From outspoken to out of line: Alex Borg’s ethics breach

Alex Borg wants to be seen as Gozo’s brash defender, a populist champion standing up to the establishment.

But as his refusal to apologise for false claims about Fort Chambray lands him before Parliament’s standards committee, a more troubling picture is emerging—one of a politician who confuses stubbornness for principle and pandering for leadership.

The Standards Commissioner’s report lays bare the issue: Borg made factually incorrect claims about development at Fort Chambray and then chose silence over accountability.

This is not just a minor infraction—it’s an ethical failure that undermines public trust in Parliament itself. And when given the chance to quietly resolve the matter with a simple written apology, Borg refused.

The report published on Tuesday makes clear that the Standards Commissioner had attempted to settle the matter without escalation. On 7 March, he wrote to Borg, proposing that the case be concluded on the basis of a written apology. Borg was given until 4 April to respond. He did not.

He was then given another chance to respond by 11 April. But Borg refused to apologise.

This refusal to issue even a basic apology has left the Standards Commissioner with no option but to refer the matter to the parliamentary standards committee for further action.

“If a Member of Parliament makes a false statement about a matter such as this, it implies that they cannot justify their vote in Parliament without resorting to deceit,” the Commissioner wrote.

“This casts doubt on their motivations and undermines the status and dignity of the House of Representatives,” he added.

This is not an isolated incident. Borg has built his political brand around a cocktail of staged social media images, shallow nationalism, and defence of developer interests.

He cloaks himself in the rhetoric of “protecting Gozo”, but in practice, his positions often serve the island’s most powerful economic actors—builders and land speculators.

He has championed deregulation, spoken glowingly of “cutting red tape”, and painted environmentalists as out-of-touch elites.

Borg’s disdain for NGOs isn’t just ignorance of democratic processes; it reveals that in his world, every civil society organisation, whether advocating for the environment, human rights, or good governance, is either a threat to be dismissed or a tool to be co-opted.

This is not how democracy works. NGOs exist precisely to hold both government and opposition accountable, not to serve as party subsidiaries in a Borg-led fan club. His belief that they should all ‘fall in’ under the PN exposes a deep discomfort with independent thought.

Borg wants applause, not accountability, and the idea that anyone outside his partisan tent might have something valuable to say clearly rattles him.

What’s most striking is the cynicism behind it. Borg speaks the language of authenticity but refuses the obligations that come with public office—truthfulness, humility, and respect for democratic processes.

When caught out, he defaults to victimhood and attacks critics. It’s a playbook designed to inflame rather than inform.

Borg has styled himself as a straight-talking advocate for Gozo, but critics say his recent conduct betrays a more cynical reality. Rather than rectifying the record, Borg has chosen to dig in his heels, failing to take responsibility for misleading the public.

Borg’s antics may earn applause in the echo chambers of social media, but they are corroding public discourse and compromising the standards of the very House he was elected to serve.