I refer to the letter by Dr David Zammit and the University Chaplaincy Media Team (The Sunday Times, August 29), in particular to the first two paragraphs.
First, I consider as most unfair placing together, in one letter, remarks about the Prime Minister's statement on Government's policy on golf courses in Malta and comments regarding a controversy that exists between a local developer and the University Chaplaincy.
Dr Zammit put together the issues that the Prime Minister was seeking to separate, namely that it is not Government that decides whether a site is suitable or not for a golf course but the technical experts entrusted with this task, namely MEPA.
The claim that the Prime Minister spoke in "abstract" and "oracular" terms is beyond my understanding, considering the clear demarcation that he drew between Government's policy on the need for more golf courses in Malta and the adjudication of a particular application.
Moreover by stating that it is up to the experts to decide the sites that are most suitable for such development, the Prime Minister affirmed that not all places (including Mount Sceberras!) are necessarily suitable.
Dr Zammit and the University Chaplaincy Media Team have made their position clear on a particular application. That is their right and I am sure that they have arrived at their position in good faith. This position does not, however, give them the right to judge the two statements of policy by the Prime Minister as serving somebody's interest.
The first statement by the Prime Minister was that Malta needs more golf courses. On this statement Dr Zammit does not take a position. Not all will agree with the Prime Minister's statement, and thank God we live in a country where those who agree or disagree with the Prime Minister can openly say so without fear or favour.
The second statement by the Prime Minister was that the decision on which sites should be considered as most suitable for this development should be taken by MEPA through the established planning process (involving existing planning policies, popular consultation, technical analysis, etc.). I am sure that Dr Zammit and the Chaplaincy Media team agree with this position.
If the Prime Minister's recent comments raised any concerns for the University Chaplaincy Media Team, an open and frank discussion would have cleared these concerns. The Office of the Prime Minister is always available for such healthy discussions.
I hope that this experience helps us all learn to better engage in meaningful discussions.