Increase in National Order of Merit awards

The government is increasing the number of awards and decorations of the National Order of Merit and the Midalja għall-Qadi tar-Repubblika, and introducing a Distinguished Service Medal for members of the Police Corps and the Armed Forces of Malta.

Introducing the second reading of the Bill amending the Ġieħ ir-Repubblika Act, Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said that the National Order of Merit had four distinct awards, that of honorary companion, companion, officer and the ordinary award. In 1990, to give the award more value, they were limited in number and vacancies only came about after a member's death, resignation from the Order or because of misconduct.

However, Dr de Marco said, because people were living longer, this hardly became possible. Therefore, the Bill was proposing that the number of awards of companions be increased from 12 to 15; that of officials from 20 to 25 and the ordinary award from 100 to 125.

The first grade of the award, the honorary companion was not being increased. This is limited to three, excluding former Presidents and Prime Ministers. The first to be given the Ġieħ ir-Repubblika in 1992 was the late Sir Anthony Mamo, the first President, who died last Month.

Dr de Marco said that it has also been found necessary to introduce a new award, the Distinguished Service Medal, which was distinct from the Long and Efficient Service Medal. The new medal would be given to members of the disciplined forces in recognition of their good and perilous work.

Labour MP Helena Dalli said that the increase in the number of awards was valid. However, there was a perception that the recipients of the awards were mostly people who harboured the political beliefs of the party in government.

She proposed that apart from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition should also have the right to nominate citizens for the awards. This would indeed give the Order a national character.

Ms Dalli said that more care should be given to the nominations. As an example she mentioned the case of painter George Fenech, who at 84 deserved to be given the award. His former students - Antoine Camilleri and Anton Agius - were given the awards.

She said that awarding the Distinguished Service Medal to members of the disciplined forces was not enough. The Ombudsman had confirmed that members of both the police corps and armed forces had been discriminated against, especially where promotions were concerned, and no redress had yet been given. Surely, she said, those discriminated against would prefer to be given their dues rather than a medal.

Nationalist MP Ċensu Galea agreed with Ms Dalli that Mr George Fenech deserved recognition.

He said that it was a good thing that the state acknowledged the good work done by its citizens. He asked whether the time had come to introduce a post-humous award to those whose work was not acknowledged during their lifetime. As an example, he mentioned the late Carm Lino Spiteri, a former Nationalist MP.

Mr Galea pointed out that the legislation lacked the procedure to be followed on how a person could have his membership taken if he is found guilty of misconduct.

He said there were many people who did a lot of good or important work but were not awarded because they were not known to the persons responsible for nominations. A system had to be found how such people could be nominated.

The system also had to ensure that the people who were given the awards deserved them and remained deserving of that award.

Labour MP Owen Bonnici said that the Maltese were proud to be Maltese and loved their country. This could be seen in the way the people conducted their civic duty. However, the sense of what being Maltese meant was changing when comparing young people now to those only 10 years older.

He said people his age, 28, did not mind at all declaring they were federalists. This could be seen even in the way one acted with foreign cultures, in the use of language, which distinguished us. It was important that young people had the basic ability of communicating in Maltese.

Turning to the Bill, Dr Bonnici said that the highest award one could get was that of Sieħeb il-Ġieħ. People getting such an award should be recognised as having a consultative role in essential matters such as in authorities set up by the Constitution. These people could give a view which those involved in the political sector may lack.

Nationalist MP Beppe Fenech Adami said it was very important that the state recognised the deeds of persons and elevated them to the several grades provided by the Bill under discussion.

He said that the motto of the Xirka tal-Ġieħ was "for the benefit of the Maltese". His party believed that nothing happened by coincidence and Malta was now where it was through the wealth created by governments over the years.

Dr Fenech Adami said the awards could be given to an institution rather than a person. Nowadays, there were so many institutions which did such a lot of good. Surely, one deserving institution was the Church.

He pointed out that not enough recognition was being given to voluntary element in several sectors, including cultural, sports and philanthropy.

He said that there were many Maltese who were doing a lot of good not just for the Maltese but for humanity. Many Maltese made a name for Malta abroad, becoming good ambassadors of the country through their work. These included doctors, IT specialists, missionaries and people like tenor Joseph Calleja.

Dr Fenech Adami said that role models were nowadays scarce. Therefore, it was important that Malta continued to seek how to honour Maltese who made a name for themselves, their country and humanity.

Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo asked what relevance did the amendment have for the people. He asked what efforts were being made to help the people feel part of a society, considering that this was becoming more passive to the common good. Egoism was growing and patriotism declining.

He said that an opportunity was being missed for ceremonial occasions to be meaningful to the people. Speeches made on such occasions were usually of little relevance.

The more egoistic society became, the more the people's sense of identity was lost. Every effort should be made to safeguard the little sense of identity that remained.

Mr Vassallo said he would like to see the Parliamentary Secretary take ownership of the Bill. He proposed the publication of a booklet on the people being awarded, informing the general public what awards had been given to whom and what the recipients of the awards had excelled in and what they were being recognised for.

The government should have a vision which strengthened the identity of a republic. It was important that these medals were looked upon in a way which showed appreciation at one's work to the benefit of the republic.

He did not see how Malta could have a morally strong society if it started to be afraid of facing reality.

When speaking about values in the President's speech the opportunity was lost to point out that the values which had built Maltese society were Christian values. This was reality and he was concerned that this reality was not being made known.

Nationalist MP Franco Debono said that people being honoured would have been role models before they were actually recognised. So the aim of the awards was for the state to show its recognition to their work.

In this context, the media had a central role since several sectors of the media were sensitive to investigation and to find stories about people who were doing a lot of good without sounding their trumpets.

Such awards reflected the country's independence. The Bill increasing the number of people who could be awarded reflected the people's sense of identity.

The award kept alive social and moral values which characterised Maltese society. Although it was easy for one to say that he believed in certain principles, it was not easy putting them into practice.

Dr Debono said that the republic was there to ensure peace, create wealth and ensure this was distributed in a just manner. The increase in number did not in any way reduce the prestige of the award.

Dr de Marco said the debate had been interesting and balanced with several proposals which deserved consideration being made.

Referring to Ms Dalli's comments, that the leader of the opposition should nominate people for the wards together with the Prime Minister, Dr de Marco pointed out that recommendations were made to a committee and it was this committee which finally nominated the recipients for the award. The people who were members of the order and of the Xirka Ġieħ ir-Repubblika were Sir Anthony Mamo, Archbishop Mgr Joseph Mercieca and Bishop Mgr Nikol Cauchi. These were definitely not political nominations.

In relation to Mr Galea's comments, Dr de Marco said the legislation allowed for post-humous awards.

Dr Fenech Adami had suggested that the award could be given to an institution. Dr de Marco said this was something which could be considered for the future especially since there were many institutions which had done and were still doing a lot of good. These included the Society of Christian Doctrine (MUSEUM), the Eden Foundation, the Dar tal-Providenza and many others.

Referring to Mr Vassallo's remarks, Dr de Marco said he agreed on the need for more awareness on the importance of the Republic and other major events in the country. He would like to see a greater presence from the opposition during certain celebrations, such as those marking Malta's Independence. He pointed out that there should be more occasions where both sides of the House celebrated together.

Concluding, Dr de Marco recalled that during the 1975 debate when the original Bill was piloted, then Justice Minister Anton Buttigieg had said that the Gieħ ir-Republika was being introduced to strengthen the tree's roots. It was this spirit which should continue today.

The House unanimously gave the Bill a second reading.