MPs should stick to their own bedroom
Some months ago, I read an interview with Labour’s Owen Bonnici, who I believe is the youngest MP in the house. I remember thinking that here was a go-getter with brains and initiative, who is sure to go far, and what a shame that he’s in the wrong party, in which ignorance and bitterness inevitably triumph. Then I looked at it the other way, and thought that perhaps it’s best that he’s with the Labour Party after all, because there is no way on earth that people like Anglu Farrugia and Toni Abela are going to change and become questing, bright and intelligent. So the only way to change Labour is to bring in some smart people who aren’t burdened with chips, prejudices and grudges.
I may be entirely wrong about Owen Bonnici, of course, given that I have never met the man and only had that interview to go on. You can ask why somebody who is intelligent would want to throw in his lot with Labour, and the answer to that is obvious. If you are raised in a family which supports Labour, there is a tremendous mental block to overcome if you are to see ‘the other party’ as an option, and an equally great psychological leap to be made in coming to terms with the fact that your parents and grandparents might have got things terribly wrong and that perhaps you should reinterpret reality for yourself. So yes, I do understand why some highly intelligent people support Labour despite its abysmal track record, and why they aren’t embarrassed to be led by the likes of Toni Abela and Anglu Farrugia. It’s not a rational thing, but an emotional one. They can’t see the party for what it is. They can only see it for what they want it to be.
But I digress. I’d forgotten all about Owen Bonnici until I read in the newspapers that he had made a rather odd suggestion in parliament. While speaking during the Budget debate, of all things, he announced to his fellow MPs that perhaps they should think about encouraging young couples to live together before getting married. And I thought, what? Maybe this man, bright as he is, needs to widen his horizon a little. Like his boss the party leader, he seems to believe that being progressive is all about sex and marriage, as though anyone in Malta has been waiting for politicians to come along and give permission for them to do whatever it was they went ahead and did anyway.
It’s the reasoning behind it that gets to me. It could be because this Bonnici is still in his 20s (I think) that he has a sheltered view of reality. Malta is thick with couples who are living together without being married to each other. The problem is that they are married to somebody else. That is the area which needs attention, in the form of divorce legislation which only the state can handle, and not whether unmarried people live together or stay laundry virgins. One of my contemporaries, Marius Zulgis, commented beneath the on-line news report on Bonnici’s suggestion: “Surely this is a question for the couple concerned and for their immediate family if need be. It’s time the authorities and the church concentrate on matters of state and of spirituality – respectively, please – and leave people to get on with their everyday lives.”
That is precisely it. Whether people live together before marriage or don’t live together before marriage is nobody’s business but their own. The very idea of a state-sponsored campaign to persuade young couples into a trial run before tying the knot is risible. The state has no vested interest in ensuring that those who are not yet married try things out in the same way that it has a vested interest in, say, ensuring that children are not abandoned by their parents or mothers of young children left to fend for themselves, in which case they become dependent mainly on the state. And even there, there is no scope for a campaign because people will do what people will do, and no amount of persuasion or campaigning is going to stop them getting pregnant when there’s no man around or dumping their children on the nuns and priests.
Just for a laugh, it’s worth speculating on what form this campaign might take. Will it have slogans? ‘Take her for a trial run’. ‘You’re worth it – but is he?’ ‘A wife is for life, not just for Christmas.’ ‘Try before you buy.’ ‘Don’t wait until it’s too late. Find out whether you can’t stand each other’s guts – now!’
The temptation when you have a seat in the house is to believe that you can or should use your position to fiddle about in areas that are no concern of yours. Young people do not need to find out what it means to live together before taking on a much bigger commitment. What they really need is a sense of responsibility and the experience of fending for themselves beyond their parents’ roof and wallet. The crisis for many newly married couples comes when they go from being waited on hand and foot by their mothers to returning to their new flat only to find that – oh dear, how did that happen – the breakfast dishes haven’t washed themselves up and the laundry hasn’t jumped off the floor and into the washing-machine. And, oh dear heavens, there are bills coming through the door which have not been budgeted for because the fairies used to pay for water and electricity back before we said ‘I do’.
