This government just cannot get a break. Right on the day when Health Minister Chris Fearne was proudly launching the Patient’s Charter, the Ombudsman rained on his parade. The House Business Committee chose that same day to discuss the Ombudsman’s concern that the partial privatisation of three state hospitals would impair patients’ rights by precluding complaints to his office.

Or was it the other way round? Did government organise a hasty launch of the charter to steal some of the thunder from the Ombudsman’s warning? Will we ever know the awful truth? Judging from how many times the government chooses to ignore legitimate requests for information by the press, we are as likely to find this out as who killed JFK or, even worse, what Sai Mizzi was doing in China.

Apart from these political shenanigans, the charter itself makes interesting reading. Health practitioners should be accountable, and patients do have the right to be properly informed so as to be able to take the right decisions. It is right that we as a nation set the bar high for what is an acceptable national health service.

That is why it is worrying that when it comes to patients’ rights for complaints and redress, the final version of the charter differs so markedly from the draft issued in April 2016 for consultation. The proposed five rights in the April version have been reduced to three.

The right to have one’s compliant “dealt with efficiently and properly investigated in a timely manner” and the right to “be told what corrective action has been or will be taken” have been removed and replaced by woolly language that protects the practitioner, not the patient.

While I understand the Medical Association of Malta’s concern that the charter is only so much wishful thinking if it is not backed up by adequate resources, MAM would be a tad more credible if it also condemned the defanging of the charter. Was this pushed by the profession’s self-interest, or by the government trying to shield Vitals that is now running three State hospitals?

In the health services agreement that the government signed with Vitals, it notoriously blanked out practically any numerical indication of the expected performance of the operator

How seriously should we take the Ombudsman’s alert on the possible erosion of patients’ rights, on the very day of the launch of the Charter ostensibly championing these rights?

There is a further twist to the charter. In the health services agreement that the government signed with Vitals, it notoriously blanked out practically any numerical indication of the expected performance of the operator. This included the performance indicators of pages 15 and 16, and the time between patient registration and ward admission in page 83.

And yet Principle 2 of the charter specifies some of these numerical targets! In the absence of more transparency, it would seem that when it comes to information on the Vitals contract, Konrad taketh and Chris giveth away. Blessed be the government.

Listen to the Maltese language experts

For the last decade the Kunsill Nazzjonali tal-Malti has been leading a quiet revolution in the usage of the Maltese language. Maltese is now no longer seen solely as the centuries-old bastion of our identity as a nation. In the 21st century it is first of all a living tool of communication by its people. This is the only way to ensure that the Maltese language remains alive and prospers.

The Kunsill has done this by, among other things, introducing common-sense updates to how we write in Maltese. Any teacher of Maltese will recognise that these changes are not only linguistically sound. They are closer to how children today speak and write the language, simplifying its teaching and learning.

So why is government trying to ‘fix’ something that works? The proposed amendments to the law regulating the work of the Kunsill will take the decision-making process away from the proven experts to special-interest representatives. In whose interest will decisions on Maltese now be taken?

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has stated repeatedly that he will be guided by expert opinion on a number of important issues. Apparently, Malta’s national language is not sufficiently important for government to listen to the experts.

Raymond Caruana’s gift

Tomorrow, December 5, will be the 30th anniversary of the tragic death of Raymond Caruana. His was the third political murder since Malta’s Independence. Karen Grech was the first victim, when on December 28, 1977 she opened a parcel bomb meant for her father, Prof. Edwin Grech. Nardu Debono was killed in 1980 by the police during interrogation.

Raymond Caruana’s death was not more tragic than the other two. But it was the one that galvanised Parliament to make the necessary constitutional changes that guaranteed the right to govern by the party with the majority of general election votes.

Raymond Caruana’s sacrifice meant that our nation could start the long and painful slog towards a mature parliamentary democracy. We are not there yet. But on the evidence of the recent constitutional judgment that confirmed two additional parliamentary seats for the Nationalist Party, its (grudging) recognition by the government and the speedy response of the Electoral Commission, we are still, pace Panama, limping on.

Lest we forget.