was advised by the Commissioner that the issue should be best addressed by a press release on beachwear and general decency of dress. But he also suggested a revision of the law to clearly define what constitutes public indecency. However, not everyone agreed with this course of action.

The chairman of the Malta Tourist Board opposed the issue of a press release, as this "would have an adverse effect on tourism". He also argued that if "any warning is made it should be published in Maltese only". But the Minister for Education and Tourism was insisting that the press release should be issued in both languages.

On his part, the Prime Minister admitted that, "there is a lot of argument about what types of dress and costumes are offensive to public morals". For Borg Olivier the "offence lies not so much in what people wear but rather how they behave themselves wearing it and where they wear it." Therefore every case had to be seen in its own merits and he excluded legislation providing a clearer definition of public decency "without allowing some degree of latitude for varying interpretation".

Finally, Borg Olivier proposed the issue of a press release reminding the public that bathing costumes worn on the beach should be covered when worn in the streets. He also recommended a police circular which included the ban on bikinis.

The circular made it clear that police were expected to take action "in case of women wearing bikinis" but made a clear distinction between bikinis and "two-piece suits" which were not forbidden.

They were also expected to take action against "indecent behavior and extreme kissing and cuddling in public spaces". But a "tactful approach" was recommended when visitors or tourists are involved as these may genuinely be unaware of these rules, provided that they take immediate steps to cover up the 'indecent' bathing costume.

This conservative frame of mind was also evidenced in the decision to ban imports of contraceptives in 1962 on grounds that these items were "obscene".

Lifting the ban on women jurors
Another issue which was rearing its head was gender equality. One particular issue, which cropped up in 1965, was Malta's ban on women serving as jurors. While the Justice Minister was willing to take the step towards modernity, he went half way insisting that jury service for married women should be voluntary.

In fact, in his memorandum the minister argued that in "order to safeguard the smooth running of family life I venture to suggest that the participation of married women should be made to operate on a voluntary basis". Married women wishing to serve as jurors would be expected to make an application to court in a way "which would necessitate the intervention and assistance of the husband".

On the other hand, the same minister argued that jury service should be compulsory for all spinsters aged 25 if they have a secondary level of education and 21 if they have a university degree.
He also proposed the exclusion of female jurors from trials involving corruption of minors and sex offenses.

'White members' of the commonwealth
In April 1964, the Cabinet discussed a memorandum on the title which was to be given to the Queen after independence. Borg Olivier first suggested that an appropriate formula for Malta would appear to be "Elisabeth the second, by the grace of God, queen of Malta and her other realms and territories, head of the Commonwealth."

But Borg Olivier also noted that "there might be some virtue in aligning ourselves more closely with the white members of the commonwealth by using the form 'by the Grace of God, Elisabeth the second, Queen of the United Kingdom, Malta and her other realms and territories, head of the commonwealth'."

While the second formula was used in 1964, after 1965 Malta opted for the first formula which put Malta in the same league of all former colonies.
The issue of the queen's role re-emerged when the government was discussing the issue of the decimalisation of the currency in 1969. On that occasion the Minister of Finance raised the "fundamental question" on whether the government wishes to retain the effigy of the queen on the currency or whether to do away with such effigy altogether. The minister recommended that the queen's effigy should be retained on coins and removed from notes which should contain "effigies more representative of Malta's history and culture". Decimalisation was finally enacted by the Mintoff administration in September 1971.

Coming to terms with communist China
Taking a stand against communist China's membership in the United Nations, a seat than occupied by Taiwan, "would portray Malta as being unduly reactionary in the international sphere" Borg Olivier warned, in his role as foreign minister on 25 March 1965.

The memorandum raised the question on whether Malta should vigorously champion the cause of the Republic of Chinam which was established on the island of Taiwan after Mao Zedong's successful revolution on the mainland. Borg Olivier immediately pointed out that "this is a lost cause" and that communist China's representation in the United Nations was not a question of 'if' but of 'when'.