So yes, I agree with Bonnici that there’s a problem there. But I don’t agree with his diagnosis or his solution. The source of the trouble with adjustment to married life is not due to lack of experience of living together beforehand (though I must admit that it’s a lot better to find out whether somebody’s habits drive you up the wall before you get married rather than afterwards). The problems all point to mummy’s boys and mummy’s girls playing at being grown-ups, failing, and running back home to mummy who will kiss it all better. What people need is the experience of standing on their own two feet. Either way, it’s not the state’s business and MPs should stay out of it.
BRASS NECK
I will never get over the brass neck of some people. An ex soldier who had his cabin cruiser impounded when he was charged with drug trafficking – he was a soldier at the time, not an ex soldier – has filed a complaint because the boat was badly damaged. The former gunner was given a suspended prison sentence and a relatively light fine for trafficking in ecstasy pills. The prosecuting officers claimed that he used this cabin cruiser to take the pills to Gozo, where he planned to sell them during the usual Santa Maria parties. He was cleared on appeal only because the charges made against him were listed under the wrong schedule.
He got his boat back, but it had been “extensively damaged”. He spent a lot of money, he said, restoring it to its original state, and he is now holding the Commissioner of Police and various officials at the Law Courts responsible for damages. Some people really don’t know when to stop pushing their luck. Maybe we should be asking how a gunner with the Armed Forces bought a cabin cruiser in the first place?
YOUR HOUSE IS YOUR OWN
Here’s another one who’d love to interfere in other people’s business. Labour’s spokesman for social policy has said that the way to solve the rent-reform problem is to ‘target’ the 50,000 houses which stand empty and force them onto the market. Aside from the fact that I am really tired of hearing all and sundry repeat this figure conjured up by Alternattiva Demokratika some years ago – 50,000 is a magic number, nice and round – how, pray, does Farrugia intend to do this?
Is the anti-tax-protest-party going to suggest slapping a tax on empty houses so that their owners cease to enjoy the right to do as they please with what they own, and are instead forced to sell or rent? Is he going to do what successive governments have done, with no justification, and requisition empty property to use as social housing at the expense of the private owners? I own no house or flat other than the one I live in, but you can be sure that if I did, I would be extremely cross at the suggestion that I should not, must not, may not or cannot leave it empty if I want to. My attitude to empty houses and flats is this: if those who own them want to leave them empty, it’s their ruddy business and nobody else’s.
Even more irritating is the lack of market knowledge inherent in Michael Farrugia’s suggestion, though to be fair, similar suggestions have been made by people who should know better, on both sides of the political fence, and even by those who straddle it. The immediate effect of any measure which forces 50,000 houses and flats onto the market– either the rental market or the sales market – will be a crisis. There are no desirable effects to be had from any such measure at all. I am not going into a detailed explanation of how and why this crisis will be caused because I have neither the space nor the inclination. I am merely astonished that somebody with a vote in parliament is unable to work it out for himself, and has nobody to work it out for him.
Crisis aside, there is a more important principle at stake: if people want to leave their house empty, they should be allowed to do so. It’s their pigeon, not the government’s.
63 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I do actually agree to quite a high degree, but I think the real problem is before the living together part. While stressing that I do not wish to invest my own views on other people’s behalfs, I do think Maltese youth need to be encouraged to live on their own for a while before settling down with someone. Living with your future spouse before marriage, as Mr. Bonnici suggests, would probably be a good solution for many young Maltese, but living completely on their own first, learning to budget, learning to clean, learning to do laundry etc, and gain proper independence, would be the thing to encourage. Now personally I don’t think this is a parliamentary matter, but what the hell, change has to start somewhere.
Also, regarding your issue with the 50’000 houses and flats. Don’t you agree that in a place like Malta it’s a real shame that we are facing a property crisis, where first-time buyers have to struggle like never before to get into the market, while there are homes to cover one eigth of the population just sitting around? Of course you shouldn’t force the owners to sell or rent them, but some sort of incentive for the rehabilitation of old houses, rather than the development of new, should be put in place.
