The reappointment of Andrew Calleja as chairman of the MEPA Board is very bad news indeed for the Maltese environment. It means that MEPA’s heavy, not to say absolute, pro-development/speculation bias will be perpetrated, of not intensified, and what is left of our natural/historical heritage will be constantly under threat.
Even more worrying is the fact that the president of a leading pro-environment NGO has accepted a place on the MEPA board. What could have possessed them to fall for the oldest trick in the book?
It is true that this appointment will introduce a dissenting, pro-environment voice on the MEPA board, but it will be just one amongst about 15: all handpicked government appointees. So the positive, real effect of this appointment will be negligible at best.
MEPA (for MEPA read the government), on the other hand, will be able to deflect or attempt to deflect any criticism of anti-environment decisions by loudly pointing out that a member of a prominent NGO participated in the discussion and even voted on it. I expect the MEPA PRO is already rubbing her hands with glee at the prospect.
To add insult to injury, the doctrine of confidentiality and collective responsibility will mean that the NGO representative will not be able to criticise, in public, any Board decision he disagrees with, but will be expected to assume responsibility for it – and another powerful pro-environment voice will have been effectively silenced. Nor will the NGO itself be in any position to criticise such decisions in any effective manner, knowing its own president is collectively responsible for them.
It was reported that other environmental NGOs “applauded” and “welcomed” this appointment. Apparently, they have never heard of the saying that goes, “there are more ways to kill a cat than by choking it with cream.”

Victor Laiviera
Naxxar

Your editorial ‘The Winter of our Shame’, on the accommodation of illegal immigrants (October 28), shows your magician’s power with words. You succeed in making some hard facts disappear from view, while others you magnify at will to obtain the desired effect. May I try to prove my point?
Your very well-written piece does not use the word “refugees” even once. When boat people started coming, we were repeatedly told they were refugees fleeing from war-torn countries. Some of these countries are thousands of times Malta’s size; there may be war in one region and peace in another hundreds of miles away. We all realise now that most of the arrivals are not refugees at all. Most of them apply for that status, hoping for the best, but only few of them qualify. In your editorial you dress up this fact by calling them irregular immigrants, migrants and asylum seekers.
Again, your editorial fails to use the word “Jesuits”. It was they who in various formations (Jesuit Refugee Service, Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice) have been most vocal in trying to persuade the Maltese people to welcome the boat people and the government to give them ever better conditions. The Jesuits have recently trumpeted their success in getting a financial award from UNHCR, thanks to one of their lawyers. They have many buildings where they could house illegal immigrants, the biggest and most visible being Mount St Joseph, outside Mosta; but they prefer to use them for paid retreats for the island’s elite.
Your editorial tries to persuade us that Malta should equip itself to accept illegal immigrants as a permanent feature. You call them “members of our society”, though we all know they did not want to come to Malta and will grab the first opportunity to take a boat to Sicily. You call for permanent structures to deal with what most of us hope is a temporary situation until Frontex patrols become effective. You pour scorn on Malta’s “migration policy, if there ever was one” without stopping to think whether a densely populated island needs immigration.
On the other hand, I give you full marks for some very well-chosen words and phrases: “a veritable ghetto of makeshift tents”, “a national emergency”, “this squalid and desperate situation”, “a domestic humanitarian crisis”, “nothing short of a human tragedy” and “a visible embodiment of the winter of our national shame”. Incidentally, you could have given credit to a certain William Shakespeare who once wrote:
“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York”

Louise Vella
Mosta

Editorial note: The editorial did not use the word “refugee” because it would have been incorrect. A refugee is someone whose application for refugee status has been processed and accepted, which is not necessarily the case with the immigrants housed in tents at Hal Far.

