The Malta Independent
MIC keep insisting that their terms of reference is` to provide information about the EU but only in the framework of Malta`s accession to membership.` Consequently it has consistently refused to provide information about other possible types of relationships that Malta could choose to have with the EU.
`When I was Chairman at Super One, I had asked MIC to spend an equivalent amount in information spots about other relations`
This is wrong. MIC, as a supposedly non-political organisation, should provide all information about the EU irrespective of the type of relationship that Malta could eventually choose. The alternative to this would be the creation of another organisation that provides the information which MIC is unwilling to provide;` but this would be mere waste and duplication of resources.
When I was Chairman at Super One, I had asked MIC to spend an equivalent amount in information spots about other relations as much as they spend on giving information about membership. I had asked for financial support for a documentary about the choices made by Switzerland, Norway and Iceland for a relationship with the EU that is different from membership.
Both requests for refused.` Strangely when the Broadcasting Authority was requested to address this imbalance they came up with a hodgepodge solution. Admitting that there is imbalance on the information about alternative choices they allowed MIC to proceed as hitherto but organized a series of discussion programmes where all options were to be debated but where the panel was to be loaded in favour of the pro-membership option.
Unsurprisingly Labour Party refused to participate in such a sham. It is to be hoped that the new Chairman of the Broadcasting Authority will make it his first task to review the matter. After all the matter was decided by the previous chairman`s vote as the Board was divided over the matter.
`It is to be hoped that the new Chairman of the Broadcasting Authority will make it his first task to review the matter`
It is high time that the government and the Authorities start showing true respect to democracy.` It ought to be remembered that political reality in Malta is that opinions are mostly shaped by the two main political parties and on the EU issue the two parties have very diverging views. Whilst the government party prefers membership at all costs and has no time to consider alternatives, the opposition party promotes a partnership specifically designed for Malta`s circumstances with the situation open for review from time to time to check whether circumstances change sufficiently to justify up-grading the relationship to membership.
Recent local election results indicate clearly that currently the majority of the electorate` is behind the Opposition not the Government party.
So in refusing to give the Opposition views enough space and funds on the public media the very essence of democracy is being challenged.
The choice we have` is not membership or not membership. Nor is it partnership or not partnership.` The choice is between membership and partnership. And to make this choice the state apparatus has to allow a fair allocation of resources to the promotion of both alternatives.
Government`s insistence to keep driving towards a referendum where the choice is put to the electorate as one of membership or doom, is an insult to our intelligence. Consequently` there should be little wonder if the answer to such an undemocratic approach would be a boycott by the section of the electorate that truly believes that it should be offered a real choice.
MIC keep insisting that their terms of reference is` to provide information about the EU but only in the framework of Malta`s accession to membership.` Consequently it has consistently refused to provide information about other possible types of relationships that Malta could choose to have with the EU.
`When I was Chairman at Super One, I had asked MIC to spend an equivalent amount in information spots about other relations`
This is wrong. MIC, as a supposedly non-political organisation, should provide all information about the EU irrespective of the type of relationship that Malta could eventually choose. The alternative to this would be the creation of another organisation that provides the information which MIC is unwilling to provide;` but this would be mere waste and duplication of resources.
When I was Chairman at Super One, I had asked MIC to spend an equivalent amount in information spots about other relations as much as they spend on giving information about membership. I had asked for financial support for a documentary about the choices made by Switzerland, Norway and Iceland for a relationship with the EU that is different from membership.
Both requests for refused.` Strangely when the Broadcasting Authority was requested to address this imbalance they came up with a hodgepodge solution. Admitting that there is imbalance on the information about alternative choices they allowed MIC to proceed as hitherto but organized a series of discussion programmes where all options were to be debated but where the panel was to be loaded in favour of the pro-membership option.
Unsurprisingly Labour Party refused to participate in such a sham. It is to be hoped that the new Chairman of the Broadcasting Authority will make it his first task to review the matter. After all the matter was decided by the previous chairman`s vote as the Board was divided over the matter.
`It is to be hoped that the new Chairman of the Broadcasting Authority will make it his first task to review the matter`
It is high time that the government and the Authorities start showing true respect to democracy.` It ought to be remembered that political reality in Malta is that opinions are mostly shaped by the two main political parties and on the EU issue the two parties have very diverging views. Whilst the government party prefers membership at all costs and has no time to consider alternatives, the opposition party promotes a partnership specifically designed for Malta`s circumstances with the situation open for review from time to time to check whether circumstances change sufficiently to justify up-grading the relationship to membership.
Recent local election results indicate clearly that currently the majority of the electorate` is behind the Opposition not the Government party.
So in refusing to give the Opposition views enough space and funds on the public media the very essence of democracy is being challenged.
The choice we have` is not membership or not membership. Nor is it partnership or not partnership.` The choice is between membership and partnership. And to make this choice the state apparatus has to allow a fair allocation of resources to the promotion of both alternatives.
Government`s insistence to keep driving towards a referendum where the choice is put to the electorate as one of membership or doom, is an insult to our intelligence. Consequently` there should be little wonder if the answer to such an undemocratic approach would be a boycott by the section of the electorate that truly believes that it should be offered a real choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment