I hope yesterday's environment protest walk in Valletta was successful. Some of the noise being made before the event was strident, some of it measured and some of it again, hysterical, the voices of those who believe the point being made is beyond controversy and those who would indulge in disputation, primitive Philistines.
The hysterical types can be ignored, safely, one hopes. We were asked to stand up and be counted, which for all the implications in the imperative that this would be a brave thing to do, is easy. And warned that bad things only happen when good people stand idly and silently by. Aux barricades!
The more cultured among the protesters recall Prince Harry (no, not the one who wore an Nazi armband) and I understand they are only this far from claiming as theirs his battlecry at Agincourt - with minor changes to suit the local battleground: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more/Or close these zones up with our Maltese dead.
It is a bit fanciful, I grant you. I cannot see anybody laying down his life for 0.5per cent of Malta's land area to remain undeveloped. I lifted this figure from a contribution by Dr Ranier Fsadni's to last Sunday's Il-Mument. However, he warned that the calculations used to arrive at that figure have not been officially confirmed. Astrid Vella insists that 2.4 per cent of Malta's land area is involved (this figure was given by Minister George Pullicino as representing the growth in the built-up area), or nearly five times Dr Fsadni's unconfirmed estimate.
Martin Galea, executive president of Din l-Art Helwa, writing in The Times yesterday, described the development zones as "destructive and unacceptable", a bit more than a mite over the top, but his comment that "countless illegal developments have had no enforcement action taken against them, and, indeed, some of these will be sanctioned with the extension of the development zone", demands a reaction from the minister.
From what I understand, the development in question will not take place in pristine, virgin-green areas but is, rather, a mopping up of land that is either peripheral to the zones drawn up in the Structure Plan, or vacant space within built-up areas. What we should all be looking out for is that this 'tidying' process does not end up making land 'connections' within the zone look like nothing on earth (we already have enough like-nothing-on-earth buildings) or open itself to, or make an excuse for, ribbon development in the future.
It is right and proper that more voices are heard, that more concern is voiced over the business of the environment for the environment is, in a very special sense, good for business; not property business, either, though that, too and some insist only that. It is good for us to live in a more dust-free country (this is good for business as well as health). Nice to live on a more wooded island so let there be many more thousands of 3s4U (this is good for business and for our senses).
It is proper that our heritage is more protected (this is good for business, niche tourism, and for keeping our race memory alive). Increasingly vital that our village cores are declared to be heritage sites (this is excellent for our children and our children's offspring, who will be able to repair to well-conserved, built-up spaces and see what all of Malta could have been like had we bothered more with retaining balconies and shuttered windows for our façades, whatever the height of the building).
Important that our beaches and sea, never mind our roads when water becomes less expensive are scrubbed clean every day (this, too, is good for business. Our main tourist attraction depends on this cleanliness). It is vital that our air is far less polluted than it continues to be and that buses, trucks and private cars cease to give a more than passing impression that they run on coal (this is good for our health and, therefore, good for business).
It is imperative that our planners are more aware of the streetscape where a house is demolished so that it is not replaced with a block of apartments out of sync with the street; here the horse has all but bolted. So I hope yesterday's protest was a success.
Beware
Once described by an English traveller as "a sensible little old man of ninety", Grand Master Emanuel Pinto de Fonseca stayed in the job for 32 years, the second longest-'reigning' Grand Master of the Order of St John since the first, Raymond Du Puis, elected in 1118. He ruled for 42 years (40 if Vertot is correct in saying that Du Puis took up his job in 1120). Either way, a venerable achievement exceeded in our times by King Bhumipol of Thailand, who has just celebrated his diamond jubilee.
Pinto was quite a lad. He thought big, big enough to make a bid for the island of Corsica and the royal title that would come his way. The French had other ideas, but, we are informed by Sire, author of The Knights of Malta, that as a sop to his vanity, "in matters of pomp and precedence, however, the sovereigns of Europe seemed only too willing to oblige him".
He must have been a remarkable man, seemingly unperturbed by the rate of expenditure he embarked upon and the debt of two million scudi he left behind for his successors to deal with. Plus ça change... But he left us the hauntingly handsome Auberge de Castille, founded the University of Malta and built magnificent warehouses (compare them with today's versions), now our Valletta Waterfront. He would have been well pleased with VISET and Government over the restoration works that make the place a joy to visit. But beware, VISET.
A potential Nemesis stalks the Waterfront and it does so brazenly under the guise of noise and music. Some time last week, friends of mine attended the place on my recommendation. I told them the aesthetic surroundings were something to beg for, the food at a restaurant good value and pleasing to the palate. They agreed on both counts when I next met up with them. They were, however, dismayed by the din inside the restaurant where, on top of our natural inclination to speak well above a whisper, the owners thought the place should rock to the sound of loud music in an already noisy atmosphere.
Has VISET not set any conditions on how the internal and external ambience was to be respected? It would be a terrible pity and a gross mistake if the place descended from the height of aesthetic excellence to become another Paceville. Dear God and VISET, promise that this will not happen. Not only for our sake but also for that of those for whom the Waterfront provides our cruise line passengers with their first view of Malta and the Maltese.
