If the hamster is dead

I write with regard, and concern, Mario de Marco's rebuttal of Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca's comments in her article Action Not Words.

Notwithstanding any politically-influenced input into the policies and decision-making agendas of the Malta Tourism Authority, we should really all be singing from the same hymn-sheet in matters relating the golden goose, aka tourism, as, undoubtedly, we are all aware of the ultimate and disastrous outcome of that particular fable!

I wish to take issue with Dr de Marco regarding his utilisation of the phrase "very selective" in relation to Ms Coleiro-Preca's extracts from a tourism report as I venture to suggest that people in glasshouses should not throw stones! For it is the entity which he oversees, the MTA, that operates a highly-selective policy in obtusely and irresponsibly failing to give due credence or consideration to such crucial aspects of environmental or social impact assessments before supporting, or failing to adequately challenge, any planning application developments, whatever their size or scope.

Furthermore, the MTA's chairman's sworn affidavit in a court of law declaring this folly of a policy, through lack of cognizance regarding such vital consciousness as being out of the realm of the MTA was, to put it frankly, not only adopting and cultivating an inane, inept policy but it amply demonstrated an active inertia stance. However, more insidiously, it establishes a major flaw in the MTA by failing to recognise EU directives concerning such planning application developments in place at the time.

Undoubtedly, the parliamentary secretary will cite non-involvement with the MTA at the time of the debacle known as Mistra (It would be interesting to learn who exactly was?) and their subsequent high-handed attitude and that forthcoming changes to that entity's policies in regard to such primary objectives as assessments (both affecting environmental and social impacts) being a pre-requisite before granting tacit approval to any development application is to be commended. However, under EU directives these requirements were already in situ at the time of the MTA's stance on the Mistra fiasco and the fact that the chairman or the politician at the time appeared unaware of or unwilling to accept such pivotal guidelines, along with the more obvious connotations relating to big business influences - and even bigger political connections - warrants critical examination.

All of this is compounded when common-sense is applied to the absolutely outrageous and inexplicable stance advocated by the MTA with regard to the Mistra development application and sworn upon by the chairman, together with the subsequent failure to admonish or castigate the MTA, in any form whatsoever, by any parliamentary secretary-or, perhaps, the minister responsible-for this ridiculous stance and policy formulation.

It would appear that common-sense is actually a misnomer as it's not very common at all but-more akin to cronyism.

In conclusion, while we should be indebted to the MTA for, in the near future, advocating a more accountable and less reckless policy regarding planning application support or lack of objection to such due to perceived indifference or control over and the ultimate negative effect this would have on any tourism considerations, we should also attempt to eradicate the alive and flourishing "good old boy" network amply demonstrated in the Mistra case and remember precisely who our governmental entities are in place to protect for it would appear that the wheel is still turning... but the hamster is dead!