Minister Ian Borg is really concerned about Gozo and the proposed Malta-Gozo tunnel project. So much so that he roped in the Minister for Gozo, as after all it mainly concerns Gozo though I have not read anywhere any comments regarding this tunnel project from the Gozo Ministry.

The unorthodox procedure how Borg is planning to elbow this project in Parliament really exceeds all democratic principles. Suddenly he is changing tactics and it seems that he is not adopting the ‘might is right’ attitude as is going on at Tal-Balal and other road-widening pro-jects where with the hollow excuse of urgency he is encroaching vast strips of  fertile agricultural  land.

This is to address Transport Malta plans to widen the roads with the utopian ideology that traffic flow will improve – yes, I agree – but leading to bottlenecks at the end of the road rendering a situation more dangerous. So much for rule of law and consultation. Borg should realise or be advised by his persons of trust who are draining taxpayer funds that he is biting more than he can chew.

Now he is aspiring for a bigger bite based on the fact that he really dedicated valuable time referring to the manifestos presented by both parties, especially that of the Nationalist Party in last election of 2017.

The PN manifesto stated that the party had the political will and drive to deliver a permanent link between Malta and Gozo. The Transport Minister found it convenient to state that both parties are in favour of this project, but he missed mentioning that this depended on a positive outcome from the present, to date pending, ongoing studies. 

Besides, the PN manifesto listed other pledges to address the accessibility problems faced by Gozitans but the minister cherry-picked only that concerns him directly – the tunnel project.

The motion presented by Ministers Borg and Justyne Caruana was targeted towards the commitment made by both parties in their respective electoral 2017 manifestos towards the introduction of a permanent link between Malta and Gozo.

The Gozo Business Chamber was lightning fast to take the opportunity to remind both parties to keep to their promises. Really? There were other promises regarding Gozo businesses in the manifestos and strangely enough the Gozo Business Chamber (GBC) chose to turn a blind eye to them. 

Some examples to jog the memory of all those concerned – the PN promised to undo the damage done by the present administration and reinstate the cargo ferry between Mġarr and Grand Harbour within six months of being elected.

The PN also promised to deliver a fast ferry service within a year. Another pledge to address the negative effect of the double insularity always trumpeted by the GBC to justify this tunnel project was an exemption in income tax of €200,000 spread over three years to every kind of business that opens in Gozo.

Unfortunately, these issues were never noted by the GBC as they are under the misguided perception that businesses in Gozo will be far better off with the tunnel. This is a scenario similar to turkeys voting for Christmas.

Maybe Borg missed the part in the PN manifesto that the permanent link was pledged on condition of a positive outcome from not yet published studies; so much so that there is a pending judicial challenge presented by 12 organisations requesting the Transport Minister to reveal these so-called studies.

This is the negative non-receptive attitude by government authorities who disregard any requests or suggestions and keep bulldozing forward to implement their warped ideas. 

Here we have to go one step further – the motion mentions the waste generated – and again they do not mention where this waste is going to be dumped. Maybe there is an unhatched plan regarding a land reclamation project which will be launched as soon as the tunnel project is given the green light.

The motion also refers to the natural beauty of Gozo and to preserve the Gozitan cultural identity – which was preserved by the double insularity of the island and surely will be shattered by the tunnel project – similar to killing the goose that was laying the golden eggs. 

Why is Ian Borg so adamant to push and persist on a tunnel, as opposed to other transport systems?

Allow me to ask about the Eco-Gozo project, which was launched by the previous administration in 2010 and supposed to reach its culmination and conclusion next year. A visit to the site www.eco-gozo.com indicates that the latest updates date back to 2014 – a far cry from a commitment to preserve Gozo’s culture and identity.

Now the Transport Minister is indirectly instructing the Opposition not to discuss anything but rubber stamp all the hollow statements which he makes, based on mere assertions and hearsay without any supporting facts. Even more, how can he expect the Opposition to be so naive to endorse his dream without ever being consulted by the Malta-Gozo tunnel steering committee who, it seems, is running the show? 

Does the minister expect the Opposition to be impressed and even more convinced to approve his motion beyond any reason of doubt as to what is the real underlying reason of this motion? The Transport Minister is a shrewd strategist and is trying to offer the Opposition a situation they could not refuse – in other words a Hobson’s choice. 

This is a project launched by this government for its own objectives but surely not to improve the well-being of Gozitans – so long as they have this healthy majority they are not prepared to listen and consider any suggestions. This applies perfectly well to the tunnel project. How does the minister expect to discuss a pro-ject in Parliament that is not yet supported by the required reports and studies? 

Can the minister state which areas in Manikata and Nadur have been earmarked for the tunnel entrances to avoid speculation? Does he intend to apply the same arrogant procedure as with the Tal-Balal project?

I do not think so for I really wish I am proven wrong that a prominent developer has already compromised large parcels of land at Nadur where the tunnel entrance is planned. How’s that for speculation?

The Gozo Business Chamber is overreaching its influence beyond the chamber’s objectives to express its flawed views on behalf of all Gozitans and overlap with those of members of the Gozo Tourism Association who may not share the same views regarding this permanent link. 

The Gozo Tourism Association, though it may agree in principle with a permanent link, diverges considerably on which type of services the tunnel is to provide. The GTA chairman stated that the “GTA is in favour of more connectivity especially by the introduction of an air link”.  

Meanwhile, the association’s CEO was more specific when he said that “the tunnel linking Malta to Gozo should be for a mass underground transport system and not for cars”. This really overshadows the current situation whereby traffic analysts are predicting that about 6,500 vehicles will use the tunnel each day. 

So, there we are in tiny Gozo – a business chamber and a tourism association cannot see eye to eye. They could have sorted out their differences and   presented a common lobbying front. After all, they are meant to be promoting Gozo’ s economic and business interests, but this does not seem to be the case.

So why is Borg so adamant to push and persist on a tunnel for cars, as opposed to other transport systems, without providing any supporting and convincing evidence? Borg could have cornered the Opposition with his motion regarding this project, but he is far from feeling satisfied. 

I have no right to speak for the Opposition but I may express my personal opinion – as a Gozitan – that this project is flawed from the very start and, although the majority may prevail, it may be opportune to recall what Henry Ford said when he introduced the Model T car ‘Tin Lizzie1’: “Customers may have it any colour they want as long as it is black.”

Emmanuel Galea is an analytical thinker.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece