Snakes and ladders and hole in one

The news that has overshadowed all else must take precedence. John Dalli has resigned as Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know it is not 'usual' for one to publicly admit liking someone who is being targetted as a 'baddy'.

Most people just jump on the bandwagon and suddenly all these stories start emerging and one cannot distinguish between rumour and fact.

But even if the allegations of nepotism are right, in which case there would have been a conflict of interest and the resignation appropriate, I cannot suddenly pretend I don't like the man, despite his faults, if proven; I still have time for John Dalli.

For one thing, he was one of the few powerful men who was not scared of strong women, and secondly I always found him to accept criticism with good grace.

I hate the hypocrisy of some who sycophantically praise people with power and then drop them immediately they lose it.

John Dalli was certainly one of the stronger men in the Cabinet. And it is no wonder that it is not only the Labour Party who wanted him out.

However, that is precisely why Mr Dalli should have been more careful and avoided anything that could hint at nepotism and conflict of interest.

Nepotism is a bad thing, and although it is not as rife as it was, it does still exist. Ministers of all people must never even give any rise to suspicion that they have gone beyond the pale.

In his letter of resignation Mr Dalli said that although he was used to being the target of the MLP, this was the first time that he was "facing attack from different sources".

He cited his reasons for resigning as "I cannot tolerate circumstances where my family is subjected to political blackmail", and "I cannot function in an environment where I constantly have to be watching my back".

With the letter he attached his version of events. And from that you understand why a seasoned politician like John Dalli could not function if he had to "constantly be watching my back".

Politicians watch their back all the time, and they are not unused to attack coming from within. What is unusual, and what took the steam out of John Dalli was that the attack from within went public.

Certainly certain Nationalist journalists had it in for him and wanted him out. Had the attack come from independent journalists, it would have made things more palatable.

In his version Mr Dalli details "two distinct and separate attacks".

The first attack, relating to IRISL, came from "one of the unsuccessful competitors for the contract" and Leader of the Opposition Alfred Sant.

Mr Dalli denies any involvement and lists a number of things that "contradict" the allegations. However, although "IRISL declared in writing that the choice of agent was made by them without any interference..." it "...was taken for specific commercial reasons".

Now the "specific commercial reasons" of the foreign company could be read that they would be happier dealing with a company with direct contact to a minister, where red tape could be cut faster. And that is where the conflict of interest arises.

It is true that it is unfortunate, as John Dalli claims, that ministers' families should be "deprived" of opportunities open to everybody else. But it is a case of snakes and ladders; ministers' families also get more access to opportunities than ordinary mortals.

The second attack, which Mr Dalli is implying was used by his party to maximise the chances of the Nationalist candidates at the MEP elections, since it was launched three days before the elections, came from "a story in The Times of Malta and PBS".

"All indications are pointing to a particular journalist." It is not clear whether he is talking about the journalist at The Times, which begs the question, why is he not named? Or Ivan Camilleri at PBS, who he mentions in the next line as the one "keeping up the attack on various occasions".

Mr Dalli categorically states, "no one in my family has any interest or control" in Tourist Resources Limited, the company involved in the second allegation.

Whatever, the attack on Dalli is meant to signal a new dawn of serietà within the Nationalist Party running scared of losing the next election.

It will now be interesting to see how seriously the government will be taking this new serietà.

Hole in one

At last someone (besides the Ombudsman) is championing the little people, although it is not over yet! I am talking about the proposed Verdala golf course.

The Church's Environment Commission (CEC) has decreed: "No matter how skilfully portrayed, the proposed development was not sustainable and was essentially in breach of land-use and other policies."

Professor Victor Asciak, its chairman, said that the Environment Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed golf course "failed to properly assess the negative effect of the proposed development on a number of resources".

Well, that is hardly surprising since the people who draw up environment impact statements are commissioned and paid for by the developer. The only restriction is that the people who conduct the impact assessment are on an Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) list.

The Commission told Mepa that the information provided by the EIS could not give the proper information to the decision-makers because it is often either incorrect or partial.

The report points out that the EIS completely ignored the Ecclesiastical Entities (Properties) Act 1992, which clearly stated the condition for land transfer from the Church to the State is "to promote the safeguarding of the environment and the development of agriculture and to meet the country's most pressing social requirements."

Golf hardly fits the bill!

I am not sure whether he was referring to Mepa or the people who drew up the EIS when Professor Asciak said: "One could not on the one hand stress the need for law enforcement and on the other turn a blind eye to development plans that were a clear breach of policy." But the sentiment really hit the nail on the head, or should I say the hole in one.

"Such situations indicated a deficit in social justice and generated a lot of justified resentment and frustration among the population, who felt powerless..." continued Professor Asciak.

The Commission "urged the decision-makers" to address societal concerns as seriously as economic ones.

However, despite the people who argue that a golf course would help the economy, I have argued that the latter is by no means a sure thing and we might destroy a typical Maltese landscape and agricultural land with little gain even for the developer.

Unfortunately, I seem to have 'lost' all of my files, on my office computer, so I could not find all my past writings on this controversial proposal. Thankfully, they reappeared by the afternoon.

But by then I had managed to find (thank God, I had not thrown out my filing cabinets) my column of May 1996 headed "Golf today, gone tomorrow".

The gist of my argument was that tourists would be more likely to be attracted to Malta if historical sites were more accessible; the white taxis were sorted out; the behaviour of our bus drivers improved and shop assistants and catering staff were trained to deal with customers.

A golf course, I opined, rated very low down on the list of priorities to please the tourist. People looking for a golfing holiday have a myriad of places to choose from (Tunisia, Morocco to mention just two), all with more, better and larger beaches, more amenities, better infrastructure and better service.

I had been appalled by a statement by the secretary general (I can't remember who this was) of the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association, of the time, who in order to push his argument on the importance of a golf course had notoriously said: "If government policy is to build an industrial estate opposite St John's Co-Cathedral, no development refusal of the Planning Authority (PA) can overrule the Cabinet's final decision."

He had presented this unfortunate analogy to 'warn' the PA that its role was meant to be "complementary to clearly defined government policy and not antagonistic towards it".

At least we now have a government that is prepared to backtrack on environmentally sensitive decisions (proposed land fill at Mnajdra). So we can be hopeful that the Church commission's findings will influence the decision-makers to listen to the people and do the right thing.

Noise is bad news

I got a call from a distressed elderly couple the other day. They took a six-month lease on a flat in Bugibba and, rather than having the rest they expected, their stay has been a nightmare.

Their flat shares a common wall with a building site. And they are being driven crazy by the noise. At least the police took action and the hammering no longer starts at 6 a.m., even on Sundays and Good Friday.

Having endured the situation since February, the couple was looking forward to the summer, when they were told that, since Bugibba is a tourist zone, the noise would stop.

But it hasn't, and the Maltese/Australian tourist is threatening to broadcast the couples' bad experience in sunny Malta when they get back to Aussie land.