Malta's attitude at that time was to give tacit recognition to nationalist China at the expense of communist China. But in the memorandum, Borg Olivier pushed for a revision of this policy by pointing out that countries like Nigeria had managed to give recognition to both Chinas. He pointed out that Malta's independence had in fact been recognized by both Chinas. The Maltese government was very hesitant to accept an offer by Taiwan to have its ambassador to Madrid accredited as ambassador to Malta.

Still, Borg Olivier felt that the issue could not be shelved forever.  He pointed out that abstaining in any forthcoming vote on China's seat in the UN was "undignified" and by keeping silent Malta risked losing sympathy on both sides. Instead Borg Olivier argued that Malta should advocate a 'two Chinas' policy, through which both governments should be accepted in the UN as separate entities. He also expressed readiness in accepting communist China's claim to a seat in the Security Council while Taiwan would take its place in the General Assembly. Yet an aide memoire issued in 1967 suggests that Malta continued to support Taiwan's cause to the extent that Malta was promised 9,000 tonnes of sugar in gratitude for the full support given in the United Nations. Malta only recognised the People's Republic of China in 1972.

A memorandum presented to Cabinet in 1966 reveals that the government was at pains to refuse overtures of friendship from the Soviet Union, which was demanding diplomatic representation in Malta. The demand was reiterated in a letter attached to a gift to the Prime Minister, on the occasion of the launching of the space craft Luna 9.

"So far Malta has been able to hold off the Soviet Union on what can only be described as very implausible reasons," the report states. It warns that "any more rebuffs to the Soviet Union might provoke hostility" and notes that Malta was alone in not having any diplomatic relations with the USSR. It also states that relations with the Soviet Union were inevitable "whatever the internal political difficulties in taking such a step".

While acknowledging the "danger in receiving aid from the USSR", Western states "should not take Malta too much for granted".

The Borg Olivier administration also advocated an attitude "of complete neutrality in the dispute between the Arab world and Israel," as evidenced by a memo issued in November 1964.

Making NATO pay
Cabinet memos reveal a strained relationship between the Borg Olivier government and NATO to the extent that the continued presence of NATO headquarters in Malta is described as a 'political liability' in view of the organisation's reluctance to admit Malta as a full member or to assist Malta economically.

According to the memorandum penned by Borg Olivier in 1965 "the withdrawal of NATO from Malta is an option which deserves consideration". The memorandum does not mince words in saying that "Malta is not enjoying any material benefits from the presence of HAFMED (Headquarters Allied Forces Mediterranean)".

A memo issued in 1967 reveals that the US military was making substantial use of Malta's flight information zone. Movements by US war planes accounted for 26% of all flight movements. At the time civilian flights accounted for 44% of movements while British military planes accounted for 30%. Malta had agreed to share Air Traffic Control costs with Britain on a pro rata basis. Borg Olivier now argued that the "US government should contribute a share towards the cost of this important service" by paying £43,736.  

Membership in the EEC
Malta was considering the introduction of a consumption tax similar to VAT to make up for loss in revenue in customs duties as a result of an association agreement with the European Economic Community, which was regarded by the Borg Olivier government as a first step towards membership in the EEC.

In 1967 Malta asked for the commencement of negotiations with the European Economic Community (EEC). The government's intention was clearly that "initial relations should eventually develop in to full participation in the EEC. But a government memo reveals certain reluctance on the part of the EEC considering eventual full membership. "It is highly unlikely that the EEC countries could do more than write in the preamble to the agreement some words which would not exclude Malta's eventual membership".

Moreover, another memo admits that "though politically it may be desirable for Malta to negotiate an agreement leading to full membership there are serious economic difficulties... a country still in its transitional stage cannot assume such burden with impunity".

While the EEC had accepted to reduce tariffs on Maltese goods by 70% immediately, Malta had also agreed to reduce import tariffs by 35% in the first five years and to 0% in the next five years. A report by Economic Planning Division made it clear that a purchase tax had to be introduced.

The report excluded the introduction of a Value Added Tax as this would render the fiscal system regressive and would have serious repercussions on income redistribution. Instead, a purchase tax with different rates aimed at stimulating some industries was to be considered. This was to start from a narrow base and then expanded to a wider variety of products. VAT was only introduced in Malta in 1995 after negotiations for full membership in the EEC were reactivated by the Nationalist Party after it won back power in 1987.

