It was reported in court that David Zerafa, the man who stands accused of having murdered his wife’s lawyer, Michael Grech, told a police informer that he did it because Dr Grech was responsible for the break up of Mr Zerafa’s family. This is a startling insight into the way that a certain kind of person thinks. Dr Grech did not cause the breakdown of Mr Zerafa’s marriage. He acted for Mrs Zerafa when she could no longer put up with her husband’s recorded acts of cruelty and violence towards her, their child, and her family, and filed for separation. Yet, in Mr Zerafa’s apparently literal way of seeing things, it was Dr Grech who split them up (which he did – but only in the legal sense) and not himself, with the bizarre and inhuman behaviour that was attested to in the separation proceedings.

This David Zerafa appears to have been made in the same mould as that man Axiaq, who was shot dead by his son after torturing his wife, their children and her family for around 30 years, and whose reported ambition in life was to commit murder at least once. Between them and together with the men who filmed each other having sex with schoolgirls in an amateurish Gozitan porn business, and the whacko who got a thrill by wearing a carnival mask to stab a warden to death, these two monsters have put paid to the last shreds of the idea that Gozo is a charming presepju (crib) that should be sheltered at all costs from the onslaught of the 21st century.

It’s a tiny island with a minuscule population, but there have been an inordinate number of ghastly crimes there. These have not been straightforward shootings and acts of thuggery, or sudden ‘crimes of passion’, but gruesome acts of premeditated murder and cruelty: strangling, bodies in wells, and wives pushed off cliffs. The devil alone knows what goes on behind closed doors, a small fraction of which may reveal itself to us some time ahead when a final boundary is crossed and the police move in. The more Gozo opens up to the real world, the better. There is no good to be had from the perpetuation of a southern Mediterranean peasant culture of secrecy and repression.

At least Mrs Zerafa got rid of her cruel and violent husband, instead of sticking with him for 30 years while her child grew up in a treacherous environment, so some progress is being made. But the upshot of it all is that somebody got killed in any case, and this time it wasn’t the monstrous husband, but the lawyer who was just doing his job.

* * * * *

EU Commissioner Franco Frattini addressed a press conference with Malta’s Minister for the Interior, in which he said that journalists would be allowed “general access” to detention centres for illegal immigrants in Malta. When asked to explain what he meant, he said that journalists would be allowed in to the centres, but would not be permitted to have “bilateral exchanges with detainees.” ‘Bilateral exchanges’ is a phrased usually used to describe communication between States, institutions or organisations. Its use in this context, to describe contact between people, is extremely odd and Orwellian. In normal language, it means that journalists will not be allowed to talk to detainees, or vice versa.

Quite what the authorities are trying to achieve by this half-baked measure is beyond me. To give journalists a quick look-see tour and pack them off with a pat on the back and a ‘there – are you happy now?’ is not exactly what is required. It is the detainees to whom journalists want access, and not just to the compound itself. They’re hardly going to get much in the way of interesting material by speaking to the mud and the torn sheeting. They have to speak to the people in the mud, which is now baked, scorched earth anyway.

The only persons who should be prevented from having ‘bilateral exchanges with the detainees’ are the troll with the walking-stick and his band of followers.

* * * * *

The President, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were wrong to go to the funeral of the men who blew themselves up by irresponsibly messing around with fireworks, leaving behind widows and orphans. This was not the funeral of heroes who died in action, trying to save the lives of others or to defend their country. It was not the funeral of men whose remarkable achievements accorded them exceptional status in life, and so, similar status in death. Do the President, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition go to the funerals of each and every man and woman who lives a good and decent life and who works hard to ensure that his or her family is adequately provided for? No. Then why in heaven’s name did they converge on the funeral of men with responsibilities, who saw fit to fiddle around with gunpowder and risk blowing themselves up, which they eventually did? They should choose with care the funerals they attend, because their presence there – unless it is the funeral of a personal friend or family member – conveys a message of approval for the life and actions of the deceased.

With their presence at the funeral, the President, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition undermined the words of the young priest who spoke over the coffins, and who asked his congregation whether it is worth throwing life away for the sake of fireworks, leaving behind distraught wives and bewildered children.

The Head of State, the head of government, and the leader of the opposition party should not be at the funerals of those who live and die so irresponsibly, unless they are friends or relatives. Before getting into their cars and going there, did they bother to stop and ask themselves the question, “Now, why am I doing this?”

* * * * *

The battle between the Medical Association of Malta and the government, about the difference between the salaries paid to heart surgeons Walter Busuttil and Alexander Manche, rather misses the point. The doctors’ union appears to be suggesting that Mr Manche is paid too much, instead of sticking to the point that Mr Busuttil is paid too little, and in doing so it has turned this into a war of unseemly comparisons between the two. It is not even clear what the association’s demands are. Does it want Mr Manche to be paid as little as Mr Busuttil, or does it want Mr Busuttil to be paid as much as Mr Manche? Somehow, I doubt it’s the latter, for reasons that have everything to do with human nature. As I intuit it, the association probably deems a fair solution to be the chopping of Mr Manche’s salary by half, and paying Mr Busuttil the same.

Mr Manche is not paid too much. He is gifted, dedicated, much appreciated by all those whose lives he has saved, and by international and private practice standards he is paid too little. One does not compare the salary paid to such a man, who daily holds the balance between the life and death of those entrusted to his care, with the salary of a company general manager and say, “Iz-Zift! X’balla liri jaqla!” (Wow! He’s very well paid). To do that is to put one’s ignorance on display. How much better it would have been if this embarrassing squabble had been conducted with something approaching dignity and grace. There was absolutely no need to draw comparisons between the salaries paid to Mr Busuttil and Mr Manche. Mr Busuttil should be paid much, much more not because of what Mr Manche is paid, but because at around Lm8000 a year for such great responsibility, and after so many years of training, his salary is pitifully, shamefully inadequate. It would be so even if Mr Manche were earning exactly the same amount.

Mr Busuttil’s salary needs to be revised upwards, and drastically so, regardless of Mr Manche. It should be done simply because heart surgeons should not be paid as much as personal assistants to the managing director, or super-efficient secretaries. Mr Manche should have been left out of this battle, which is strictly between the government, and Mr Busuttil and the doctors’ union. If the doctors’ union felt that it had to draw him into the fray, then there is only one decent way in which it may have done so. This is by saying: “Mr Manche is paid X, which salary we believe to be commensurate with his responsibilities. It is our belief that Mr Busuttil, who has the same responsibilities, should be paid the same amount.”

Instead, the whole thing has come across as a woeful attempt to reduce Mr Manche’s salary to the level of Mr Busuttil’s, and there is a nasty whiff of envy in the air. One gets the impression that the Medical Association of Malta does not quite think that Mr Manche should be paid what he is paid. Perhaps it needs reminding that it represents all doctors, rather than one doctor against another, and that it shouldn’t victimise those who are adequately compensated merely because others are not.