Ah, that metatarsal
A bone that is normally of no significance in polite or even impolite society became the talk of the world since Wayne Rooney broke the damned thing a few weeks ago. His metatarsal achieved orthopaedic pre-eminence throughout Planet Earth. In every pub, nook and cranny, Rooney's metatarsal has been the point of arrival and departure for every conversation in which England's chance of winning the World Cup crops up, which is like a thousand times a day in Malta alone.
England's hopes of making it to the final without the man and the healed metatarsal on board are slim, or so received wisdom and the British Press (by no means the same thing) would have it.
Forty years ago I watched England beat Germany at Wembley. The team passed into history. Not one member of today's XI was even a twinkle in his parents' eyes. Now here they are, stars twinkling in Britain's political desert, proof positive that out of so much that is wrong with England something good must come. Voilà!
But what a tyranny the whole thing is. Night and day, Rooney's the one. Day in, day out, we have been willing or unwilling prisoners to a media in full World Cup hype. Pictures of Rooney standing, Rooney sitting, Rooney picking his nose when he wasn't weaving around. Rooney this and Rooney that so that his metatarsal was coming out of our ears, in an uncomfortable manner of speaking. And endless talk of scans. Rooney flying out of Germany, flying back, declared fit to play. Sven-Goran Erikson oozing a quiet, Swedish confidence, the strains of last year behind him, his contract still in the bag but, enigmatically, at a news conference he was suggesting that after this jamboree is over all avenues are open.
And Beckham waving the flag of St George or whatever from the cockpit of the aircraft taking the England XI to heaven, or to hell. Sky News tells viewers in breathless tones that they are lodged in the finest hotel in Baden-Baden, an unforgettable oasis of genteel living where I once won the cost of an entire holiday at the roulette table. Will Beckham find Calvin Klein underpants? It is reported that he purchases 30 pairs of the brand every fortnight, which rather suggests that he is either unbelievably dirty or obsessively clean, a Howard Hughes in the making. And does our man miss lining up his Pepsi bottles in even numbers in his fridge and, if Alice Thompson is to be believed, wearing a skirt (indoors, I presume)?
On and on, marching to victory - or defeat, the idea of the latter not to be countenanced but, similarly, not to be discarded either. Those who follow the game claim that this is the best X1 England has fielded since 1966, or was it 1976? It will, they claim, cover itself with glory and England will bask in the radiance of success as it did a few years ago, when its cricket team recovered the Ashes. But what if, the fainthearted is heard to cry? There is no what if the stout-hearted answer. TINA to victory, which is why, I have heard tell, players in the England side have been supplied with a cyanide pill on which they must bite, as Hitler's dog and the mad Goebbels's children were made to do 61 years ago, if they fail.
Roll on the end of June.
Resign? Why?
You either like Dr Austin Gatt's modus operandi or you hate it. The Opposition hates it and has placed a motion before the House calling for his resignation. In its eyes Dr Gatt committed the cardinal error of predicting that a resolution to allow the formal transfer of Maltacom to its new owners would pass through Parliament. This was seized upon and considered to be a threat to democracy. A trifle dismissive possibly, but a threat to democracy? As Dr Sant likes to say: come on.
The motion is more a waste of Parliament's time, which is a far more serious problem in the context of the legislative reforms government is determined to push through, or discuss, before the House rises for its summer break. I understand that the Opposition is hoping that unrestricted time will be allowed for each member of the House to speak. How many different ways are there to say the same thing? Spare us, please.
'T were better by far if parliamentarians showed respect for the House by making sure that a quorum exists throughout the time the House is sitting. If parliamentary democracy means anything, abstention from debate and discussion it cannot be.
Protect
The assault on cardiac surgeon Alex Manchè at St Luke's Hospital last Friday was not the first time violence has been offered to health professionals. Unless those responsible are given a lesson by the courts they will not quickly forget, it will not be the last. Mr Manchè's attackers took exception to the fact that he pointed out to somebody smoking in the hospital that this was not allowed. A group of people took violent exception to this remark.
The hospital director, the hospital superintendent, the Medical Association (MAM) and the Health Division condemned the grave incident. We were told that the latter follows a policy of zero tolerance on violence (as well it should) and MAM considered violence unacceptable (as well it should). At the end of the day what matters is what happens next. Leniency should be a no-no. Zero tolerance should be zero tolerance. Unacceptable should mean unacceptable. Doctors, nurses and the public should demand action. The police should provide it. The courts should be empowered to sentence harshly. Otherwise zero is not zero and the unacceptable will become acceptable.
Quote...
"The Prime Minister did say - in response to a remark by one of the directors that the shareholders' liability was limited - that it was the duty of shareholders, now that their share had become worthless, not to take advantage of their limited liability as shareholders, and stand by the wayside thus risking the depositors' money. But that certainly was no threat, and no changes in the rules of limited liability was ever expressed, or, so far as I am aware, even contemplated. Mintoff was simply telling the directors how to approach the shareholders if they pleaded liability, and the arguments they could use to persuade them to sign away their rights." (The emphasis is mine because the words highlight the fact that did have rights, after all. Interestingly, against the word threat there is a footnote indicator: "It was not," the author tells his readers, "even a warning; at worst it was a recommendation"). - Malta in the Making 1962-1987 An Eyewitness Account; by Edgar Mizzi (Attorney General 1971-1981).