The phrase "on social grounds" is perhaps the most convenient term in political jargon. The worst sins can be shrouded under the embroidered veil of social expediency. A more modern version has also cropped up. Solidarity is the new magic word.

When the Prime Minister tried to justify the extension to the development zones on social grounds, I simply laughed. Many others would smile. The beneficiaries of this new social thinking were rubbing their hands in glee, as at least they will also be entitled to a brand new social service. They know that they do not have to pass a means test or to disclose their financial plight to some inquisitive public official, baring their most secret problems and, possibly, confirming them on oath. They, too, were social cases.

There is also the case of a politician who falls into the category of a social problem. The same goes for someone who built a villa of extraordinary proportions and was stopped from completing it as it was in the green belt. What do you expect? That having invested money in the building, so that his financial situation has worsened, and he is now homeless, he should not be socially assisted? Otherwise, he has to apply to the Housing Authority or the Department of Social Housing, fill in forms, produce certificates, authenticate signatures, make copies of income tax returns and wait until his application is assessed.

Now think of what happens if the Department of Social Housing, faced with that human case, decides to give him a roof over his head. That would mean that there is one less for allocation to another social case. In this way, speaking on social grounds, the problem of the homeless has been halved.

Was not the Prime Minister trying to emulate Bob Geldof? Was he not singing for the homeless?

Another social case

A landowner who had bought some arable land which was intended to remain so, and consequently had paid for it an infinitesimal fraction of what it would have fetched on the market had it been within the development scheme, has been for decades petitioning one minister after another to draw a new line in the scheme. A minister with a social conscience finally did. Why should such a person suffer mental anguish for so long?

Former Labour and Nationalist ministers had refused to do so, but they were not really considering the social impact and social damage caused. The mental health of an individual is the concern of the state. Therapy is of no avail, but the touch of a magic pen is.

I am illustrating with certain concrete examples, and reflecting on them, as these cases do convince one that there is a logic of social thinking, which is new, relevant, pertinent and effective. I am almost tempted to say that these are examples of solidarity. What is more pious than showing solidarity in such cases? The landowner will be selling the plots whose value will increase by not less than 500 per cent.

Now comes the next step of social thinking. Having received so much for so little, his spirit of solidarity would explode upwards, and he must show gratitude somewhere. That is the new theory of solidarity. Give to the rich so that they have more to give. The question then remains: to whom?

Another environment

This social thinking of the Prime Minister does not only affect the natural environment. That is a problem. The extensions are going to reduce our open spaces, which are already limited. There is a more fundamental problem which concerns our way of thinking. No doubt, we have an inherited trace in our DNA that being wily and crafty pays in the end. The Gozitans have a very graphic and concise three-word saying to express this thought, but it is difficult to translate, and in Maltese it is not printable. It rhymes with mexa (went forward).

Past experience does not seem to have taught a good lesson. When there is a change of schemes, the beneficiary makes a windfall profit, coming from the pen of a minister. To say that Parliament approves only means that there is a rubber-stamp coming from the majority on the minister's side.

If the changes were in areas of government-owned land, then the problem would be somewhat different, when questions of the natural environment would be the only issue. If the new developable land were to be used for social housing, then one would start to argue on social lines.

When the problem is that the crafty and those who know how to pull strings succeed, then there is another bad example. Society (from which the word 'social' derives) is the loser. The profits go solely to the beneficiary of the largesse of a minister or a whole Cabinet.

And coming to think of it, the Prime Minister was right. Who has ever received a social service of such dimensions?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.