[Daphne – Young people are always going to struggle to buy a house or a flat. That’s the way of the world, and it was ever the case. My parents’ generation rented. Buying a house came later. The current economic crisis was triggered, at the root, by people who couldn’t afford a home buying one anyway – in the US. No, I don’t think it’s a shame that people are struggling to buy a first home when other houses are sitting around vacant. This is like saying it’s a shame that some people can’t afford a car while others have one sitting in the garage. There is, lurking somewhere, this quasi communist perception that real estate is somehow communally owned, and that if you have more than you need or use, it’s theft.]
AD’s proposal (and now Labour’s?) to put all these properties on the market, will definitely lead to a decrease in the market price of a property.
The problem with this, and something that AD have overlooked for ages, is that this will lead to many people being in a negative equity situation. This means that the liability you have towards the bank is higher than the asset, the house, you own.
The problem at first is not one of repayment but one of confidence. People will feel threatened and obviously economic activity will stop.
When at a later stage people barely manage to make the
repayments, they may decide to give the keys back to the bank in order to stop making the payments. Here the problem becomes exponentially bigger.
The people who will be hit by this will be young families and the medium-lower class, rather than the unutilised property owners, the reason for the tax initially.
Before the elections I tried to explain this to a number of AD supporters, but nobody really cared to understand the issue…
“it’s not the state’s business and MPs should stay out of it.”
Agreed.
“My attitude to empty houses and flats is this: if those who own them want to leave them empty, it’s their ruddy business and nobody else’s.”
And Agreed.
And what do these two proposals have in common? Government wanting to interfere with people’s lives.
If I’m honest, one of the few (well, a few tens) reasons that stopped me from voting AD in the last election was an empty-house-tax proposal. And I don’t even have an empty house. I just cannot succumb to the idea of having a government that interferes in the property market to such an extent.
I own many houses which I choose to remain empty rather than sell, although I wish to sell them. The reason is the tax on the profit, which is unreasonably high at 35%.
I suggest this tax should be removed. The stampt duty tax is also very high at about 5%. Therefore 40% of the value of the house is immediately lost as soon as you sell a house, unless you are living in it.
These taxes should be removed , this would enable people like me to sell our houses to people who want them at reasonable prices and release much-needed capital which we can invest in other ventures.
Hi Daphne, good morning :)
You must be feeling elated this morning, aren’t you? I mean, come on, it’s an honour to get half of Kulhadd’s back page. “Daphne Mgiddba” – They are so childish… it’s like the actually won a million euro.
“Aw Wenz, qbadniha lil Daphne ta, qed tigdeb fuq Michelle taghna…”
“Eh hazin, mela ejja nivvintaw xi haga fuqha ahna issa!”
“Ijja, imma x’ha nivvintaw, nahseb tant ilna nivvintaw li ma tantx fadlilna x’nistghu nghidu…”
“U le, ahna tal-Labour dejjem insibu xi mod gdid biex nigdbu u nharrfu, specjalment fuq min ghandu ragun.”
I am pleased with your arguments regarding co-habitation. Sadly, the reason people my age (20s) are against co-habitation, is because of their Roman Catholic values, not because they can reason on the responsibility and selflessness of marriage.
What a disappointment that you did not comment on the leader of the opposition’s speech in parliament (of last Monday). I expected to read it in your Thursday column, then I thought that maybe you are leaving it for Sunday. But you haven’t. Why is this? I’m sure you have lots to say.
[Daphne – I find budget speeches tedious in the extreme, and in my experience, people don’t like reading about them either. So I leave all of that to other people.]
Your analysis of the situation is indeed very good. Marriages don’t fail because people do not cohabit before getting married. Marriages fail because people are unprepared to live on their own (away from their parent’s or parents’ warm and cosy homes) and are unprepared for the sacrifice necessary to make a marriage work. In other words, people are largely selfish. These are the two main issues, in my view. All the other elements (adultery, financial trouble and so on) are symptoms of these two ills conquering society’s minds and hearts.