The race against darkness
A memo presented in 1969 predicted that the Marsa power station would not be in a position to meet Malta's energy needs by 1975. To meet future increases in energy demand after 1975, the government started a site selection process for building a new power station, a project which was only continued by the newly-elected PN administration in 1987.

The government's sense of urgency was also dictated by the Medport project which envisaged the development of a free port in the south east of Malta. This also dictated the choice of location for the new 300 MW plant. In fact the five short-listed sites were all located in the region.

One of sites which were considered was St Thomas Bay in M'Scala, but this was found to be more ideal for tourism related development. The two short-listed sites were il-Qajjenza in B'Bugia and the Qrejten point in Marsaxlokk. Government memos also revealed that Malta requested financial assistance from NATO to finance the new power and desalination plant.

The scramble for oil
A memo presented in December 1970 sheds light on the politics of oil, with the government expressing suspicion on collusion between the Italian state owned AGIP and Shell in their bids to drill for oil in Malta's blocks. The government had issued applications for oil exploration in two blocks lying to the north and south east of Malta. The two primary contenders for block 1 were AGIP and Shell. The applications presented by both companies turned out to be almost identical.

"It is quite possible that the applications were prepared in concert," the memo notes.  One of the concerns was that since AGIP was owned by the Italian government, it could put Italian interests before Malta's.

One of the possibilities considered in the memo was that of Italy finding gas on the other side of the median line, thus rendering oil exploration on the other side more expensive and possibly reducing the proportion of recovered oil. On the other hand, despite concern about possible collusion with AGIP, the government opted for Shell as it was not connected to any government and Malta would benefit from the advantage of having a "highly qualified" team energetically fighting at least the first stages of any battles.

But due to concern about Shell's possible collusion with AGIP, it was decided to have Block 2 explored by other companies who would be more likely to take a different approach. In this context, the Oil Committee recommended the granting of licenses in Block B to SNP Aquitane and Home Oil Co of Canada.

A restaurant on Cominotto?
It was the Borg Olivier government which spared the country from the eyesore of a restaurant set on Cominotto overlooking the Blue Lagoon.

Cabinet memos sheds light on the government's businesslike approach towards developers disposing of public land.  While the Borg Olivier government was more than willing to promote tourist development, giving economic incentives like tax holidays to new hotels, it did not shy away from defending the national interest in its dealings.

This is evident in the government's dealing with Comino Development Company, which had been granted the islands of Comino and Cominotto on 150 years' emphyteusis by the colonial administration in 1960. The company had to build a 200-room hotel and a restaurant on Cominotto by March 1963.  Since the company was in default of this deadline, the Borg Olivier government took the opportunity to "improve the government's position" in the concession granted by the previous colonial administration in 1960.

One of the new conditions imposed by the government was the relocation of the restaurant from Cominotto to Santa Maria Bay on Comino.  The government also expected greater control over the planning of the development demanding submission of plans for its approval. It also restricted the extent of the foreshore originally granted to the company.

Another major development being considered under the Borg Olivier government was that of Manoel Island.  In March 1964, the government had informed the British naval authorities that it intended to develop Manoel Island as a "single comprehensive project". But the naval authorities had pointed out that the Maltese government would have to bear the cost of providing alternative land and accommodation for the naval facilities.

The government concluded that the naval authorities should be allowed to retain two-shore establishment which proposed to join by an enclosing fence. They were also to be allowed temporary use of the Manoel Island Service club, which was to be eventually incorporated in the project.

The Manoel Island development project resurfaced in a cabinet memo issued in January 1970. The development which was proposed on the island included 466 new dwellings and a hotel or apartment block. The Prime Minister expressed concern that the planned development encroached on the earthworks of Fort Manoel. "This is wrong and should not be allowed," he argued.

He also expressed concern that the proposed Malta Hotel was meant to rise 11 storeys. The director of public works was insisting that the hotel should be six storeys high. The prime minister also referred to the lack of "playing and recreational" areas.

