As soon as Leo Brincat’s nomination to the Court of Auditors became known last May, the news portal Euractiv carried an article noting that Brincat “helped a cabinet minister exposed in the Panama Papers to escape a no-confidence motion”.

This has been the story all along, and last week’s negative vote in the European Parliament comes as no real surprise. Much more mystifying was the Prime Minister’s decision to nominate Brincat in the first place.

Brincat’s rejection is a blow for Joseph Muscat’s government. Even if he somehow manages to sway the Council of Ministers to go against the European Parliament’s consultative vote, Muscat will have to use up some leverage and bargaining chips for other more important matters.

Some European politicians stated that they could not, in their “wildest dreams, accept Mr Brincat as a member of the European Court of Auditors, out of all institutions”.

This view was reflected, more or less, in the vote of numerous MEPs across the political spectrum.

The bottom line is that Muscat has repeatedly misjudged people’s strong negative reactions to the Panama Papers

Surely it is hardly worth all this trouble just to have Brincat at the Court of Auditors. He has been nothing if not loyal, always toeing the party line. But he could have just stayed on as environment minister, without creating all this controversy for Muscat.

Why did Muscat decide to nominate him in the first place? He was clearly forewarned that Brincat would face disapproval due to his backing of Konrad Mizzi, the only EU government minister implicated in the Panama Papers scandal. No government seeks this kind of scandal, which is negative whichever way you look at it. He could have chosen a less controversial candidate.

The bottom line is that Muscat has repeatedly misjudged people’s strong negative reactions to the Panama Papers. This was already evident in his refusal to remove Mizzi from his Cabinet of Ministers, and in his decision to retain Keith Schembri at the heart of Castille. If he hoped that this scandal was resolved with a superficial reshuffle, he was very mistaken.

Muscat’s apparent inability or unwillingness to comprehend the severe implications of the Panama Papers scandal, with its lasting reputational damage both to the current government and to Malta as a whole, is hard to understand. If anything is not in the national interest, it is this.

■ Oddly enough, every time we have a new environment minister, tree-planting initiatives are back on the agenda. When Brincat became minister in 2013, one of the first things he did was to appoint a committee to review the state of our trees. Apart from a couple of resignations some time later, nothing further was heard.

José Herrera has now also announced his own plans for tree-planting and the proposed improvement of legislation on trees. That is very good, and I am sure that everyone will be pleased with this positive news.

Most government tree-planting initiatives, over the years, have focused on areas outside our towns and villages. In most urban areas, however, we just have bare walls, concrete, paving and tarmac, with hardly any greenery at all. This is a peculiarly Maltese trait, as in some other Mediterranean towns and cities it is common to see roof gardens and balconies bursting with plants.

Trees make a huge difference to the look of a place. If you look around our streets, there are plenty of corners with wider pavements which could take a tree or two. Maltese rooftops have ample space for plants, including small trees in pots, yet they are mainly bare. Most balconies are empty with not a leaf in sight.

It is simply not in our culture to bother about urban greenery. Some people actually dislike trees near their houses because they drop leaves or berries. According to them, they make the place look untidy and dirty, and block the view.

It is a shame that gardens in our village cores and other urban areas are shrinking. Houses with gardens are continually being knocked down and replaced by flats with small, paved back yards. Compensatory tree-planting generally takes place outside the urban centres.

It is of course important to have legal powers to counteract any unnecessary uprooting or damage to trees. Yet excessive tightening of legislation to protect trees can also lead to absurd situations in which a couple of trees get in the way of major initiatives. It has happened in the past and this type of controversy does not do trees any favours. If anything it can discourage people from planting certain types of trees on their properties to avoid legal issues further down the line.

It is about time that more attention was paid to trees in urban areas. Essentially, the lack of greenery in our towns and villages is not primarily caused by a lack of government control or enforcement. It is a cultural issue, a mentality.

People should not need a policeman breathing down their necks to force them to water or plant a tree, let alone to retain an existing one. If the most effective way to get people to protect trees is through the extreme measure of legal sanctions, it just shows how little they care about them.

petracdingli@gmail.com

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.