Marriages will inevitably break down for a myriad reasons, even because people simply change and they no longer want to put up with their partner. Still, cohabitation only creates an illusion which bursts as soon as the two fateful words “I Do” are uttered loud enough to form a legal obligation.
However, if people are prepared, even from a very young age, even in schools, then, perhaps people would enter marriage with more tools to be able to cope with indeed a commitment which is sometimes larger than life itself.
I know Owen Bonnici, and I find him rather a nice young man (in his twenties) who is full of good intentions. He’s also married and I daresay he has a kid or two. So, he knows what marriage is all about. Still, perhaps, in trying to be young and hip, he got carried away.
So, yes, I agree – please, politicians, leave our lives in peace. And please, do not play around with the most intimate of human activity, particularly to look cool and hip.
Dear Daphne,
Most probably it escaped you. But the soldier you mentioned is the ex lover of the head of one news and he is currently studying to become a teacher at our University of Malta…. What a good example he will be giving his students.
P.S. As an after thought….. I don’t think you should publish this. Instead you should keep it for future reference.
[Daphne – I’m quite happy to publish it. After all, they would have run with the story as headlines for a fortnight if it had been me. I knew the story, but I didn’t know this was the man.]
regarding the empty houses, first of 50k empty ones appears on the high side – it’s more like 34k and that’s counting summer houses. I have followed the property market for several years especially when I was employed in the banking sector. The reason that prices in Malta do not fluctuate in the same way that they do abroad is that most developers are happy to leave their units empty because: a) the rate of annual increase in market prices exceeds by far the cost of financing them and b) the banks are lenient in the way they finance these projects. I could write an essay on this but the gist is that most banks are happy to roll over the interests with the principal while repayments are dependent on sales of units and not bound to a fixed term. Obviously there isn’t a simple solution to all this – any bank that pulls the carpet from under the contractors risks toppling the whole edifice (pardon the pun).
@London Area. The vendor pays the tax on profits. The stamp duty is paid by the purchaser. So you can’t just add them up. You can choose to pay final witholding tax at 12% on selling price instead of the 35% on profit.
I agree with Terry Vella. I am pretty sure you would not have assumed the role of ‘reporter’ in commenting about Joseph’s speech in Parliament regarding Budget 2009, but rather on the silliness of his proposals and the inaccuracies contained therein.
With regards to cohabitation before marriage, my opinion is that it is rarely an advantage since couples who cohabitate and then get married often have a worse record of divorce than those who did not cohabitate/get married later.
The question of divorce is a tough issue and for those who are so opposed to it, I ask the following question which has been burning in my mind for quite a while now:
In the Maltese language I know of two particular words (1) POGGUT and (2) KURNUT. I wouldn’t mind if some language expert explains the true meaning. My impression is that ‘poggut’ is the translation of ‘shacked up ‘(two unmarried living together) while ‘kurnut’ means ‘two, one of whom is still married and who lives with another, married or not’
If these two translations are correct and in the absence of a divorce law in Malta, why are the words kurnut and poggut even in the Maltese language?
The point I am trying to make is that if these two situations did not exist in Malta then divorce (civil) would not be necessary neither.
Therefore if an undivorced (married) person cohabitates, would the married one not be guilty of bigamy?
Is bigamy permitted in Malta?
[Daphne – A kornut is a cuckold. Cohabitation doesn’t constitute bigamy if you are married already. A bigamist is somebody who marries twice without divorcing the first spouse. Of course, it’s not possible unless you lie about your marital state.]
to Joe Buttigieg
He was the ex lover of the One Journo. Big deal! This guilt by association is stupid. If we are to be held responsible for all that our acquaintances have done, half of parliament should be locked up. What’s worrying is that he was only given a suspended sentence for drug trafficking.
[Daphne – No, what’s worrying is that the head of news of the Labour Party’s broadcast media was dating the very sort of criminal she is supposed to investigate. What really perplexes me is the fact that such a bright and pretty woman doesn’t do better for herself. It’s not like she’s desperate.]
