I have known Roderick Bovingdon for a number of years, as a friend and as a significant local Maltese intellectual identity. He is a person so many of us Maltese in Australia look up to as a guiding beacon; a learned free thinker with a conscience.

After a recent conversation I had with him, I felt sad and angry hearing about the present state of our Maltese language, especially in relation to its recent historical connections with the Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Ilsien Malti.

Let me say from the start that I am not a linguist. But knowing Bovingdon with his consistent commitment to Maltese over several decades (a commitment not many can match), and considering his sound knowledge of our language, I felt conscience bound to say my piece.

After having taken up quite a bit of his precious time, during which he eagerly showed me all his correspondence with the Malta print media concerning the set-up with the KNM, including negative replies from different people in Malta, I promised him I would write to this paper to express my own thoughts, in the same words I often express them to him personally.

My friend Mr Bovingdon (I say this with a sense of pride in having him as a friend) was modestly pleased with this suggestion, in the middle of shrugging his shoulders as if equally embarrassed over my initiative. He insisted that if I were to go ahead with my intention, that I focus my comments on the Maltese language and the KNM issue and not on himself; a hard call considering his name is synonymous with Maltese.

Although it is rather late of me to be adding my contribution, this is because I had not been aware of the long-standing furore brewing behind the scenes of power in Malta. I totally agree with Mr Bovingdon in pointing out the purely “political” nature of the KNM’s stance. It is not within my competence to argue beyond what Rigu (as he is affectionately known) has done, especially in his hard hitting, factually detailed closing article, published in this paper of 22 August entitled “KNM: The ultimate insult to a nation?”

It seems to me that all that needed to be said in this respect has been thoroughly and eloquently expressed in his closing article.

Continuing to ignore such powerful and revealing argumentation as Bovingdon’s, only reinforces the observers’ belief that far more is concealed by the authorities than they are willing to admit.

I wish to point out that far more prominent people than certain negative respondents in the Maltese press have in the past publicly expressed their deep admiration for my friend’s efforts. These include, if I may take the liberty of naming just a few of whom I am aware, such eminent people as the late former Presidents Anton Buttigieg, Agatha Barbara and Guido de Marco. There are also Emeritus Presidents Ċensu Tabone, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici and Eddie Fenech Adami, as well as Professors Oliver Friggieri, Peter Serracino Inglott and Roger Ellul Micallef. In Australia I know of such distinguished academics as Professors Michael Carter, Richard Baldauf, Stephen Gatt and the late Colin MacLaurin, all of whom vouch for Bovingdon’s signal contribution to Maltese studies. – I have no doubt there are several other leading citizens, unknown to myself, who harbour like impressions of Mr Bovingdon’s worth.

In conclusion, may I add that even blind Freddie can see that the “political” rather than the “ethical” (to quote one of Bovingdon’s own erudite sayings) is far more important than national sentiments. Perhaps that dreaded human invention “money”, which is being expended in the millions on translations and translators in the EU, is all that matters?

Charles Micallef

New South Wales

AUSTRALIA