 

After reading the letter “Give us a G, give us an O” (Sunday 28 October), I could not help getting the impression that Mr Joe Martinelli, from London, got himself hopelessly lost in the innumerable streets of that great city, or else has been the victim of a peculiar hallucination.
Or perhaps the fact that he is observing local events from a distance has impaired his natural ability to come to grips with reality.
Either way, Mr Martinelli felt like giving us a lesson, that sounded more like a bad joke, about the PN and its skillful handling of government while at the same time emphasising its scrupulous methods to achieve its targets.
The alleged fake letter-writing scheme in Maltatoday that Mr Martinelli cited in his letter (by the way, this is surely not one of them) is child’s play compared to the substantial tally of perjuries and lies hovering alongside former PN governments like beckoning spectres since pre-war years, and that later became synonymous with the PN from the late 1980s right up to the miserable present.
Vladimir Cini
Marsaxlokk

Reference is made to the article “MLP complains yet again about Bondiplus” (MaltaToday Midweek, Wednesday 9 November)m in particular where Lou Bondì stated that he gave the undersigned “every opportunity to answer the question of costings.”
I would like to correct this obvious misstatement .
It was clear to anyone who viewed the programme that when, at the very end, the presenter showed the table of the alleged costs of Labour proposals, he aborted my attempt to challenge the veracity of the figures he reproduced, and asked Mr Tonio Fenech to conclude.
This is a far cry from Lou Bondì’s claim that I had every opportunity to answer the question of costings. Of course, the presenter had no interest to listen to the obvious objections which any sensible observer would make to his claim that the government sourced figures were reliable, because he had checked them with some economists who remained anonymous.
I again reiterate my assertion that the figures quoted are a political frame-up and amount to no more than scaremongering and speculation to detract from the approval that the Labour Party’s proposal found with the majority of families and workers.
Dr Charles Mangion
Deputy Leader,
Malta Labour Party

I refer to Raphael Vassallo’s piece carried in your issue of Sunday 21 October, in particular to the section of his article directed at my person and the companies I represent. Mr Vassallo chose to fabricate allegations to fit his sense of humour, instead of getting his facts right and I therefore feel constrained to reply to the baseless insinuations and mud-slinging contained therein.
Your readers will note that in the main, Mr Vassallo’s allegation of me having “(broken) the entire road at the end of every major construction marathon” is vague, to say the least. I ask Mr Vassallo to indicate to your readers the various major construction marathons he is specifically referring to, basing his assertions on fact not further fabrication. The fact is that my group never undertook any road construction works. If Mr Vassallo is specifically referring to the state of the road of High Street, Sliema, he needs to be made aware that the trenching works were carried out by a specialised subcontractor. Anyone who visits the stretch of road can see it is full of patches therefore, rather than do what was expected to just tarmac the trench in the road, we brokered with the Government to resurface the entire road, which will in fact be done in due course.
Regarding the Chapel of Our Lady of Graces I will not go into the technical merits of what led to the damage caused by the works carried out, however it is generally accepted that the subcontractor in question (not our company) performed works according to established standards and usages of trade and that the incident was not one which could be foreseen when work commenced. Vassallo however again prefers to ignore the facts and deems it fit to irresponsibly aim accusations and attribute acts of wilful criminal damage to my person and my company. Again I ask Vassallo for the hard facts to substantiate his insinuations. Typically and as a side note, Vassallo is probably not aware that the company I represent contributed the sum of Lm10,000 towards the restoration of this same chapel. If he is aware, it surely does not fit his piece.
He arrogantly calls construction workers, individuals who work in one of the main industries servicing our economy, “illiterate philistines”, and furthermore accuses them of wilfully engaging in activities with the aim of destroying our national heritage. This exposes to all his general disdain for workers in this industry.
I will let your readers draw their own conclusions to this contemptuous approach.