@Daphne “I find budget speeches tedious…”
It was the labour leader’s first important speech and anyone interested in the local political scene would have been interested in your perceptive critique. And I don’t mean on the content, but more on the form, such as your insight on the delivery, body language, etc.
[Daphne – I was worried I might bore you all by repeating what I’ve said many times already: that the man is an uninformed prat whose every move and word seems to indicate the unspoken presence, in his mind, of an admiring mother or wife. He is attractive only to people who are unsure of themselves and who see in him something that they want to be. And to be honest, I switched to Paramount Comedy halfway through. The man would bore the pants off a nun.]
IM9: “nobody really cared to understand the issue…”
That’s because it doesn’t suit their agenda of electing a representative to parliament.
Lorna: “trying to be young and hip”
Actually, it makes him seem very old fashioned.
I feel like people are rubbing salt in my (fresh) wounds, when they mention the real estate situation in Malta and the amount of empty houses.
I actually was in a complicated situation trying to sell a house in Malta. Had a terraced house for sale for just over 3years! And that is sad. Couldn’t rent it as the going renting rate would have hardly covered maintenance expanses, let alone the mortgage I was paying. i found it extremely difficult to sell property in Malta. When I moved abroad and bought a house here, I was ‘forced’ to sell. I had to slash the asking price by a few thousands, and it sold. After all this it worked out, that after paying the tranfer tax, remaining balance and fees, I ended up loosing some money – taking into consideration mortgages paid, interest and hoe improvments.
Had to say all this because no-one knows how many other people are in the same situation. Simply, cannot afford losing money, at least get their money back. one cannot push house owners into renting these houses to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
I just hope that the bank situation in Malta remains relatively stable as in other countries banks are pulling the plug on certain investors and property owners and the latter are then forced into ‘quick sales’.
Joe Buttigieg – Maybe Ms Dalli would like to use the subject for one of her “TX” programs.
Thank you Daphne for pointing out my oversight regarding ‘bigamy’.
@Terry
Some self-advertising here: I went through Muscat’s proposals to reduce water and electricity bills. Here:
http://malta9thermidor.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/muscats-proposals-to-reduce-your-bills/
[Daphne – I thoroughly recommend Fausto’s commentary.]
My reaction to Bonnici’s speech was different. I was shocked because, very often, when a politician says “encourage” he means “subsidy”.
Daphne:
You very much misinterpreted what I said. I never claimed people should be penalised for owning more than one property, simply that there should incentive in place for reusing old properties rather than developing beyond necessity. Malta is after all an island of very limited space and the few green areas left should be protected for several reasons, I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree with me on that. I fail to see how such an incentive could have a diminishing effect on Malta.
Daphne, I’ve seen priests and monks wearing dresses, but I’ve never seen a nun wearing pants–that would scare me. :)
Agree that our local sandbox politicians should bug out of our personal affairs and concentrate on lining their pockets.
[Daphne – That’s because you’re North American and ‘pants’ means trousers to you. To me, it means knickers.]
Daphne, I see, so I must now call Hillary’s pant suits knicker suits?
BTW, if you get a chance, go to the New York Times web site (www.nytimes.com) and click on Dick Cavett’s take on our airhead friend, Sarah. He’s on ‘most emailed’–Hilarious.
Love your blog.
[Daphne – In English English, Hilary wears trouser suits, not pant suits, and underneath her trousers she wears knickers.]
I don’t know if its just me who thinks so, but I tend to believe that people who need to be encouraged to go and live outside of their parents’ home, actually shouldn’t. If one needs a push to live an independent life, one is definitely not prepared enough.
No one made mention of the the thousands of properties left “in limbo” at the joint office when the Church handed in a big chunk of its property over to goverment as part of the church schools agreement.Surely they should be used for the very purpose that they were originally left to the church for in people’s wills., as a social service to the needy.
