Cabinet papers | A safety valve in Libya

Finding jobs abroad

In a memo presented to his cabinet on 22 August 1966 Prime Minister George Borg Olivier admitted that unemployment was the most pressing problem facing the country, adding that his government could not afford to wait for industrialization and tourism to absorb the surplus labour force.

To address this problem, Borg Olivier proposed finding short-term suitable employment opportunities for the Maltese in Libya and Europe.  He spoke about the need to send Ministry officials to scour potential sources of employment in Europe in Libya.

"I will visit these countries myself to negotiate with the respective governments the conditions of work for Maltese workers."

Ironically, it was under his successor Dom Mintoff that hundreds of Maltese found temporary but lucrative jobs in Libya.

He gives scant details on a proposed "crash development programme" to create jobs in Malta in labour intensive projects.

Borg Olivier not only referred to emigration as Malta's "safety valve" for those who cannot work locally but also as "an important element" in keeping the population just below the 300,000 which he regarded as the "best level for a prosperous community."

A rainbow democracy

A memorandum issued in December 1965, three months before the 1966 election, reveals that the government intended to abolish donkey voting by ensuring that the order of candidates on the ballot sheet is established by lot. 

'Donkey voting' has characterized Maltese elections, as voters tend to vote for their preferred candidates and then continue on other candidates on the party list according to alphabetical order, giving an unfair advantage to those with surnames starting with the first letters of the alphabet.

But the proposal was overruled by the Crown Advocate, who advised government that the order of names in party lists should be determined by the alphabet.

The 1966 election was the first one in which candidates were listed in separate boxes according to party allegiance. Previously, candidates were listed on the basis of the alphabetical order irrespective of party allegiance, something which reflected the constitution which up to 1987 made no reference to political parties in the electoral process.

Before the election, opposition parties requested that candidates contesting the election should be grouped together in different boxes with a different colour for each party.

But in a memo to cabinet Borg Olivier insisted that the use of colours for each party should be avoided.

"With seven parties contesting the election, all the colours of the rainbow will be exhausted," Borg Olivier wrote.  He also warned of the "grave risk" of machines failing to print a particular colour.  But Borg Olivier agreed with party lists.

He also noted that in the 1962 election, a large number of voters voted for more than one party. 

"It was observed that the vote was first cast for the candidates of one party followed by the candidates of a second party and so on."

According to Borg Olivier, the proposed new format for the ballot sheet with candidates listed according to party "will enable the voter to cast the vote quicker as he finds the candidates for whom he wishes to vote conveniently grouped together."

While accepting the reform, the Crown Advocate warned that "party lists are suggestive of elections held on party basis" which was not the case as votes could still be transferred from one candidate to another irrespective of the party lists. 

"I feel that the electorate has to be properly informed that the change in ballot papers does not imply any departure from the electoral system," he advised.

In fact the changes to the ballot sheet did not augur well for small parties, even if this was probably determined by political factors. While in 1962 five parties were elected, only 2 parties made it to parliament in 1966 and all subsequent elections.  Despite the Crown Advocate's warning, in subsequent years voters were often wrongly given the impression that cross party voting invalidates the vote.

Between traditions and cruelty

In July 1964 the government was faced with a call for the abolition of mule and donkey racing during the Mnarja, Santa Marija and Saint Rocco feasts presented by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals.

The cabinet memo acknowledged that these animals are subjected to "severe beatings" as part of their training which included "goading of these animals with spiked instruments and whips during the actual racing."

But when considering the abolition of such races, the government had to "analyze the reactions that might follow stopping a deep rooted tradition."

Therefore instead of taking the bold step of stopping these races, the government proposed a "roundtable conference" between the RSPCA, the police and the various organizing committees involved in the races, auguring that "persuasion may succeed."

Illegal dumping

In 1967 memo by the Ministry of Health expressed concern on the "increase of illegal dumping of refuse and rubbish" and at the "extent of litter defacing the streets and beaches." 

The memo noted that the police code was ineffective as it only prohibited the throwing of refuse and rubbish onto any debris. Consequently the throwing of refuse or rubbish in any place other than on to debris was not yet prohibited. 

On the other hand the litter act only banned the throwing of refuse in public spaces and there was no prohibition on dumping refuse in private fields.  The law was changed to ban littering on any place and the new law contemplated the sequestration of the vehicle used in the illegal act.