Basically, the current controversy on rent laws is a matter of justice, no more, no less.

Considering that other countries, which were under Communist rule for 50, 70 years, are slowly returning to landowners or former capitalists, and even aristocrats, what used to belong to them, here in Malta, which was never, at least overtly, under Communist rule:

• The former owners of the National Bank, including Scicluna’s Bank, and Tagliaferro’s Bank, have still not received any compensation after the bank was stolen from under their noses, using the pretext of public policy following an artfully concocted run on the bank.

• The owners of buildings and all-too scarce land, whose property was requisitioned and still is (a recent parliamentary reply said requisitioned properties still run into the thousands) still cannot exercise their property rights. At best they can see their former property (for it looks very much like that – former indeed!) holding up or supporting some government’s or other social policy (such as the huge tracts of land taken over for housing estates through which a socialist government gratuitously handed over plots of land, which by any consideration were always far too big for a family to cope with) and are still not compensated for them– even at the pittance that is usually given in such cases. If they are particularly unfortunate, they can even see their former property serving no social need but to function as, for instance, a Labour Party club or a government office... as if the government does not have enough property of its own, or as if the fact that it pays what it calls “rent” can justify such bare-faced robbery. Again, this underscores the perniciousness of the whole process and it also shows up the absolute weakness of our systems of justice. Anything remotely like a just court would order the government to give back such property to its rightful owner.

• Thirdly, on an even greater level, we have the many thousands of property owners whose property has been unjustly taken over by what was admitted – when the legislation was drawn up – a temporary measure to service post-war social housing needs. Sixty years after the end of World War II, not only is our Royal Opera House still in ruins – the only such ruin in the whole of Europe now that the Frauenkirche in Dresden has been restored to its former glory – but also this supposedly “temporary” measure is still there.

The countless articles in the media have explained the perniciousness of it all – how rents are blocked at a ridiculous level, how the owner is still considered responsible for repairs, how people get their grandchildren, or actually anybody else to live with them so they can “inherit” the property...

Can we still afford to have such structured injustice in our midst? The enjoyment of one’s property is one of the most basic human rights – it underscores a host of other rights and it is its absence which creates the inherent uncertainty of a communist regime. More, can we have afford situation where there is one law for the government, and another law altogether for the citizen?

This newspaper doubts whether all this form of institutionalised injustice can be put right by a referendum but there can be no doubt that the current campaign by Alternattiva and others is highly motivated.

What it really requires is a strong political will to eradicate this very basic injustice, roots and all. Nor is one asking for the reforms to be immediate. Rather, the most important thing is a strong sign that the country has turned a corner, and will have nothing to do with the past.

There really should be broad consensus on this. After all, if we now have consensus on Europe, which is neither here nor there, why not on such an issue which has brought so much injustice to so many people? And, if consensus on this issue remains out of reach, then this government should feel it is duty bound to remove such an evil and pervasive injustice by means of a strong decision on its part.