Daphne, I wonder if Hillary speaks English English. I’ll ask Bill–he’s good at definitions–remember ‘it depends on your definition of sexual intercourse’.
@Daphne,
You HAVE to read this post in The Times
“Albert Spiteri (17 hours, 22 minutes ago)
History is what it is! Mintoff, whether you like it or not, is the one and only living legend that ever existed in Malta. He transformed Malta into a modern industrialized highly successful economy. During the 70’s and 80’s Malta was the envy of all of Europe for many things, mostly for the kicking out of NATO and the American fleet in early 70’s, the British in 1979 and in the process emerging as a major investment magnate and tourist destination. When the entire western capitalistic world was fumbling chicken-brained over the oil crisis of 74 and 80, Mintoff had Malta importing crude at cost from Libya and reselling to most of Europe for profits that the socialist government transformed into infrastructure investment and a tremendous social spending program. When EFA’s NP won control in 1987, thanks only to Mintoff’s and KMB’s constitutional amendments, they found a country rich in reserves and contingency funds of all kinds, skilled labour force, profitable institutions and the lowest european tax-ratio, making us the envy of all Europe. “
@Kenneth,
Most of my foreign friends were practically kicked out at 18, whether they were ready or not.
The problem with that in Malta is finding a place to rent which is still expensive as many Maltese are wary about renting to other Maltese!
@ David Buttigieg. See also Albert Spiteri’s letter in The Times today.
@ David Buttigieg:
The issue of affordable rent is a separate issue. I suspect that in Malta, most people choose to stay with their parents until they are married, either because of religious belief, or because they prefer a sheltered life.
I know several people who left their parents’ home to live an independent life, and they’re not particularly rich – they only understand well that independence goes hand in hand with sacrifice.
Of course, I could be wrong. There is no hard evidence either way.
David Buttigieg: And here’s what Albert Spiteri had to say about Joseph Muscat in a letter that appears in today’s Times.
“In his stupendous reply Dr Muscat was fair, lucid and to the point. He was technical, scientific, political and extremely clear. Such clarity of thought and simplicity of speech comes only to him who is gifted with the right background, moral fibre, personal integrity, courage, high academic achievement, sharp intellect and, to cap it all, the soaring EU credentials enjoyed only by Dr Muscat. This is what makes him so unique among our parliamentarians and this is what made his reply such a pleasure to listen to and concentrate upon.”
“Just for a laugh, it’s worth speculating on what form this campaign might take. Will it have slogans? ‘Take her for a trial run’. ‘You’re worth it – but is he?’ ‘A wife is for life, not just for Christmas.’ ‘Try before you buy.’ ‘Don’t wait until it’s too late. Find out whether you can’t stand each other’s guts – now!’”
Don’t forget the small-print: The value of your partner may go up as well as down, and the past is no guarantee of the future.
[Daphne – Hysterical.]
@Kenneth,
The thing is in Malta most parents do everything thay can to keep their kids at home, rather than encouraging them to be independent. As Daphne wrote earlier, most kids (and I mean late teens and early twenties) haven’t got a clue as to expenses. When they work and are at home they often have a good salary and no bills leaving them with a lot of spending money and without a clue.When they finally face the real world they get a shock and crumble, which is one of the leading causes of marital breakdowns in my humble opinion. When I was still at my parents’ home (and finished Uni and earning a salary) I contributed to the expenses like Water & electricity etc.It still wasn’t the real picture but at least I knew the real expenses involved.
Nah, living expenses aren’t the reason for marital breakdown. It’s just that everybody’s so desperate to have a partner that they’ll go for second, or third, or fourth best. And then once the grind of marital life takes over, they realise the faux-infatuation is gone, while they’re shackled to someone who isn’t really their object of desire.
@ David,
I know what you mean. I too contributed (a little) to household expenses when I lived in my parents’ home, and I (together with my brothers) also used to help in housework (washing dishes, washing floors, etc), and I am grateful to my parents for it.
