I must admit I am not at all impressed by most of the arguments being brought forward by the opposing parties in the course of the polarised campaign leading to the divorce referendum.
In my opinion, none of them seem to focus on the most important considerations, namely how will Maltese families be affected emotionally and, more importantly, financially by the proposal advanced to the electorate.
I tabled a number of parliamentary questions likely to arise in the event of the introduction of divorce. These were not accepted as they were considered “hypothetical”. This may be correct according to parliamentary Standing Orders. But how is the electorate going to have access to the necessary information so that each citizen could make a serious and conscious decision in the forthcoming referendum?
These questions include: How can a person on the minimum wage provide maintenance to his divorced wife and children over and above running a new home with his second wife?
How will a divorced mother who has never worked be entitled to a pension and, if so, what is her entitlement?
Will a woman who has a relatively good wage/salary have to provide maintenance to an adulterous husband if he has a lower wage and decides to marry someone else?
Will persons who are separated and living in subsidised housing and in receipt of free sickness and all sorts of social benefits lose everything if they decide to remarry?
How will terminal benefits and benefits from early retirement schemes be shared if beneficiaries so entitled decide to remarry before such benefits become due?
Has any sort of social assessment and financial assessment been carried out by the government, the pro- and the anti-divorce movement? If so, shouldn’t these be publicised for serious consideration by the electorate?
How many separated mothers are receiving all forms of social benefits?
How many separated men have been sent to prison for not paying maintenance to their separated wives? (According to Deborah Schembri, 58 have been imprisoned over the past five years. Surely this means that not paying maintenance is not taken as seriously, as it should.)
These questions call for an answer. There are obviously many others. They are put to me daily when the question of divorce comes up during my home visits. I expect the Minister for Justice or, more importantly, the minister responsible for social security to explain these and other facts that would properly enlighten the electorate before May 28.
I feel I must also remark that certain comments broadcast by One News seem to be biased, giving a push to the yes movement, when, according to the Malta Labour Party, the party has taken no stand on the issue and expects all its supporters to be guided by their conscience. I find this strange when Evarist Bartolo, co-presenter of the divorce Bill, is at present head of One News. This is surely a conflict of interest and certainly deserves consideration by all the Maltese electorate.
On May 28, the Maltese electorate is expected to express itself freely on a fundamental social topic. To arrive at that decision, the electorate deserves to be duly enlightened on the salient facets of this point at issue.
I must add that I have always felt that divorce does more harm than good. Religion has got nothing to do with it. This is not a question of sin but a question of common sense. As I have always said I will vote in the referendum according to my conscience and will also do so in Parliament if the need arises.
Naturally, I will be voting no.
Dr Vassallo is a Labour member of Parliament.