Our language is one of the most powerful forces uniting and identifying us as a nation. The survival of the Maltese language is probably our largest claim to a distinctly Maltese identity. Still, this country appears to have an existential problem with both its official languages none of which is being spoken or written well.
The National Council for the Maltese Language was founded 11 years ago. Its work is to regulate new words coming into Maltese and to promote the standards of Maltese in the educational field and other sectors. The aim of the council is language planning and promotion of the Maltese language, thus improving it by modernising its structures.
Like the Academie Français (the French Academy), which is the pre-eminent council for the French language with a history stretching back 380 years, the National Council for the Maltese Language is a vitally important body in sustaining the integrity and relevance of the Maltese language in a fast-changing world dominated by the English language.
Fully aware of his duty to protect the Maltese language, as well as enhance the bilingualism of Malta, which is such a crucial part of Malta’s attraction to foreign direct investment and the commercial success of the country in a highly competitive world, Education Minister Evarist Bartolo is taking steps to enhance the teaching of both the English and Maltese languages. In both language areas, he is conscious of treading on many vested interests and historical political issues.
Mr Bartolo has proposed a number of legal amendments to make the council “more representative, democratic and accountable”. He has understandably reacted to criticism by some leading academics that changes to the Maltese Language Act could weaken the council and, consequently, the language itself.
Six entities – L-Akkademja tal-Malti, the Institute of Linguistics, Għaqda tal-Malti – Università, Għaqda tal-Qarrejja tal-Provi and the Departments of Maltese at the University of Malta and the Junior College – have voiced concern that the new council would have a majority of members who were not necessarily qualified in Maltese. Concern was also expressed that the new proposals could lead to members not qualified in Maltese being able to nominate the head of the council’s technical committees and make important decisions about technical language questions.
The issues raised go back more than a year. The Ministry of Education has pointed out in its response that all stakeholders, including the six entities now making representations, participated in the consultation process led by well-known and established academics, including the council’s president, held over a year ago, as well as in the National Public Forum convened in November 2015.
Mr Bartolo has given a firm assurance about the future “quality and competence” of those selected for the technical committees and that “entities will appoint qualified and competent representatives without any political interference”. In view of the minister’s political hands-off behaviour over the decision on the American University of Malta by the independent National Commission for Further and Higher Education, this assurance deserves credibility.
Although the concerns expressed by the various entities in this saga are not to be dismissed lightly, it is as well to note that there is inevitably an element of special pleading at stake – reflecting the various competing academic interests involved. There appears, however, no reason to doubt that the minister’s proposals seek to bridge these competing interests and are designed to find the most pragmatic solutions possible to this important aspect of our national life.