I also know that most parents do everything thay can to keep their sons and daughters at home. However, I think you will agree that many people in Malta prefer the comfort of living with their parents to the trouble and expense of an independent life away from their parents’ home. Actually, the way I see it, nowadays there is a teenage trend to have the best of both worlds: stay with the parents living a comfortable care-free lifestyle, while raising hell if the parents dare to demand to have a say in anything their children do.
@ Baxter – ‘object of desire’? omg, you’re gonna get it from the Burn the Bra Brigade!
[Daphne – An object of desire can be a man as well, though to be honest I don’t see many of those around.]
Corrine: David Buttigieg’s letter reminds me of that famous letter by Mario Vella praising Alfred Sant as the best thing since the European Renaissance.
Indeed, a man can be an object of desire. To a small but significant proportion (perhaps 10 – 20%) of women a man with material wealth is particularly desirable.
[Daphne – Make that 90%.)
Marku: Actually, those words were Albert Spiteri’s (no, I don’t know him), not David Buttigieg’s, published online in response to I M Beck’s column last Saturday. Albert Spiteri wrote a letter about Joseph Muscat too. It appeared in today’s Times.
[Daphne – Make that 90%.]
After 40 perhaps. The younger ones just go for the looks.
[Daphne – You’re living in a dream world. After 40 is when women don’t care about these things, because our tolerance level for irritating men is sub-zero and we’re pretty well set up by 40 anyway. Even very young women who seem to be choosing on the basis of looks are actually assessing earning potential.]
This comment has nothing to do with the above. I am watching Bondi+ and have never been as disgusted as today. How dare a Collage Principle who is supposed to be a PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR pass personal information about students to Lou Bondi. It’s no use saying that the names have been changed, anyone living in Bormla would know who he is talking about. I hope the commissioner for children’s rights will bring this up. If I were the minister I would sack him first thing tomorrow morning.
If a B.educ student decides to do a case study for his thesis about a child in a school, he would have to ask permission from the Education Division, from the Head of school and from the child’s parents. Then he would be able to proceed and change the child’s name. This is for a thesis that will be placed in the University’s Library and seen only by professionals and University students. Whose permission did this so called PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR ask for?
If I was a Bormla parent I would sue him, are these the people who are educating our children? No wonder the said collage is doing so badly.
Let me also remind you that as a public service employee he should have asked permission from the minister before discussing things that concern his public position let alone discussing children. Thanks Daphne I got off my chest!
[Daphne – Coincidentally, I just watched that bit, too. You’re getting upset needlessly. That was a reconstruction based on ‘the kind of things that happen’. It wasn’t a real life story. The description ‘reconstruction’ was used inaccurately. A reconstruction would have to be about an actual event. This was ‘the type of thing that happens, showing the kind of attitude some people have.’]
No it was not a reconstruction of the kinds of things that happen. Lou Bondi said that Sandro gave him the information of students that were in year 6, but he changed the names to protect their identity. As if by changing their names people would not know who they were.
[Daphne – No, Grace. It was ‘based on real life events’. That can mean anything and anyone. It was made quite clear.]
Daphne, you’re wrong.
[Daphne – No, I’m not. Women in their 20s and 30s who target mates with plenty of money are the rule, not the exception. Over 40, they’re the exception. The clue is in the word ‘mates’. Women over 40 are not going to be building any nests, so their instinctive programming to find a good provider is in abeyance. Also, as I said, a woman’s patience has worn thin by then. She’s probably been through a few relationships, at least one marriage, a few children….Of course, there will always be women who have so little of their own at 40 that they need to find a man as a meal-ticket, but on the whole, I find that women above 40 are so fed up of ‘trying to make it work’ that what they put first is kindness and the ability to make them laugh. As long as he’s solvent and not broke or a bum, that’s enough. Let’s put it this way, women in their 20s and 30s are mesmerised by trappings – nice car, big house, lots of flash stuff. We tend to get a little more sceptical beyond that age.]
Usually her parents are obsessed with that. They assess your assets more diligently than an auditor.
[Daphne – I don’t blame them. Nobody wants his daughter to end up barefoot and pregnant, though I must say that assets are not enough. What you really have to look for is generosity and kindness, as otherwise you might end up a pauper in your own home in any case.]
