As soon as Prime Minister Robert Abela announced an early election date for May 30, Opposition and PN leader Alex Borg was quick to state that Abela had no reason to do so.
It was President Myriam Spiteri Debono who, 'acting on the advice of the Prime Minister', went on to dissolve parliament and sign the writ for the general election.
This brings to mind a particular event that took place in the UK in 1950, and that might somehow have a bearing on the constitutional issue of in whom, in reality, rests the prerogative of calling a general election.
In 1950, the King's Private Secretary, Alan 'Tommy' Lascelles, published a letter in The Times, identifying three circumstances in which a monarch might refuse a request to dissolve Parliament (a 'prerogative power' before and after the 2011-2022 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act).
The 'Lascelles Principles' suggested that the monarch might reject a prime minister's advice if the existing parliament were still viable, if an election would be detrimental to the economy, or if an alternative prime minister could secure a 'working majority' without an election.
It is not difficult to envisage other circumstances in which a monarch might prevent an abusive dissolution: for example, when the opposition was engaged in a leadership contest; when it was intended to frustrate parliamentary scrutiny; or when electoral fraud was suspected.
Precedents include King William IV refusing Earl Grey's request in May 1832 and King George V resisting immediately granting a request for a second early election in 1910.
Underpinning all this was a new idea of the monarch's role, which established the Crown as the 'emergency brake' of the constitution. A monarch could not exercise the prerogative powers him- or herself but could deny their use to a prime minister. The Crown would act as a safety lock on the 'nuclear weapons' of the constitution, such as the power to suspend or dissolve Parliament.
The above bears similarity to the provision of Article 77 of our Constitution that, in parts thereof, lays down that "The President may at any time by proclamation prorogue or dissolve Parliament."
"In the exercise of his powers under this article, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister", but "if the Prime Minister recommends a dissolution and the President considers that the Government of Malta can be carried on without a dissolution and that a dissolution would not be in the interests of Malta, the President may refuse to dissolve Parliament."
It is worthwhile recalling that the Maltese Parliament is an institution that operates under a set of rules which have been modelled on the British House of Commons' general rules of procedure and can still access and benefit from precedents, customs and usages adopted by the House of Commons in cases not provided for by the Standing Orders of the Maltese Parliament.
I reckon that our president was aware of or was duly advised of her powers under that provision before acceding to the prime minister's advice and acting accordingly, or didn't she?
Thinking outside the box
The Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Rights has launched a public consultation on the White Paper for Malta's National Agricultural Policy, a strategic document aiming to establish a long-term vision for the development of the sector between 2027 and 2037.
It comes right after the previous agricultural policy (2018-2028) that aimed to create a sustainable, competitive, and resilient sector, focusing on supporting farmers, environmental protection, and modernising practices.
If this latest policy is not to be more of the same, whoever is behind it must start thinking outside the box.
Malta, being a small territory, with more than three-quarters of our population now living in urban places and projected to increase in the coming years, dependency on our remaining agricultural land to supply food is reaching the limits of sustainability.
In recent decades, our urban planners focused on the urban functions of the spread of towns and cities when agriculture was considered a rural function and urban land was not allocated for cultivation. The planning trend prioritised uses that increased land values by converting agricultural land to residential or commercial.
Perhaps it's time for our policymakers to seriously consider introducing an urban agriculture policy that can be achieved through collaboration across government agencies and sectors.
Urban agriculture is defined as the production, processing, and distribution of food that takes place in and around urban areas. More than growing food in such areas, urban agriculture can be embedded in the economic, social, ecological and physical infrastructure systems of our islands.
Planners are key actors for facilitating and promoting urban agriculture. Planners' perceptions should be an important factor in limiting or ensuring provision through policy formulation for planning, regulating, and legislating urban agriculture activities.
Hong Kong's Rooftop Republic is an example of building-integrated agriculture. The high-density urban environment, filled with buildings and roads, has provoked growing concerns about environmental issues and the need to promote a sustainable urban environment. Hong Kong's green roofs have attracted much attention in recent years and are being installed on podium decks and building rooftops, designed for four main purposes: food production, active recreation, reusing waste (compost and stormwater), and educational opportunities.
Singapore is another timely example of a government testing new ways to collaborate across agencies to adapt and develop policies that integrate agriculture into the urban context as an element of ensuring food security through increased domestic production.
We must explore this promising and already tested trend.
Quality homework
There we go again.
Lately, we, or rather, our policymakers, are being obsessed with so many 'quality issues'. They have been overwhelming us with their commitment to achieve a quality of life, quality tourism, quality employment, quality journalism, quality work-life balance practices and what have you - all elusive qualities so far.
Now, it's time for a new National Homework Policy aimed at transforming how homework is assigned and experienced, shifting the focus from "quantity to quality" while safeguarding student wellbeing.
True, research overwhelmingly supports quality over quantity in homework, showing that meaningful, purposeful assignments enhance learning, whereas excessive, repetitive tasks lead to burnout, stress, and diminished engagement. Effective homework should be specific, purposeful, and tailored to students' needs rather than merely finishing high-volume work.
Educators often treat homework as a Goldilocks problem. Grounded in the belief that homework is fundamentally good for students, teachers have always aimed to optimise how much they assign. If they don't assign enough homework, they worry their students will not learn the subject matter. If, on the other hand, teachers assign too much, students may be unduly overloaded and stressed. The goal, therefore, should be to provide students with the just-right homework load.
It is no secret that Maltese students feel swamped with their homework. While homework is not seen as inherently harmful, most take issue with the sheer amount of homework and its repetitive, unconstructive nature. Many compounding factors have added to this issue, and several solutions can alleviate the brunt of this problem.
Measuring the quantity of homework is easy and is generally measured by how many hours students spend on it per night. Students who have extracurricular commitments, especially student-athletes, do not appreciate having to cram several hours of homework late at night when they could be spending time with family and friends.
The quality of homework is much more challenging to measure since students and experts disagree on a clear definition of "quality homework". It is further complicated since students have different learning styles. Some students learn better through visual or audio materials. Others learn better through experiments and projects. And some students learn best through repetition and writing. There is no universal method of teaching that is best suited for all students.
When coming up with solutions for this problem, most immediately jump to slashing the amount of homework. That is both unrealistic and not the most effective solution for student success.
Quality teaching should mean slowing down to ensure students are not just hearing information but truly understanding, applying, and questioning it.