Towards Malta's first planning rules
On 26 July 1967, the Minister for Public Works argued that "in view of the building boom the need for planning legislation is more acute than ever".

Back in 1963 the new government had requested the assistance of the United Nations Development Programme to help it formulate a master plan for town and country planning in Malta. But the minister pointed out that the master plan also had to be backed up with legislations. One of the most radical suggestions which was only implemented in 1992 when a planning authority was finally set up, was the setting up of a Town Planning Commission which was to be given the task of preparing the master plan regulating development and granted responsibility over the issue of building permits.

An appeals' tribunal was also to be set up to hear cases against decisions of the Commission.

But a draft bill which was considered at this stage still gave the government the power to overrule planning decision. It specifically gave the minister responsible for town planning the power to overrule decisions of the commission or to revoke or modify a planning permit. The draft bill also envisaged "heavy fines" in cases of contravention and foresaw the demolition of illegal developments.

In 1970, the Town and Country Planning Act was passed by the Nationalist government. But although enacted, it was never put into force. The act was revoked by a Labour government some eight years later without it ever having had the force of law.

From shabby buses to aerial runways
Borg Olivier denouncement of the state of public transport service in 1969 may sound all too familiar, as the problems identified by the PM lingered on for the following decades.

"Apart from the generally shabby appearance of many of the buses and of their crews, whose language and behaviour is even shabbier, there is a patent disinclination to put service to the public first... buses persistently resort to the irritating practice of dawdling, poaching, speeding, overtaking and overloading."
Borg Olivier blamed the General Transport Union, which represented bus owners, for periodically threatening strike action to obtain increase in fares and to stop the prosecution of under-age conductors.

At that time public transport was based on an unruly system where buses were owned by individuals or partnerships running on specific routes, some of which were highly profitable and over-served and some which were unprofitable and under-served. To address this "archaic" state of affairs, Borg Olivier proposed two solutions: either the amalgamation of all bus services in five different groups, or the complete integration of routes with the buses distributed on the basis of rosters drawn up by government.

One project which failed to take off was the proposed "aerial runway" linking Sliema to Valletta which was discussed in a memo presented by Borg Olivier in 1963. The project dated back to 1958 when Vincenti Kind assisted by a German firm applied to construct aerial ropeways linking St Anne Square on the Sliema strand to a point on St Michael's bastions on Hastings Garden. The ropeway required the erection of a monstrous steel structure rising to a height of 200 meters in Sliema. The application had been refused on aesthetic grounds in 1960. But the application was revived in subsequent years.

Borg Olivier shot down objection by the General Transport Union which argued that the project would have negatively effected the bus service arguing that "competition would be legitimate."

Borg Olivier was more worried about the impact on the two kiosks in St Anne Square and the Majestic Theater. Instead, he proposed that the steel structure should be erected on the seabed and that the end of the ropeway would be not less than 10 feet from the parapet wall of the bastions.  

Hotel in Valletta entrance
One of the developments proposed in Valletta was the erection of 8 to 9 storey building on a site bordered by Queensway, Kings Way and Ordinance Street - which is presently occupied by a shopping mall.

The development discussed in a cabinet memo in June 1964 consisted of a supermarket on basement and ground floor, offices on two storeys above Queensway level and a first class hotel with a 150 to 200 room occupancy.

But the memo reveals that the Minister of Works and Housing was objecting to the project on the grounds that the site would be ideal for the erection of a building to house his Ministry.

The project was reconsidered in August 1969 which identifies a plot of land bounded by Kingsway, Ordinance Street, Queen Square and St John's Cavalier.

The memo refers to the risk of masking St John's Cavalier and warns that any building should not rise higher than 25 feet above Queensway level. According to the memo, "the government is desperately in need of office space" and that "there is bound to be competition between Ministries for the site". The development of the site by government after the expropriation of private land was deemed the only feasible option for this development. The memo also states that the elevation on Kingsway should conform to designs prepared by the architects of the Royal Opera House project.