A government with no ears

The Prime Minister persists in defiance of a chorus of appeals, backed by a strong majority, for political responsibility to be shouldered by Cabinet members involved in bad governance practice. By the time this article goes to print, I can safely label this administration as a Government with no ears. I will, however, pretend it listens, at least till I finish writing this article. That will allow me to concentrate on some recommendations I have been making in Parliament to this Government with no ears.  

No to “resomation”

Much has been stated in the newspapers about “resomation”, an undignified way of burial, which is being proposed in the cemeteries policy. “Resomation” was described in the original policy as “an innovative technique” whereby “the liquid remains are returned to the water cycle”, in other words, into the drainage system. This is certainly not a dignified way of how humans ought to rest in peace.

This is not an objection based on religious beliefs. Whether Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist or what not is irrelevant. The issue centres around the dignity of the human being. My counterpart Michael Falzon seems to be in sync with this line of thought, which should hopefully lead to its removal from the cemeteries policy. 

Republish the policy for public consultation

The recently published floor-to-area ratio policy has had its public consultation process undermined. It is unacceptable for the Government to add another locality, Mriehel in this case, after the closure of the public consultation. Objectors, whether an industrialist or third party neighbours on the other side of the road, were never given the opportunity to voice their concerns, pro or against, the inclusion of Mriehel. 

By this way of doing things, the Government has made a mockery out of the public consultation process. Why should anyone bother to participate in the public consultation of a proposed policy when the Government will do as it pleases, and amend the policy after the public consultation has ended, in such a way which does not reflect the outcome of the public consultation.

If the Government wants to continue doing as it pleases, it should be honest with the general public and scrap the principle of public consultation. How ironic for the Government to choose the slogan Gvern li jisma’ – it is anything but that, as far as this policy is concerned. 

I have challenged Michael Falzon to republish the floor-to-area ratio policy, at least the part relating to Mriehel. Unless this is done, the public consultation process for this policy will remain nothing but a mockery. This is an opportunity for the Government if it really wants us to believe that it is truly a Gvern li jisma’. 

Virgin land free for all

Another bone of contention is the anti-environment deficiency in the fuel stations policy, which grants a free-for-all unlimited amount of virgin land for developments involving the relocation of fuel stations. Before going any further into this, I will make it clear that the Opposition is in favour of the relocation to the periphery of fuel petrol stations currently lying within residential areas. Such relocations bring about a number of benefits to the quality of life of residents currently living in the vicinity of such depots. The policy helps in incentivising this relocation by allowing for an increase in the number of pumps, by providing an overall threshold. 

Nonetheless, it is utterly irresponsible for this anti-environment Government to present a policy without any threshold of the maximum area that may be taken up for such relocation. Where is the environment minister? Does this country actually have one, to start with? Leo Brincat has been dubbed as Pontius Pilate by the environmental NGOs. They have perhaps been somehow lenient, for the simple reason that Pontius Pilate at least bothered to wash his hands. 

It must be stated that the MEPA board had presented the Government with a position statement, whereby it recommended the introduction of a three tumoli threshold. Just as I have criticised the board in the past, I feel it has collectively done the right thing in this case. Much to my surprise, this position was not presented to the Members of Parliament during the policy’s debate at the Environment and Planning Committee. Why has this happened? Should we be asking why is this Government refusing to include a threshold? Is there anyone or something that is preventing this? 

Protect our shores

This is another classic example of the non-existent environmental credentials now associated with this Labour Government. But is more yet to come with land reclamation? I have been putting this question repeatedly, but no answer seems forthcoming. We’ve seen policies for petrol stations, cemeteries, high buildings, shooting ranges, firework factories, but nothing about land reclamation.

Land reclamation projects are most often controversial due to their environmental impact. This does not mean that such projects ought to be trashed, far from it. But talk on land reclamation has been up in the clouds thus far. We neither know where projects will be allowed, nor what methods of land reclamation will be, or should be, permissible. Once again, the environment minister is nowhere to be seen. I honestly hope this Government does the right thing, and listens.