'The Legislative and Constitutional Development of the Maltese language in a Historico-Literary Context'

Author: Raymond Mangion

Published: Midsea Books / 2025

Pages: 82

Professor Raymond Mangion's monograph titled The Legislative and Constitutional Development of the Maltese language in a Historico-Literary Context published last year by Midsea Books is a first of its kind. I am not aware of any book that has ever been hitherto published which introspects the Maltese language from such diverse aspects as the legal, legislative, constitutional, historical, and literary perspectives. In this book, we encounter the chequered history of the Maltese language that has developed progressively, though painfully, over the centuries until it reached its fulfilment when Malta achieved its independence from the UK. The Maltese language has traversed multiple stages since its inceptions centuries ago, not only those of customary law and statutory law, but it was only as recent as 22 September 1964 that it anchored itself for the first time in Malta's fundamental law - the Constitution of Malta.

Nevertheless, the Maltese language has not ossified itself with the 1964 Constitution for further laws were enacted after Malta removed its shackles of colonialism thereby boosting the legal status of the Maltese language. We thus find the Maltese Language Act (Chapter 470 of the Laws of Malta), that established the National Council for the Maltese Language - the officially recognised Maltese leading institution tasked to develop a coherent language policy and strategy - and, more recently, the Maltese Sign Language Recognition Act (Chapter 556 of the Laws of Malta) that recognises Maltese Sign Language as a constitutional national language.

Mangion's pioneering effort is commended for its originality and breadth of subjects covered in relation to the Maltese language. It provides an excellent vademecum of all the leading works - literary, historical, legal, legislative, and constitutional - that embrace the voyage of the Maltese language over time and the wealth of publications that have contributed to the progressive development of the vernacular tongue that make it our pride.

The question that is urgently calling for our immediate attention is, as the author correctly points out in this book, how will Malta ensure that its own native tongue will survive, bearing in mind the challenges of a fast-declining birthrate, technological advancements that promote more the English tongue to the detriment of Maltese, an influx of a high percentage of foreign workers and immigrants not conversant with the Maltese mother tongue, the large proportion of tourists visiting the country who do not speak Maltese, the flourishing of a multicultural society that has brought severe inroads in our one-time homogeneous society and that converses multiple languages, several of which unknown to the Maltese, and other factors that deprive the vernacular of its prime status that it really deserves in its own homeland.

This book is addressed to a wide audience. It should be cherished by students and academics in the realm of the Maltese language, Melitensia studies, literary studies, law, history, culture, national identity, and colonialism studies. It is an important up-to-date and fresh stock taking exercise that was very much needed of the development throughout history of the Maltese language, and a very useful tool in policy-making in the realm of the vernacular that should assist the National Council for the Maltese Language to spearhead the necessary measures to protect, propagate, systematise, and make more readily accessible the Maltese language together with proposing to Parliament the way forward in the revision of the Maltese Language Act to consolidate the superlative work that the said Council has embarked upon since its establishment in 2005 as well as the longstanding magnificent contribution given to our language by the Akkademja tal-Malti, the organisers of Mangion's book launch held on 4 May at the University of Malta, Msida.

Mangion's monograph could not have been launched at a better time than in 2025 when Malta celebrated the vicennial of the coming into force of the Maltese Language Act and the establishment of the National Council for the Maltese Language that all our forefathers with a keen interest in the study of the vernacular wholeheartedly aspired for, and vigorously worked for, until their dream came true, even if, not all saw it being achieved in their lifetime.

Although many think that the Maltese language was officially recognised by the state in 1934, this is not precise according to the author. While it is true that in 1934 Ordinance XXX of 1934 recognised the Maltese language as the official language for the purposes of laws (see page 47 of Mangion's work), the monograph's author reveals from the research done that the Maltese language was already recognised as a language for the purposes of public administration a few years earlier: the Maltese language began to be used in government notifications published in The Malta Government Gazette in the form of general information for the public as in the case of announcements by the Police, the Courts, the Treasury, and others (but not in the case of the text of laws) - see page 42. Therefore, a distinction has to be drawn between the official administrative recognition of the Maltese language, which was secured in 1927, and the official legislative recognition of Maltese that occurred in 1934.

At this juncture, it is dutiful to make two pertinent reflections. There is an impelling need for Parliament to anchor the Maltese language more firmly in ordinary law and to develop further the Maltese law that regulates the vernacular. Indeed, the Constitution of Malta of 1964, primarily, but not exclusively, in its first chapter, has a list of constitutional symbols that are markers of national constitutional identity. I am referring to the Maltese language itself and also to the national anthem which is written in Maltese.