I agree. Though even paupers have led happy married lives. It is not hard times which break marriages but rather the inability to adapt and endure. Some people still have the same priorities as when they were 20. That is what leads to breakups.
@Marku,
Say What???
“John Meilak Tuesday, 18 November 1149hrs
I agree. Though even paupers have led happy married lives. It is not hard times which break marriages but rather the inability to adapt and endure. Some people still have the same priorities as when they were 20. That is what leads to breakups.”
Anyone heard of Charles and Diana?
[Daphne – Let me tell you, Sybil, it is much better to have a miserable married life in wealth and comfort than a miserable married life in poverty. Wealth makes everything better, marriage included. Just imagine how much worse their marriage and their lives would have been if they had been poor.]
@ John Meilak:
“I agree. Though even paupers have led happy married lives”.
I think what Daphne meant is that it is useless for a woman to marry a richer man (since that’s what was being discussed) if he is also a selfish man. At best, a selfish rich man would only reluctantly share his riches with his wife, and at worst she will have to live a life of servitude because she “owes” it to her rich husband.
I think there are some of each in each age group. There
are girls in their twenties who fall hopelessly in love
and are blind to faults, money etc, and there are women
over 40 who just want a man the richer the better.
I agree that its better to be miserable and rich than
miserable and poor, but besides love, friendship and
a sense of humour are the things that make relationships
last.
Most probably , if they were poor and unknown they would have had a better chance of making their marriage work and live happily ever after. Money helps, and how, to keep a stable relationship going, but it is not quite everything. Anther one that comes in mind is poor little rich girl Christina Onassis. Wealth may make everything better, but it can also make life more complicated as well.
[Daphne – Poverty makes life complicated. Wealth simplifies it. That’s why nobody wants to be poor, and everyone would prefer to have more money than they do already. Money is a solution to most of life’s problems, including many problems associated with health. You may not solve the actual health problem, but at least you can get the best care and help in the home. I find it strange that people hold up examples like Cristina Onassis, forgetting that there are far more disastrous personal and familial situations in the lowest income brackets – a direct result of poverty and the deprivation mentality.]
I agree with Sybil and Kenneth. Well okay, money will give you materialistic happiness which is short term. However, being having a good partner gives your a long term happiness no matter how much money you’ve got. This isn’t a question of solving problems. There will always be problems. This is a matter of whether or not you CAN handle those problems. Being rich doesn’t make you anymore intelligent than a poor person.
The are some things which money cannot buy.
Sorry for the spelling mistakes. My mind runs faster than my fingers. Classic I/O problem. Hehe
As I did point out earlier, money helps but it isnt everything either.
Truth is that the number of people living on the lower income bracket is or will be on the increase…
David: sorry, my mistake!
Daphne,
What about Bill and Hilary? Rich (very), happy (smile a lot), one a philanderer, the other wears pants (knickers?), one used to rule the world, the other just about got there, now one (the knickers one) will rule the ‘outside world’, accompanied by the philanderer. Oh what a lovely world and happy pairsome.
Daphne said “No, I’m not. Women in their 20s and 30s who target mates with plenty of money are the rule, not the exception. Over 40, they’re the exception”
Maybe that’s because those in their 20s and 30s can be choosy, and those over 40 can’t.
Actually it’s never that simple. You can’t generalise. Some women in their 20s and 30s go for money others don’t. Some women in their 40s don’t go for the money, others do! Life’s too complicated to generalise!
@Harry
The sweet, luscious taste of power;-)
Andrea,
Tell me! (:D)
Harry,
everything seems to be possible in a happy world ruled “outside” by a panty hunter and his tamer…äh… or the other way around…roaaahr!anyway…we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist;-))
Andrea,
I fear the former First Lady’s knickers have just been twisted! Just read this headline (Drudge Report): “Bill Clinton offers to bare all for ethical review”. You couldn’t make it up. Happy days are here again!
@ Andrea
Well put.