When illegal becomes legal

By each passing day, the Labour government seems to become one where that which is illegal is made to look otherwise – legal to be exact. The Opposition has this week unveiled yet more instances where this is in fact the case. The Government ought to lead by example, but when that does not happen, there is chaos. People will start doing the same, and who blames them? If big brother breaks the law, why should I not do the same, one might argue. 

The Foundation for Tomorrow’s Schools is government-owned. Indeed, it had been set up by the former Nationalist administration with the aim of setting up a new school every year. Labour, in spite of its clichés of trying to portray itself as one that continues to build on what has already been accomplished, has abandoned this altogether. Being government-owned, FTS should set an example. Instead, it has unilaterally decided to remove soil from a site outside the development zone, and dig up a ramp without any permit whatsoever. 

MEPA had been informed of the illegality by residents and subsequently by the Mosta Local Council. No action was taken. The media picked up the story, and it was only then that action was taken. Indeed, this shows what a sorry state the enforcement directorate (if there is one) finds itself in, in MEPA. The fact that MEPA has become completely pro-development is an assessment that requires little effort to conclude.

What is shocking however is the fact that MEPA seems to ignore reports on illegalities from residents and local councils. An authority that behaves in this way is run by executives who have no will whatsoever to enforce the law against illegalities. Given that the executives are officials appointed to ‘positions of trust’, one can easily conclude that the political executives do not want to enforce against these illegalities. 

I have no difficulty in admitting that under the previous administration, MEPA had become too rigid in its decisions and impractical in others, but it now finds itself at the other extreme.  News of an amnesty on a large scale is the ultimate confirmation that Labour will not give an inch towards enforcing the law. But then again, why am I surprised? A Labour Government has committed illegal practice, with FTS being a case in point. This is a Government on whose watch we have seen the illegal become legal. 

The Valletta gate monument

The MEPA board this week voted against the erection of a monument consisting of four knights at the foot of one of the grander flights of steps at the entrance of the Valletta Piano project. I find no difficulty in stating that the monument is for me a piece of art, and I felt sorry for the artist, having had to vote against. But unfortunately, the artwork found itself in the wrong place. While it was commissioned under the previous administration, its siting at Valletta’s entrance was not. 

The open space that has been created in between the new Parliament and the post-war housing building is one which should be preserved. In line with the Grand Harbour Local Plan, it is stated that Valletta instills a unique sense of space and that any development should respect this context.

Now, how a cheap-looking Monti stall or temporary booths (which have since been given permits by this cultureless Government) respects this context, is as yet something that baffles me. It seems that the Renzo Piano project is under a constant treat under the Labour Government, whose sense of culture is non-existent.

Minister Owen Bonnici should wake up and stand for what truly he should be – a Culture Minister. It seems this Labour Government doesn’t give a hoot about culture, and whether we like it or not, our culture is a portrait of our identity. By throwing respect for culture out of the window, the Prime Minister is likewise doing a disservice to our own identity – all that which is Maltese. 

But back to the monument – I am glad, although surprised, that the majority of the MEPA board have voted against the placing of a monument right at the entrance of Valletta. I was also surprised by the fact that whilst the Cultural and Heritage Advisory Committee objected to the development, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage deemed it fitting to the existing context and found no objection given that it is reversible.

While a monument is indeed physically reversible, its relocation is not something that can happen overnight, given the kind of hot debates such decisions are prone to. In any case, the Superintendence could perhaps become more vigilant and sensitive to issues which could undermine the national heritage. A case in point is the development adjacent to the Ta’ Hagrat Temples, whereby the Superintendence’s clearance could have been detrimental to the UNESCO World Heritage Site losing its status.

As to the four knights monument, I sincerely hope the Grand Harbour Regeneration Corporation finds an alternative site. This time, I hope Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi bothers to show up for the MEPA hearing, as his absence was indeed conspicuous during Thursday’s sitting.