Keeping an eye on development

I refer to the letter Call For Geological Survey Came Late, by Alex Torpiano ( July 8).

In particular, I would like to comment on his statement that "... one can observe that the same people who decry political interference in the planning process have no problem calling for it when it is perceived to suit their aspirations".

I believe that Mr Torpiano is simply trying to ridicule objecting NGOs with this statement, unless he is trying to be silly. Doesn't he realise that it is politicians who have to put forward requests for changes and amendments to our local laws and regulations in Parliament? So it is the NGOs' duty to meet and discuss issues with these same politicians. I hope he isn't seriously suggesting that he expects the NGOs to sit back and let these atrocities happen unabated instead.

What is definitely wrong is to expect irregular political interference in the granting of applications for development rather than help in solving problems that will affect whole areas and multitudes of citizens alike. Therefore I think it can safely be said that:

1. Only a politician can undo what another politician wrongly did, or weed out another politician's wrongdoings.

2. NGOs in general ask for "political interference" only to reverse previous "political interference".

If no wrong is done, NGOs are not bothered in the first place.

May I also remind Mr Torpiano that in volunteering to take over responsibility for Mepa, the Prime Minister gave the signal that he was doing so in order to give it better direction. Therefore, yes, the NGOs do expect him (politicians) to take an active interest in the goings-on at Mepa, otherwise he would be abdicating his responsibilities.

Mr Torpiano also referred to the article Selling Off The Citizen (July 3) "in order to correct a howler in the third paragraph from the end" where he wrote that "the Fort Cambridge site is not public land but 'sacrosanct private land', as per the deed signed in April 2007".

Unfortunately, no one has had access to the deed of sale (or lease?), so the veracity of that clause cannot be confirmed. I actually wonder whether he chose to quote three words out of a longer sentence saying that the land would be private as long as the current lease was in force, because I believe that the land is government land (hence "public" land) and it was merely leased to GAP for about 65 years. What is to happen if, after this time, the lessee decides to give it up? Incidentally, the lack of access to the deed of sale (or lease?) is far from the ideal situation in a democracy where freedom of information pertaining to issues of national interest is necessary and is being championed by the government itself.