Preference should be given to Maltese

I sincerely do not agree with Walter Camilleri (August 18) that the promotion of Maltese has contributed to the erosion of the standard of English in Malta. I see no contradiction in people being fluent, conversant and lovers of both Maltese and English at the same time. The promotion of one should not mean the demise of the other. But things have to be fairly balanced and put in their right perspective. It is all well and good and even desirable that possibly all Maltese learn another language. In our case, the most convenient one would be English, it being the other language recognised alongside Maltese as an official language in Malta. So let all Maltese excel in English and two or three other languages if they so wish. My argument is that we as Maltese citizens should be proud and give first preference to Maltese whenever possible both in our conversation and writing. Even if it's just to appreciate it as one of the greatest cultural treasures we have inherited.

Mr Camilleri, who in his letter declares that he uses Maltese as his "preferred conversational language", is an example to follow. If on the other hand there are problems with the sinking standard of English we have to look for the causes elsewhere and not in the promotion of our mother tongue, which, by the way, is the one and only national language recognised constitutionally. I am assuming that Mr Camilleri made a genuine error in claiming that Malta has "two national languages" at the very end of his letter. But to dispel any further doubts among the readers this time I will quote the Constitution of Malta, section five (National Language):

(1) The National language of Malta is the Maltese language.

(2) The Maltese and the English languages and such other language as may be prescribed by Parliament... shall be the official languages of Malta and the Administration may for all official purposes use any of such languages: Provided that any person may address the Administration in any of the official languages and the reply of the Administration thereto shall be in such language.

As a last comment I deem this correspondence to be an open dialogue among opinion holders. I don't think it's a great help to call someone fundamentalist, taliban, psychotic, extremist, etc., just because one chooses to declare one's opinion. And also, in answer to another correspondent, I think the editor is quite right to publish letters without asking first for his or her credentials. Thinking is free and not anyone's exclusive prerogative. A good argument is not limited to those who hold a stamped credential. I don't agree with cultural or intellectual elitism.