Playing God

The Malta Independent on Sunday 

 

As a lesser mortal I cannot understand the ways of the Almighty.   I always had difficulty in understanding the parable where workers who worked different hours get the same remuneration, even if the price was pre-agreed.

 

I find difficulty in understanding why God permits so much cruelty against innocent people.  Why so many people continue to die of hunger whilst the leftovers of others would feast a whole African village.    I cannot understand the equity or logic of why the good die young whereas the evil survive and prosper.

“It is the ultimate degree of arrogance for any lesser mortal to play the high and mighty and demand of us to set aside our logic and extend the same degree of faith which should be reserved only for the Almighty.”

 

But clearly the Almighty, omnipotent and omniscient, and in command of a perfect justice which we cannot understand, does not use the same logic that humans do.   Human logic is far too inferior and limited to understand the ways of the Almighty.  We resign ourselves to His greatness through the gift of faith.  The gaps left by using human logic have to be filled with religious faith.

 

For relations among human beings it is extremely presumptuous for anybody to use earthly power to play God.   It is conceited to the extreme for anyone in authority to expect us to accept things beyond all human logic and simply because the body in authority says so.    It is the ultimate degree of arrogance for any lesser mortal to play the high and mighty and demand of us to set aside our logic and extend the same degree of faith which should be reserved only for the Almighty.

 

In reality however, the government has decided to play God with us mortal citizens and is demanding that we part completely with our human senses of logic.

 

Take the case of compensation due to my brother Tarcisio Mifsud, Finance Manager at Enemalta.  Being a public sector employer Tarcisio’s dedication to his work is untainted by which political party happens to be the custodian of national assets at any particular point in time.

 

Two days after the last election three men filled with political jubilation for their party’s victory at the polls, decided to take it out him and assaulted him during the night when Tarcisio was alone in the privacy of his own home.  The fact that they were unhooded indicates that their intention could have been to terminate him and their plans were only frustrated by the intervention of neighbours.

 

The three were found out and charged by the Police and two of them were found guilty of the attack whereas the third was freed as he was found to have taken a passive role in the sad affair.    A suspended sentence was accompanied by a Lm25 fine which was not appealed by the Attorney General.

“..government was wrong in positively discriminating in favour of citizens of nationalist beliefs but it is normal to avoid using the same measure with labourites.”

 

The conscience of society must be burdened by the case that one of its citizens, whilst in the sanctity of his residence without in any way causing any provocation,  gets savagely assaulted and the identified perpetrators, without giving a reasonable account of their motivations,  are practically set free with the lightest of reparation.

 

The reputation of the legal system has since suffered a credibility crisis and I would not dwell further on the legal aspects of Tarcisio’s case as the legal system has enough problems to contend with.

 

But then there is the question of what reasonable compensation should society pay for the victims of violence, especially to those who it is reasonable to assume that suffered because of their office in service to society.

 

The most well known case is the Lm30,000 paid to the personal assistance of the Prime Minister who suffered extremely serious personal violence.   No concrete proof was brought that this has anything to do with his role as servant of society but it is reasonable to assume so.  There was a case where someone was paid compensation for damages because shots were fired at the front door of his residence.  The authorities accepted to pay compensation on the presumption that the shots fired were meant for door of someone else who was rendering a public service.

 

In case of Tarcisio the government and his publicly owned employer decided no compensation is due.  Tarcisio in his dedication for work reported normally for work with his body all bruised and aching when employees with a normal level of dedication and loyalty would have taken a few weeks off to get over the pain and the shock.    Tarcisio, still suffering psychological and medical consequences till this very day, was discriminated against because of his excessive loyalty to his duties.   He took his case to the Ombudsman.

 

The Ombudsman, commanding the respect of both sides of the House, reached the conclusion that some compensation is merited and cited 4 specific cases where compensation was paid in order to proof the point.  He recommended payment of Lm1500 – just 5% of what was paid to the Prime Minister’s personal assistance.

 

The government unhesitatingly brushed aside the Ombudsman’s views and in a quotable quote, our top civil servant Mr J. R.Grima said that “The unequal treatment meted out does amount to discrimination, but it is the preferential treatment to others which breaches good administration practices.”

 

In other words the government was wrong in positively discriminating in favour of citizens of nationalist beliefs but it is normal to avoid using the same measure with labourites.  This is playing God. Human logic does not get me to understand it.