Excuse the pun, I just couldn’t help myself. However, when dealing with the unhappy situation of several thousand long-suffering owners whose properties are caught in the economic vice that are Malta’s archaic and ludicrous rent laws, a pun is indeed the mildest form of sarcasm. It is completely unbelievable, but in many ways uniquely Maltese, how this country’s governments (at least those following the 1960s property boom) have managed to “get away” with preserving the status quo. How could they have governed legitimately while ignoring the fact that so many of our people have so illegitimately been denied basic ownership rights over their property? How can it be that in such a situation, the turn out at general elections is still in the 95 per cent region? Why don’t property owners just boycott politics wholesale? The only reason why this has been possible is the fact that Maltese voters (including the same landlords referred to) have been caught up for over 40 years in a two-party system which ensures that every voter casts his choice for the lesser of two evils.

The reality is that this country’s rent laws (saving the 1995 amendment) are a complete travesty of the very idea of private property. The right to own property, and to enjoy the fruits (at market or close-to-market rates please!) of ownership is a pillar of modern civilisation. Without it, modern society would collapse into economic anarchy and chaos. I could occupy your property by force and you could occupy mine and nobody would care because everyone else is doing it. Even the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty, that both PN and MLP will probably endorse in July, establishes the right to the full enjoyment of one’s property. When this right is denied, only under the aegis of the public interest, the Constitution requires that “fair compensation” is “paid in good time” for the proprietor’s loss. In Malta this right has and can be frozen according to political and financial circumstances; it is indeed not an absolute right.

Part of the subtle reasoning why this situation has been allowed to continue, is the false idea that the well off are being denied income from “poor” tenants. Even if this were true, the injustice would still remain an injustice; since when is it OK to cheat the well off? What is worse is that this idea is just an over-simplification and indeed something of a myth, far removed from reality. For those of you not very familiar with the kind of injustice our rent laws have propagated, let me illustrate a typical example. Mrs Borg lives in Birkirkara in a modest two-bedroomed apartment that she and

her late husband bought in 1968. In 1981 Mrs. Borg was widowed and left to raise

her 12-year-old daughter on her own, working at a series full and part-time jobs that really never paid all that well. In 1984 she inherited a near-by little house from the estate of her aunt. The first thought that comes to mind is “Wow how lucky. Finally.” But this is a weird version of Maltese luck. Why, you might ask? Unfortunately this house was (and still is) occupied by Mrs Abela, her husband and their two daughters. This house was “inherited” by the Abelas from Mrs Abela’s late mother, because the young couple moved in with her as soon as they married, and were still living there when Mrs Abela’s mother passed away in 1975. Mrs Abela’s mother had occupied the house in 1945 immediately after the end of World War II under an emergency requisition order that was served on Mrs Borg’s dead aunt who was rich (?) enough at the time to own two houses. Now you must know that Mr and Mrs Abela who rent Mrs Borg’s house are not a couple that can be considered destitute. No, in fact, Mr Abela built himself a significant business concern over the years and has made enough money to park a handsome saloon car in front of “his” house, purchase a summer residence in Marsascala and buy (for cash) a half-tumuli plot in Marsascala for his girls to eventually build two semi-detached homes. I know this because I was told by Mrs Borg, who was given all the details by none other than Mrs Abela; cheek? To add much insult to great injury, at the time she inherited her aunt, Mrs Borg had to pay a considerable sum in death duty (remember that?) using up a sizeable chunk of the savings that her husband had put aside to educate and “marry off” their only daughter, as well as to sustain them eventually through their retirement. You must also be aware that Mrs Borg the widow receives the princely sum of Lm80 rent per annum (re-read per annum) for this house, from which she also pays Lm9 to the government in income tax. Mrs Borg, as you may imagine, has wished for some time to repossess this property to give to her daughter and her fiancé, who are facing considerable difficulty paying the mortgage on their Lm47,000 three-bedroomed apartment in Birkirkara, not too far from Mrs Borg.

Any person, apart from the Abelas, with half a heart, should be able to see the injustice of it all. Unfortunately, there is more to it. In February of this year, Mrs Borg received notice from the Abelas that she must contribute to “extraordinary repairs” carried out to the ceiling of Mr and Mrs Abela’s bedroom. Her share of the bill – Lm450. Mrs Borg does have that sum; in fact she has the grand total of Lm6,000 in bank deposits. Should she pay her share of the repairs? The situation is a typical Catch-22-plus. Mrs Borg must pay her share, because otherwise her troubles could increase. She told me that on a number of occasions she contemplated selling the house to the Abelas, who had offered her Lm12,000 for a property worth at least three times that amount. Her daughter is tempted to sell but she hopes something will change, eventually. She considers that the property could be eventually taken over from the Abelas on their demise. She may be right unless one of the Abela daughters continues living with the parents and uses her semi-detached in Marsascala as her summer abode!

Need I say more? How unjust does the system have to become before the politicians in Parliament get off their rear-end and do something about this situation? Indeed how can any government or any politician for that matter, claim to be fighting for justice? How can our Deputy Prime Minister, who is also Minister for Justice stand back and pass the proverbial buck (in far-far mode) to the Minister for Social Solidarity who only reacts to this institutionalised charade when the Green Party champions the issue? How can the MLP continue playing Humpty Dumpty when as socialists they should be sticking-up for Mrs Borg the working-class widow, rather than claiming impotence in opposition and unfairly and not-so-inadvertently sticking up for the middle-class Abelas. The answer my friend is not blowing in the wind; it’s written all over the place and it’s called “Votes, votes, votes!”

Enough is enough! Sixty years have gone by, and the Greens will work tirelessly so that many like Mrs Borg do not have to go through another year, let alone another 60. Yesterday, Alternattiva Demokratika launched its rent referendum campaign. We will be collecting the signatures of those who live this injustice and other who may not have lived through it, but do not wish others to continue doing so. We need 30,000 signatures to force a referendum – a target achievable if every landlord can garner his and his family’s support, let alone the support of thousands of others who care enough to endorse this referendum. We will be holding a meeting for Mrs Borg and many thousands of others in her situation, as well as any others who feel they need to be part of this referendum, on Saturday 18 June at the Phoenicia at 10am. The campaign will force our government’s hand to do what it knows should be done. When the time comes, Alternattiva Demokratika will be available to help the government implement the system that ensures the fairest outcome. We cannot and will not, promise anyone a perfect solution. What we do promise is that this hideous and heinous status quo is abolished, once and for all. Hope to see you there!

Edward P. Fenech is spokesman on Finance, Tourism and Industry for Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party