Angelo Xuereb
Naxxar

 

The Kamra tal-Periti would like to make reference to the reports in the ‘Illum’ and MaltaToday of 14 and 17 October respectively, where Judge Dr Galea Debono was quoted as having passed a number of remarks regarding the professional conduct of periti appointed on the Development Control Commissions of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
Reference is also made to Environment Minister George Pullicino’s letter of 24 October in MaltaToday Midweek.
The Kamra tal-Periti does not have a say in the appointment of the individual periti to the Boards of the Development Control Commission of the MEPA. However, the Kamra has always maintained that the presence of periti on these boards is essential to ensure technical competence, just as much as the presence of other persons, skilled and experienced in other areas, is required. More balance in the composition of the Development Control Commission was achieved when the number of periti on the various boards was reduced to the current levels, but it is inevitable that the Minister’s choice often falls on periti in private practice.
The Kamra strongly feels that such appointees are persons of integrity and are professionals whose diligence the Council of the Kamra has had no reason to doubt. It is the opinion of the Kamra that sweeping statements such as those reported to have been made are harmful to the profession and such statements should not be made unless they are justified and substantiated.
The Kamra tal-Periti is delegated the responsibility, through the relevant legislation, of investigating the alleged misconduct of all periti, including those who are not members of the Kamra. In this sense, the Kamra will be adopting its normal procedures with regards to the allegations made by Judge Galea Debono.
I am sure that your readers and particularly those interested in planning matters will be glad to know that the Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment and the Kamra tal-Periti have agreed to collaborate on the setting up of a Code of Conduct for Development Control Commission board members. This will also assist in the introduction of clear procedures to address cases of conflict of interest of the type raised for discussion in your reports.

David Felice
President,
Kamra tal-Periti

 

Having read the comments about the transfer of the Chapel crucifix to Mater Day in which people, quite rightly, questioned why it was such big news in the first place. What everyone seems to have omitted to mention were the workers sitting on the edge of a moving open truck, and to top it all, escorted by police motorcyclists.
I asked myself if the health and safety people condone this practice. I suppose it was OK as the cross would protect them and nothing untoward would happen.
Are we a joke or are we joke, when we are told that European standards now apply?