In the first place, in relation to the Maltese language, contrary to the other constitutional symbols of the Maltese flag and the George Cross, there is neither in the Constitution of Malta nor in any other law a provision that protects the national language. If somebody disparages, offends, insults, or tramples upon the Maltese language, there is no corresponding criminal offence that punishes such person accordingly. The same applies to both the national anthem and, since 2016, to vilification of the Maltese religion; these two being constitutional symbols that are markers of national and constitutional identity.

As to religion, the protection it enjoyed between 1933 and 2016 was removed by virtue of article 3 of Act of Parliament No XXXVII of 2016. Thus, while the Maltese religion was deprived of the protection it enjoyed, the Maltese language and the national anthem have never enjoyed such protection. Of course, these measures are bad because they strike at the very heart of our national and constitutional identity and it is only governments that are insensitive to such symbols that typify Malteseness act in such a way. If these three symbols are national and constitutional symbols, then they should all be protected by law in the same way that other countries protect their constitutional symbols and in the same way that the national flag and the George Cross are already protected in Malta through the criminal law, although in the last instance, it can be argued that the George Cross is not a national symbol for us, albeit being a constitutional identifier, but a relic of past colonial times. The fact that symbols are elevated by the Constitution to the status of a constitutional symbol ought to mandate their automatic protection.

In the second place, while the Constitution provides for the symbol of the national anthem, nowhere in the Constitution or in Maltese law do we find the text of the Maltese anthem itself laid down black on white as well as a provision that it is protected by criminal law. Unfortunately, although the Maltese language, the national anthem, and the national religion are all factors of Maltese identity, the Maltese parliamentarians seem to be very little interested in protecting them and are therefore reneging on these historically-defined essential elements of Malteseness.

Suffice it to point out that knowledge of the Maltese language is not being imposed as a mandatory condition for granting Maltese citizenship to foreigners or for bestowing a work permit upon foreign workers who come to work long-term in Malta. Such citizens and workers do not even have to know how to speak Maltese. Through its measures, or inaction thereof, the Maltese government is therefore not contributing with its policy to paying tribute to our country's language, anthem, and religion. These three factors strengthen the national and constitutional identity and distinguish us Maltese from other countries.

In the past, the sense of national identity in relation to the language was very strong because everyone was Maltese from their mother's womb. Today this scenario is changing drastically. Since foreign communities in Malta are increasing in number and in linguistic and ethnic diversity, as they speak their foreign language among themselves and speak in English with the Maltese and with other foreign communities in Malta, a new linguistic phenomenon is developing: in practice (though not in law), from one language that unites us all together as Maltese and as a state (I am not using the word "nation" because now we have become a plurality of nations encapsulated in one state), we are now moving towards a system where we are approaching the linguistic model of countries like Belgium where there is no single national language, but a number of communities with their own respective national language that are all foreign languages ​​to us. There is therefore a mismatch between what the Constitution proclaims and what is happening in practice.

With the postcolonial measures that already exist in our law that accommodate the English language at the expense of Maltese such as, for example, that Parliament can pass laws in only one language and not in both official languages (these being Maltese and English), it is always English that is used in these cases so much so that there exist Maltese laws that are written and published only in English with no Maltese version; or that in the law courts, proceedings can be heard in English only instead of Maltese; or that interpreters and translators in the law courts are appointed from English to other foreign languages; and so on. All these postcolonial measures and others continue to contribute to deriding the national language through the tool of law. No wonder ours is a country of whitewashed tombs - to borrow an expression from Jesus Christ (Mt 23:27) - from the outside everything looks beautiful but from the inside everything is rotten to the bone. The same applies to communication with the public administration which, in terms of the Constitution, can be done in English if one chooses this language at the expense of Maltese. An analysis of Maltese postcolonial law thereby concludes that a foreign language - English - prevails in practice over the native language in its own land and this thanks to our parliamentarians who are imbued with a postcolonial mentality.

Finally, it is of the utmost importance that the National Council for the Maltese Language is reconstituted forthwith as it has been left purposely dormant by the government for more than a year or so and that the parallel illegally government-established Centre of the Maltese Language intended to subvert and destroy, as it has done so far, the National Council for the Maltese Language is brought within the confines of the law. The centre should be appointed by, and answerable to the National Council as the law dictates. Its illegal establishment was a manifest abuse of power that still lingers on today. Unfortunately, the centre was not established to advance the Maltese language but simply to provide a government job to one of its sympathisers in full breach of the principles of good governance and proper financial propriety.

Hopefully, the government reflects on the severe damage that it has been procuring to our native language and makes it a point that a new legislature will address all the issues of concern mentioned in this article, and others, with the sole intention of advancing the Maltese vernacular and putting aside strictly partisan abusive interests that are not conducive to good governance and that are not proper in relation to a national unifying non-partisan subject as the mother tongue.

Kevin Aquilina is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Laws of the University of Malta