One reason why any democracy, ours included, needs a “free” press is to ensure there are enough controls on flagrant abuses. Putting free within inverts helps to make it clear that such media, even when they pretend otherwise, are not necessarily free of occult or private interests – as contrasted to a fully public commitment.

Frequently, flagrant abuses are not flagged not because those appointed to control them want to let them stand or prefer to look the other way. It also happens because the relevant authorities fail to discharge their duties properly... due to incompetence or an inability to cope.

Whatever motive inspires the “free” media to reveal failures and abuses, in doing so they are carrying out a useful function in a democracy. Beyond fearing that such interventions would amount to a manipulative operation... and indeed, even if they are... the position the media need to occupy, should be protected and guaranteed. In a climate of unrestricted reporting, so long as democratic norms are being respected, flagrant abuses have less space within which to flourish.

***

Old houses

Old houses no longer seem to be in fashion. Wherever you go, you can see them being pulled down. Till quite recently, they were considered a symbol of social prestige. To renovate them while preserving their character used to rank as a worthwhile and interesting occupation.

One doubts whether this still holds. Apparently, the preference now is for old houses to be traded and demolished, so that in their place blocks of apartments are built, and this even when they are situated in neighbourhoods which form part of a traditional architectural enclave characteristic of Maltese buildings. Or else they get transformed into “modern” structures which in reality cancel out any significance they might have inherited from the past.

Many people agree with what is going on.

***

Viable or not...

So: the government will be spending not less than 70 million euros on the vast programme of works in Malta’s main roads. One and all understand that this is an infrastructural project which cannot be assessed in terms of commercial viability. It has to be implemented because the aim of improving Malta’s transport systems is a valid one. There will be no income generated by it to compensate for the outlays.

It does not seem that the same approach is being applied to the Gozo-Malta tunnel. Here, we are told that the project will be viable on the back of the tariffs to be paid by its users. Now I am one of those who disbelieve that the tunnel could ever be commercially viable, as is claimed. But I do find it curious that the viability argument is being used to justify construction of the tunnel... or in an even more curious twist, that the metro project should not be considered because it cannot be viable...

This kind of argument has surely not been used regarding the millions now rightly being spent on the upgrading of roads.