Anthony Borg
Mellieha

Malta definitely needs a new singer. No, others would instantly retort, it’s not the singer. It’s the song that needs to be changed. Now if you’re thinking I am still harping on Malta’s failure at the Eurovision Song Contest, I’m sorry to disappoint you all. Let’s have another try. Many would agree to the idea that Malta needs a new captain. Many others will challenge this statement arguing that it is not the captain that needs to be changed, but the entire team. Any guesses?
The forthcoming elections have triggered the issue of whether the Leader or the Party and its policies that needs to be in our considerations when casting our vote.
Dr Sant, the Opposition leader is undoubtedly a scholarly and intelligent chap but he fails miserably when it comes to oration and charisma; significant qualities which a leader cannot do, without though he fares better in one-to-one political debates. On the other hand, Dr Lawrence Gonzi, the current Prime Minister is better off both in public speaking and in charisma, especially in mass activities delivering upbeat speeches with a forward looking approach, notwithstanding their being too rhetorically loaded. So is that enough to compel us re-elect the man and his team?
Dr Gonzi made a draconian false strategic move in retaining the same ministers and faces with which we have got used to for decades. Some of them have taken the plunge into politics as a reaction to Dom Mintoff’s style of running the country. That does not make them able politicians at all!
So is it the captain or the team? In soccer terms a good captain with a bad team is as useless as a bad captain with a good team. Leadership skills demand someone who balances off the weaknesses with the virtues of the team, making the necessary changes at the right time. Over and over again, when faced with harsh criticism about a minister’s misdemeanour, Dr Gonzi merely tried to excuse them, if not cover up for their failures. A leader should inspire cohesion which consequently initiates the right amount of thrust to move forward.
Another pertinent question the non-committed electorate will be pondering upon is the experience versus innovation factor. Inexperienced blokes are to be found on both sides of the House: individuals who have been sitting around on the back benches only to be switched on in “hear, hear” chorus-line chants during a televised Parliamentary debate speech.
Should we elect Dr Sant, who in his two-year term in office failed to deal with the irreconcilable Dom Mintoff, falling out with a number of his own MPs in due course? Who still retained on deck the same persons whom he so much criticised when in Opposition (the then Chairman of the Freeport, to name a case in point)? who failed to prove and bring to justice the previous administration’s ministers whose maladministration resulted in money squandering and overspending sprees of public funds?
Should we elect Dr Gonzi, who repeatedly came out with ipso facto controversial ideas like turning the former Royal Opera Building into a Parliament, or Xaghra l-Hamra into a golf course, resulting in a collision course with civil society and environmental NGOs? God knows how many more of these surprises he has in store. Should we elect a Dr Gonzi who disregarded the pleas and the taking to the streets of environmentalist lobby groups for the infamous “rationalisation” process of the Outside Development Zones, when Malta has a surplus of buildings for 20 years to come? Should we elect Dr Gonzi for repeatedly telling us how the country’s finances are safe and sound whilst most middle class people have seen little if any improvement in our purchasing power?
Change is needed. A multi-party representation to replace the duopoly which we have right now would be a great relief to the country. Power-sharing or national-coalition government, technocrats government. All these are new to our ears but not necessarily to disregard. The intelligent vote would try to send a message to the ruling class that we are not to be taken for granted.
After 20 years in power it is an obvious thing to expect a yearn for power shift. The Nationalists should shed some of their arrogance in thinking that they are infallible and irreplaceable. Labour on the other hand, lacks that much needed component of cohesion and this can eventually undermine seriously the tempo and rhythm needed in the running of a country.
The intelligent voter would not hesitate to bring the much needed change in our political scenario. A third party in parliament will surely yield a number of benefits. Alternattiva Demokratika will definitely bring a momentum of change. It has done so in the 18 years since its inception with no parliamentary representation, supporting groups whose lifestyle was being threatened by some useless development, exerting the right amount of pressure on the administrators to retract from controversial decisions which would have caused irreparable harm to our environment.
AD’s parliamentary representation will definitely be distinctive from the others. It will challenge and renounce the parliamentary privilege which some of our members of parliament have often abused. AD will be making full use of its right to move private members bills. On behalf of the people AD’s parliamentary representation will be forwarding the right amounts of Parliamentary questions and will be pivotal to influence and make amendments to texts of government bills. Some argue that coalition or multi-party parliamentary representations weaken the power. It is indeed better to have weak governments and strong people power than the other way round. Every single country in the rest of Europe has got either a coalition or multi-party parliament and this definitely does not undermine the people’s or the individual political strength. Cross voting can bring this change to the country. Granted, some still fear that they are betraying their traditional political party allegiance but converging on the second preference can make a lot of difference. It will be sending a clear message to any of the traditional parties that they should not keep taking us for granted and that we know how to be agents of change.
 
Saviour Sammut
Safi

The petrol station in Sliema, in the heart of a residential area, is an imminent danger and a huge hazard. We have heard so much about these kerbside stations having to be relocated to an area where they cannot cause as much harm, (VOC emissions from fuel stations can cause numerous chronic illnesses – EU Commission Information).
In this particular area (Savoy), three residents are ill with cancer – is this a coincidence? When are we going to act and not just talk (and promise)?
When approached, one Minister concerned assured his audience he was going to make this case a priority – but so far the petrol station is still functioning, in the same location, attracting traffic, noise and moreover adding to the pollution level. One has just to look up Rue D’Argens and there it is in its very “urban-like” orange and blue colours!

Josette Salomone Reynaud
Sliema

 

Could the responsible authorities in charge of adverts of the Euro Changeover transmitted on Local TV stations please correct the misspelt Maltese word: ‘Negliġibbli’ (NOT double ġġ), when referring to the negligible rise in the cost of living (0.5%) accompanying the introduction of the Euro?
How is it possible that no one noticed such a gross mistake? Even seeing it written hurts the eye!

