In celebrating its 35th anniversary earlier this year, Air Malta publicity quite rightly asked us to take pride in the national carrier. We all do, of course, especially in the knowledge that Air Malta is practically the only significant national company left of which we can truly be proud before it too eventually goes to the blood-soaked knackers.
The value in real terms of its existence was made all the more obvious lately with the abrupt decision by British Airways to suspend its Gatwick-Malta route, when Air Malta quickly moved in to fill the worrying void. It is why the national airline was set up in the first place. What and where foreign companies choose at will to steer away from, Air Malta has the duty – backed, of course, by wise, professional assessment of the ensuing situation – to explore and even to establish, as part of the whole economic base on which rests our tourism industry.
Set against this background, it was frustrating to watch on TV last month Air Malta’s chief executive Joe Cappello playing down the vociferous calls by many people for the national company to finally include the national language on its website. For all the jingoistic jargon of the anniversary publicity packages, the man simply chose to add insult to injury by insisting the company is a commercial enterprise and, as such, does not believe that the inclusion of Maltese would in any way enhance its sales.
It was as if he was talking about “Air Cappello” and not the national airline. How else can one interpret his words, particularly when he had the audacity to add, sickeningly in English, that they do not do things “because they are nice to have”.
Had he had an interviewer who honestly wanted to get the best out of his subject, Cappello would easily have been rendered a pathetic clown. Sadly, the whole programme on TVM was intended more as an easy, complimentary ride than a real interview meant to get at the truth by reflecting people’s views on the services provided by Air Malta.
A less sycophantic interviewer would have brought to his attention the fact that other big, commercial institutions on the island, such as the two major banks, actually include the Maltese language option on their hard-pressed ATMs and, particularly in the case of the Bank of Valletta, also on its website.
They have hardly had even a whiff of a sales setback as a result. On the contrary, I know that the rate of usage with regard to the Maltese language option is quite high. The banks realise that, for a variety of reasons, many of their clients actually prefer to use it and no one seems to have been unduly concerned that it could, in some far-fetched way, prove to be a commercial handicap, as the Air Cappello official seems to be afraid of.
It would be wrong for anyone to conclude that the rumpus created over the Cappello interview was the ploy of a few “linguistic hotheads”, as people who insist on the use of and respect to the Maltese language are sadly and mistakenly often portrayed. There is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of Maltese are proud of their language, even prouder than they can ever be over the mere existence of a national airline. Airlines come and go, after all, but languages simply die and with them, a whole nation’s identity.
Cappello’s “commercial” thesis is as hollow as his final salvo that went for a promise that the Maltese language option could be included on the website “once the negative impact of the past year has been overcome”. Pigs do fly, indeed.
What Cappello does not seem to appreciate is the fact that people also have the right to make their own “commercial” choice. If the national airline does not think it should help the thousands of clients who would prefer to browse the company’s website using the Maltese language, why should those same people choose Air Malta, when they can avoid it, for their travels?
Deidunism Plus
Last week’s retort by Alan Deidun to my earlier piece on his EP candidacy ticket did nothing to diminish my admiration for the lad. He certainly made a twist-and-shout of it all, even bringing Darwinism into the argument. Why not? I just hope he does not align himself with those American evangelical fundamentalists who want to push the creationist theory down students’ throats against proven scientific fact, because that is exactly how many saw his inclusion on a PN electoral platform.
He also rightly asked: “What is the probability of the same PL MEP candidates, who attended the Bahrija protest, doing the same had the case emerged during a Labour administration?” This can, however, be interpreted in plain logic as part of the Evolution vs Creativism debate. What if Earth is only 10,000 years old and humanity was, in the process, created the way we know it today and the way it is – arguably – depicted in the Bible?
That’s a very funny way of going round it. More “Helter Skelter” than “Twist and Shout”, really. What if the Earth is millions upon millions of years old and humanity evolved from other, earlier species, as science has all too clearly already proven?
The old joke was that only a Jesuit would reply to a question with another question. How sure can Alan be that a Labour administration would have accorded the party’s president with an ODZ permit? Politics simply do not work like that. Past misdeeds do not justify today’s, just as today’s won’t guarantee there will be more of the same in the future. The players make the stage, and not the stage the players.
Perhaps we should switch from Deidunism and Darwinism to good old Freud. It could be fun, you know.