Editorial • 25 May 2003

Ray of light

There is, after all, hope for change in the Labour Party. The election this week of Notary Charles Mangion and Dr Michael Falzon as deputy leaders gives hope for a new lease of life in a party that has slowly degenerated into what looked like an anti-EU almost right-wing party.

Both Mangion and Falzon do not form part of Alfred Sant’s clique and they may provide the right impetus for change in the months to come.

But change has to be thorough. With Sant at the helm the Labour Party will still have an image problem.

It’s difficult to forget the brash statements Sant made about visiting EU officials. It is equally difficult to see Sant accepting an invitation to be interviewed on Bondi+ or Xarabank after the countless accusations he levelled against the programme hosts.

It is also difficult to understand how the champion of partnership will now convince floating voters that he is capable of working within the EU structures so heavily criticised before the election.

Sant has a credibility problem on a number of issues that are central to the middle of the road voter. With him at the helm the Labour Party will continue to suffer.

The ray of light that appeared this week should slowly evolve into a beam with a new leader and new people in the administration of the party. Only then can the Opposition become a beacon of hope for the country in five years time.

Ministerial responsibility

On April 23 2002, probably unknown to anyone on these godforsaken islands, Malta ratified the so-called Aarhus Convention. The event went unmarked, but the impacts of the signing may yet have a significant impact on our lives. According to the Convention any member of the public can request information from the appropriate government official about the state of our environment, and the official is duty bound to give a reply to those questions within a set timeframe. The Convention also strengthens public participation in decision-making processes something which only recently, and often only in a limited way, is becoming part of our culture.

Our front page story of this and last Sunday are a case in point. The incinerator at St Luke’s has been a serious health and environmental hazard for years. Incinerators have been linked to cancer and those that do not burn at the right temperature are even more damaging to health.

MaltaToday has written to several ministers and government officials about the case. Not one came back with answers to the questions asked.

The public has clearly indicated through surveys that the environment is of major concern, yet the authorities still believe they can treat the public like little children.

With Malta on the way to EU membership, this attitude must change and it must change fast.

Transparency in government affairs is high on the agenda for EU countries and when the public asks questions that concern its own health the answers should be made available, provided there are no good reasons for not replying. Should there be such reasons, the government official is duty bound by the Aarhus Convention to state in the reply what those reasons are.

If the ministry of health is asked, as MaltaToday asked, when the public can expect to see a replacement for a malfunctioning incinerator the answer should take the form of some date, even if approximate, if such a date is known, otherwise an answer could be: "it is not known."

When the minister is asked whether research was conducted on a certain company that is to provide equipment essential for the public’s health the answer should be at first ‘yea’ or ‘nea’ and then it would be reasonable to expect an explanation. Those are the responsibilities of people elected to government. All the recent talk about involving Civil Society that has been bandied about since the elections even before parliament met must seem like a smokescreen if ministers cannot answer the questions they have been asked by the media.

MaltaToday has gathered sufficient evidence about the process related to the incinerator replacement to be of the opinion that an independent inquiry should be initiated to investigate any possible wrongdoing.