€50K public grant goes to underperforming school app

A private mobile application developed by a media company with longstanding ties to Malta’s Labour Party has received €50,000 in direct public funding from the Ministry for Education. The app, Perlina TV, was launched by Sharp Shoot Media in November and targets primary school students and their families with subscription-based content. The Ministry's funding decision, made without a public call or competitive bidding process, has reignited public concern over the use of state funds for ventures closely aligned with the ruling political party.

Sharp Shoot Media’s political ties and funding history

The production house at the centre of the controversy, Sharp Shoot Media, was co-founded by Justin Farrugia, the brother of Kurt Farrugia — a former chief communications officer to ex-prime minister Joseph Muscat, and now CEO of Transport Malta. Sharp Shoot Media was established in 2013, coinciding with the Labour Party’s return to government, and has since been awarded a string of lucrative public contracts.

In the years following its formation, the company was regularly commissioned by Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) to produce drama series and government-linked advertising. It was also a frequent contractor for the Office of the Prime Minister during Muscat’s administration, and it played a visible role in the Labour Party’s electoral campaigns.

Key figures behind Malta's state-sponsored media and film institutions, including Film Commissioner Johann Grech — also a former campaign marketer for Muscat — have awarded grants to Sharp Shoot Media. This pattern of publicly funded contracts has raised recurring concerns over the transparency and fairness of the procurement process.

Perlina TV: A private venture turned public expense

The Perlina TV mobile application, developed as a private commercial project, initially operated on a subscription model, charging users approximately €40 annually. The service was promoted as an educational tool offering children’s programming and content designed to support young learners and their parents.

Despite its ambitions, Perlina TV was reported to be underperforming financially and failing to generate the expected subscriber base. This commercial underperformance appears to have triggered the government’s intervention, which took the form of a bulk purchase of subscriptions to be distributed freely among primary school students.

While the Ministry for Education has framed this as a move to enhance digital learning and accessibility, critics have argued that it essentially amounts to public subsidisation of a struggling private business venture. The lack of a public call for proposals, combined with the company’s political connections, has drawn criticism from various stakeholders, including education professionals and civil society watchdogs.

The decline of public educational broadcasting

Until recently, the Maltese government operated an educational television station known as Education 22. The channel was progressively dismantled over the years and ultimately ceased operations, leaving a gap in publicly accessible educational broadcasting.

Rather than restoring or modernising this public channel, the government’s decision to fund a private substitute has raised questions. Perlina TV, although positioned as an educational platform, is not a public service broadcaster and operates with a profit motive.

Critics argue that this shift from public to private educational content delivery weakens institutional accountability and reduces quality assurance, especially in the absence of a formal content review or curriculum alignment process.

Procurement without competition

The €50,000 allocated to Sharp Shoot Media for the Perlina TV initiative was issued through a direct order, bypassing the standard competitive tendering process required for most public procurements.

This procurement method, though legal under certain conditions, is typically reserved for urgent needs or specialised services for which competitive bidding is impractical. It remains unclear why the Ministry determined that a direct order was appropriate in this case, particularly given the availability of alternative educational content providers in the private and public sectors.

Transparency advocates have voiced concern that the criteria for issuing direct orders are not being uniformly or rigorously applied, especially when contracts benefit politically connected entities.

A recurring pattern of selective support

This latest case is not isolated. Over the past decade, Sharp Shoot Media has been a frequent recipient of government contracts. Some of these were awarded through public calls, but others were issued directly or through government-linked agencies, such as the Malta Film Commission.

Johann Grech, currently heading the Film Commission, was instrumental in distributing public funds to Sharp Shoot Media, including subsidies and production grants. The company has received tens of thousands of euro over multiple projects. These grants were often provided with limited public disclosure about selection criteria or project evaluation.

Questions have also been raised about whether Sharp Shoot Media enjoys privileged access to decision-makers due to the familial and professional connections of its owners. Critics note that other companies offering comparable or superior services may be systematically disadvantaged in such an environment.

