I was encouraged by the public reaction to my article last week on high-rise towers (‘Barbarians at the gate’) from Maltese people utterly dismayed by the greed displayed by construction developers and their architects, who give not a damn about the effects of their buildings on people’s quality of life and Malta’s landscape heritage. While they line their pockets, they inflict devastation on the environment.

People feel that the system is corrupt and that the hand of government, in whom trust has been severely eroded, lies behind these decisions. In two years’ time, the government will undoubtedly pay the penalty at the polls.

There is an urgent need for action now. If we cannot depend on our elected representatives and institutions to defend the common good, then we have to make our voices heard and our actions felt. It was in this spirit that I wrote:

“The environmental NGOs and civil society must be prepared to wage their campaigns in a different direction. To conduct concerted ‘guerrilla warfare’ by different means. For example, why should members of the public not be urged to boycott the business outlets of the Gasan and Tumas groups? Why should architects Martin Xuereb and Ray Demicoli… not be banned from entering the prestigious Din l-Art Ħelwa Award for Architecture?”

My plea was for environmental NGOs and civil society to exercise daring positive action immediately. It is no good behaving in our usual resigned, timid, shrug-of-the-shoulders, Maltese way. When it is a choice between two courses, one cautious and one bold and daring, to gain success civil society must look to their environmental NGOs to take the bold and daring course and to be prepared to support them whole-heartedly. If we wait for things to happen, they will happen alright, but they won’t be to our liking.

The most effective boycott of the developers of these high-rise towers will be to stop the purchase of any bonds

One NGO commented that what I wrote was “poignant and evocative of the feelings many Maltese felt”. If so, my article has failed. What I wrote was an attempt to articulate the raw anger of thousands of citizens against successive governments, aided and abetted by a spineless and passive civil society which had failed the country – among whom NGOs that have not spoken up forcefully enough and couldn’t muster the courage to take the difficult decisions.

The public imposition of a boycott on the Gasan and Tumas groups is a way forward. The term ‘boycott’ comes from the name of the Irish land agent, C.C. Boycott, who declined to reduce rents in 1880 after a bad harvest in Ireland. When he refused, the tenants started a campaign for tenants’ rights, fair rents and security of tenure. Part of the successful campaign that led to the 1881 Land Act included the use of the boycott against anyone taking on a farm from which the tenant had been evicted.

Earlier successful, historically heroic boycotts included the one in 1769 against Britain by the Philadelphia merchants opposing colonial taxation without representation. Another early example was the boycott in England in 1791 of sugar produced by slaves after the British Parliament refused to abolish slavery. Sales of sugar fell significantly and slavery was abolished in 1807. The bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama by the American civil rights movement between 1955 and 1968 lit the spark against racial segregation in the United States.

Boycotts have a long and uplifting history. They have contributed to progressive social change, saved the environment (for example, the boycott of Esso products in 2001/2 by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth for its lack of investment in renewable energy) and helped to bring down totalitarian regimes (for example, the Burma campaign UK’s boycott in 2006 of the Burmese military regime by ending the promotion of tourism to Burma by Austrian Airlines, Eastravel, Aon Corporation and FromersGuides).

How might a boycott in the case of Gasan and Tumas Fenech work in practice? The developers behind the towers at Tignè and Mrieħel understand only one language. They must be hit in the pocket.

The most effective boycott of the developers of these high-rise towers will be to stop the purchase of any bonds, which they will certainly be obliged to issue in order to finance these projects. As one former governor of the Central Bank of Malta has highlighted, “the developers of these new towers also form part of the consortium that was awarded the bid for the power station”. The consortium was unable to raise sufficient funds privately without the intervention of the government guaranteeing €360 million for that project.

The paramount step in a civil boycott plan, therefore, is for individual and institutional investors to boycott the purchase of bonds in the project. This must be coupled with a campaign to ensure that HSBC and Bank of Valletta (APS Bank already seems ready to withdraw) realise – if any persuasion were needed – that the Maltese banks’ already high real estate exposure, rendering them vulnerable to any future stress tests by the European Central Bank, makes these projects extremely insecure.

Secondly, those who, like me, are repulsed by the environmental effect of these projects on Malta’s well-being should know the range of business outlets owned by the Gasan and Tumas groups and make up their own minds whether they wish to continue to give them custom or to boycott them. Everybody should make his own judgement.

To those who worry about the possible impact on the workforce, or on the architects undertaking these commissions, my reply is: would those who argue thus also contend that enforcement action should not be taken against construction magnate Charles Polidano for illegalities committed at Ħal-Farruġ for fear he might retaliate by laying off his workforce?

Ultimate responsibility for this project, and, therefore, the well-being of the workforce, rests with Gasan and Tumas Fenech. It is they who, through their decisions, are responsible for the consequences of their actions. This includes any possible impact on their profits and workforce. It is they, not we, who need to weigh that factor in making their decision to proceed with these unacceptable projects.

Here, for my readers’ consideration, is a target list of business outlets owned by these mega-companies to boycott. Do not purchase new Ford, Volvo, Chevrolet, Mazda, Honda or Isuzu cars. There are plenty of alternatives. Do not purchase Yamaha or Honda motorcycles or marine engines. Do not purchase Panasonic or Samsung air conditioners, GE fire alarms and security systems or Kone lifts and escalators. Do not insure your car or house with Gasan insurance.

Boycott the Oracle Casino, the Oracle Play Lounge, the Casino at Portomaso and the Twenty-two Wine Lounge. Ensure your friends and visitors to Malta are advised not to go there either. Advise friends or visitors not to stay at the Hilton Hotel or the Dolmen Hotel. Do not use the Hilton Conference Centre or the Oracle Conference Centre. In all these cases, there are equally good alternatives.

Against irresponsible politicians, we have the weapon of public opinion and withholding our vote. Against greedy speculators, we have the power of denying them financial patronage in their business ventures.

To boycott these companies’ goods and services and to endeavour to save our landscape is surely the way ahead.

Here and now we can make a difference.