OPINION | Sunday, 07 October 2007 Election fever? More like national dementia It’s a strange thing, that in a country so used to “bombi” – fireworks displays, fireworks factories, letter bombs and the archway leading into Floriana, to mention but a few – there remain a few myths that are impossible to explode. One of these revolves around our glorious national excuse for insanity: general electiona. For the past seven weeks or so, we have constantly been bombarded with the message that the country is now in “election mode”. It is fast becoming a mantra among the people whose job it is to tell us what to think, and how to think it. Listen out for any or all of the following turns of phrase: “With an election in the offing”, “an election around the corner”, “the electorate will soon be called upon to decide”, “the campaign has begun in earnest”, “the race is on”, “the end is nigh”, “the die is cast”, “the fat is in the fire”, “the excrement has hit the fan”, and many, many more. Right. Excuse me for daring to question the unquestionable, but: my desktop calendar tells me it is the first week of October 2007… and I’ve never known my desktop calendar to lie. Meanwhile, Electoral Law – though I can’t exactly vouch for its honesty – informs us that the very latest an election can possibly be held is the last week of August 2008. Yes, indeed. “Election mode” is nothing more than a magnificent excuse for all the country’s decision-taking entities to simply stop taking any decisions at all. And rather than stamp our feet and roar in apoplectic fury against the plainly ridiculous state of national somnambulism, we all seem perfectly content to go along with the charade. A couple of examples before proceeding to more important matters. Some of you may have noticed – but then again, maybe not – that the PBS Editorial Board currently lacks a chairman. The most recent in a long line of previous short-lived incumbents – a certain John Camilleri – resigned three weeks ago, citing all the usual reasons we have come to expect from outgoing chairmen in this country (i.e., the unbearable impossibility of actually co-existing with a certain minister whose name is Gatt. Austin Gatt). Theoretically at least, this means that there is no single person responsible for the standards of editorial content of any of the programmes aired on the national station. And yes, I know it doesn’t really make a difference in practice – editorial standards and PBS being two entirely unrelated concepts – but then again: is this normal? Is this desirable? Is this acceptable? Is it even sane? The other day I discussed this very point with a number of people who like to think they know a thing or two about politics. “Yes, but of course they won’t appoint a new chairman right now,” I was instantly informed. Ah yes, how silly of me, I forgot. Very soon, we may (or may not) be asked our opinion on which of two lamentably uninspiring political parties will get to enjoy the next five-year stranglehold over parliament. And this automatically implies that the State broadcaster should do without an official responsible for the editorial content of its programmes. By the same token, outgoing MEPA chairman Andrew Calleja – whose term expires in three weeks’ time – will almost certainly not be replaced before the next election. What, are you mad? Appoint someone responsible for environmental planning, at a time when an election may or may not be held? Can’t you see the contradiction in terms? One final observation, and that’s it: I’m off to the see the wizard. The subject is MEPA (Or was that MYOPIA? Can’t remember now…) but whatever this fine institution is called, it seems to have defied all pre-electoral expectations and – horror of horrors – actually taken a decision. But even as the environmentalists declare victory and pop their champagne bottles in unison, something, somewhere, fills me with a certain disquietude. One: The original 1970s Ulysses Lodge permit was for tea-rooms. Somehow, this metamorphosed into a development permit for 23 villas with swimming pools – 15 of which lay outside the footprint – on a tract of land 34 per cent larger than the original application. And yet, MEPA has all along argued that there was no change to the size of the footprint (using the phrase “disturbed land” to justify the accretion). Two: In this instance, the portion of land which did not belong to the developer – basically, a public lane – only occupies a tiny percentage of the total footprint. In practice, had the developer applied to build 21 villas instead of 23 (thus eliminating the only two villas earmarked for government-owned land), MEPA would not have had any valid reason to revoke the permit… unless you count the argument, raised by myself among many others, that the permit in question should never have been granted in the first place. All this argument assumes a certain relevance in the light of the following facts: So: having circumvented, sidestepped, avoided and ignored at least half a dozen of its own principles and guidelines to order to liberally dish out a permit that should never have been granted, MEPA suddenly finds objection to a single little detail… which by the way doesn’t even fall within its remit… and uses it as an excuse to revoke the permit less than four months later. Any comments? If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click here |
07 October 2007 Forget low cost, go microlight! Lowell lists 50 ‘traitors’ marked for Van Helsing-style execution Labour consultant drafted PN management plan Two fans charged with fracas at football match Setting the example on energy saving Election overshadows MEPA’s dramatic Ramla u-turn AFM finally switch on voice recording system New Hypogeum monitoring project launched Creationism: alive, well and approved by Malta’s educational authorities |