Chev. Herbert Messina Ferrante, Attard

 

Your story headlined “PBS inside information leaked to Bondi” (4 November) is yet another silly puff.
You and Domenic Fenech, the acting head of the PBS Editorial Board, claim that I found out in some sort of underhanded way that the latter had selected a programme to be presented by MaltaToday journalists to replace Bondiplus this TV season. Oh dear, dear. Nothing could be further from the truth.
All I did was put together two publicly available pieces of information. First piece: your own newspaper had admitted earlier this year that its journalists and/or editors had submitted proposals to produce programmes for PBS. Second piece: the Editorial Board had sent an email to all those whose proposals they had turned down. In gross breach of business ethics, the PBS Editorial Board publicised the email addresses of those whose proposals had been turned down. So all the producers got to know which proposals were turned down. Media Today’s proposals were not turned down.

Lou Bondì
Director, Where’s Everybody?

 

When we hear the word “courage” we usually associate it with victims of crime, the death of a loved one or else someone with a terminal illness.
There is another kind of courage, though. The kind of courage that makes a long-standing ardent Nationalist patriot go on TV and declare to all and sundry, precisely on One TV, that the Honourable Lawrence Gonzi is not to be trusted.
It takes a great deal of butterflies flying around in the stomach to openly state that as long as Lawrence Gonzi is Prime Minister, Michael Woods would never vote Nationalist again. I must admit that I don’t usually watch “Vici Versa”. Keen as I am on politics, sometimes I’d rather lose myself in the world of make-believe watching a good thriller than watching some political debate or discussion. Still, I would rather have had both my arms in a sling than missed watching the Prime Minister’s face go green while listening to what Michael Woods had to say.
Mr Woods, an ordinary citizen in spite of his political beliefs, must have taken a sizeable amount of mud-slinging after his ominous declaration, yet there is no doubt that he had considered it well beforehand. It is obvious that Woods knew what he was talking about on “Vici Versa” and it is no use assuming that the latter was simply portraying that he was a Nationalist when in actual fact he was a Labourite. All evidence proves that he was. Let us hope that on election day many Nationalists heed the words he had to say on “Vice Versa”: “The Prime Minister is not to be trusted”.

Valerie Borg
MLP Councillor,
Valletta

 

The recent exchanges in the press about the difficulties being faced by the few remaining dgħajsa operators failed to address a couple of issues.
Foremost amongst these is the quite ludicrous situation that exists whereby MEPA is the authority that decides on the issuing of permits to allow the dgħajsa to be built in GRP (plastic).
I venture to suggest that entrusting MEPA to make such a decision is inherently wrong. “Il-ħobż tieh lil min jaf jieklu”: Din l’Art Helwa, Patrimonju Malti or Heritage Malta would seem to be better prepared to treasure and safeguard the future of this jewel of Malta’s nautical heritage and to decide on the wisdom of allowing it to be replicated in plastic. I shudder to think that MEPA may already have committed this sacrilege!
On a different note, I was shocked to learn that rather than encouraging the building of classic wooden dgħajjes by making available a small grant, the Government has allowed both the Malta Maritime Authority and the Malta Tourism Authority to levy annual charges to allow the dgħajsa owners to operate a service that is frequented and enjoyed by visiting tourists. One wonders whether an annual Police Licence fee also applies. How shortsighted can we be!

John C. Ripard
Madliena

 

Congrats to the editorial board and board of directors of MaltaToday on the acquisition of Mona’s Meals!
I have always greatly appreciated your journalists’ diligent, impartial reportage (quite a rare occurrence!) and look forward to the editor’s weekly rants and raves (he’s a gem!) even if I don’t always concur.
Now you have outdone yourselves.
You now have the best food critic on the island and who, unlike other ‘food critics’ does not award stars to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the restaurant business and to hell with poor John Doe, who has to fork out his hard earned cash for a hopefully decent dining out experience.
Prosit, MaltaToday. We, the funs salute you!

Giselle Scicluna
Xgħajra