The role of political proximity in public funding

The intersection of media production, political marketing, and government funding in Malta has long drawn scrutiny. Several companies that were closely involved in Labour’s election campaigns have subsequently received generous public support.

Sharp Shoot Media’s founders, especially given the company’s early ties to government communication channels, exemplify this trend. While such proximity does not necessarily imply misconduct, it raises legitimate concerns about favoritism, conflict of interest, and the misuse of public funds to bolster politically aligned businesses.

Given Malta’s international obligations regarding public procurement transparency, including EU directives on competitive bidding, the recurring use of direct orders in politically sensitive contexts may merit further institutional review or legal challenge.

Educational integrity and digital policy

Another layer of concern involves the educational value and content integrity of the Perlina TV app itself. There is little publicly available information regarding the app’s curriculum alignment, quality assurance processes, or pedagogical standards.

In the absence of an independent review or educational vetting process, the Ministry’s endorsement of Perlina TV may be seen as premature or procedurally deficient. Critics argue that if the government is investing taxpayer funds in digital education, it should establish rigorous standards and ensure that publicly funded content is subject to impartial oversight.

The decision to substitute a public broadcasting channel with a private app also suggests a broader shift in digital education policy — one that may prioritize convenience and political affiliations over long-term educational strategy.

Calls for transparency and oversight

Civil society organisations and education stakeholders are calling for greater transparency in how educational content is selected and funded. Key questions include:

• What evaluation mechanisms were used to determine Perlina TV’s suitability for public funding?
• Why was the €50,000 contract awarded without a competitive process?
• Were alternative platforms or solutions considered?

There are also growing calls for the reinstatement or reimagining of a public educational broadcaster that operates independently of commercial or political interests. Such a broadcaster, critics argue, would serve as a more accountable and equitable medium for delivering national educational content.

Conclusion

The government’s decision to support Perlina TV, despite the project’s commercial nature and political connections, underscores ongoing issues with transparency, governance, and public trust.

While the Education Ministry may argue that the initiative helps promote digital access for students, the opaque funding process and the company’s longstanding political ties create an appearance of partiality and undermine confidence in public procurement standards.

Unless clearer guidelines are adopted and enforced for the distribution of educational funds — particularly in cases involving private, politically connected entities — similar controversies are likely to persist.

Public accountability, competitive neutrality, and educational quality should be the primary considerations when allocating taxpayer resources in this sensitive sector.

FAQs

What is Perlina TV?
Perlina TV is a privately developed mobile application offering educational content for children and families. It operates on a subscription model.

Who owns Perlina TV?
The app is developed by Sharp Shoot Media, a Maltese production company co-founded by Justin Farrugia.

Why is the app controversial?
The controversy stems from the €50,000 in public funding granted to the app without a public procurement process, and its links to politically connected individuals.

What is Sharp Shoot Media’s connection to the Labour Party?
Sharp Shoot Media was founded shortly after the Labour Party returned to power and has received various public contracts and support from government-linked agencies.

Was there a public tender for the €50,000 grant?
No. The funds were allocated through a direct order by the Education Ministry, raising concerns over transparency and fair competition.

What happened to Education 22?
Education 22 was Malta’s educational TV channel. It was dismantled over time and not replaced by a public alternative, creating a vacuum in free educational broadcasting.

How much does Perlina TV cost for subscribers?
Before the government-funded distribution, the app charged approximately €40 per year per user.

Has Perlina TV been reviewed for educational quality?
There is no publicly available information indicating that Perlina TV underwent an independent educational content review or curriculum alignment process.

Why is the government supporting a private app?
The government claims it is promoting digital accessibility. Critics argue it amounts to subsidising a private commercial venture with taxpayer money.

What are the concerns about political favoritism?
Because the app’s creators have close ties to former and current Labour Party officials, questions have been raised about whether the funding reflects political favoritism over educational merit.