Who's fit for the job?

The title of last Wednesday's Talking Point Not Fit For The Job is indeed on everyone's mind these days. But it is not being applied to Carmel Cacopardo.

I have known Mr Cacopardo for many years. My impression of him is that of an upright, thorough and incorruptible man, the kind of person to trust in public authorities meant to safeguard the common good.

On conflicts of interest, dubious decisions and all that, we all have our little tales to tell our children and it is certainly suicidal for someone who in the past found oneself rolled up in controversy to rake it all up. It may not turn out to be a pleasant stroll down Madliena Valley in pristine times.

An extensive debate has been going on regarding Mepa and its audit office. I find this healthy for democracy if some good can come out of it by way of proposals to make our country's institutions work better.

I dare say that some positive proposals were forthcoming but they tended to be intermittent and often fogged up by unnecessary and clumsy interventions such as last Wednesday's Talking Point. I do not think that anyone in authority renders a good service to the country or his cause by reacting violently, unfairly and intolerably as was done in that piece.

But, then, I feel that that is what most people on all sides have been doing most of the time.

In the environmental sphere, the government has and continues to face very serious challenges. On many fronts it has made progress, but that is grossly and unfairly undervalued by its critics. On some others the people are concerned that their welfare may be irreparably compromised. And here the authorities have the duty to stop and listen, to refrain from barking.

One big question troubling many minds is this: Are the institutions robust enough to stand up to big business and safeguard the common good? In such a situation, individuals like Mr Cacopardo and others who have both the determination and the expertise should be welcomed with joy and not kept a bargepole away from the mysterious nexus of decision-making that raises concern.

It is also a mystery to me why some find it so easy to fall in the trap of confronting confrontation with more confrontation. Who is advising the government on its downhill trot to disaster?

The more I try to understand the situation and find a reply to this (perhaps) intriguing question, the more I strengthen my conviction that the writer of Wednesday's Talking Point should be ignored.