After a relative lull in attacks on NGOs, it seems like more than a coincidence that two leading columnists, I M Beck and Stephen Calleja, have launched vitriolic and unjustified attacks on FAA and Ramblers, the environment NGOs. Will this happen each and every time a major project comes under scrutiny and is found wanting? It is becoming increasingly apparent that certain accommodating journalists get calls from their political string-pullers telling them to attack the FAA because the government cannot be seen to do it itself.

The latest ridiculous charge is that entrepreneurs are having second thoughts about submitting applications for development and that the FAA is to blame for this. It is clear that developers in Malta have been getting away with murder for years. These money-hungry speculators have practically destroyed the country and this has happened with the full support of the government through their puppet authority Mepa. The big developers in Malta support both political parties on the premise that once in power the political party will return the favour. The fact that developers are now having second thoughts about submitting applications is an admission that: a) Malta already has a property glut … and b) They are submitting, at best, borderline cases, which they had intended to get approved by their ‘political friends’. If that were not the case and their applications are in no way contentious then why hold back on submitting them?

I also take exception to the suggestion that Dr Scerri’s resignation and the caution of entrepreneurs submitting applications is in some way a victory for environmentalists. If governments, government authorities, developers and architects and so on were working in a fully transparent and honest manner then there would be no need for watchdog NGOs in the first place. Unfortunately, years of highly questionable decisions have convinced the public that such honesty in places of power does not exist, which makes the job of NGOs like FAA and Ramblers necessary.

The aim of environmental groups like these is not to halt development or exercise better control on projects but to ensure, from the perspective of the general public, that everyone in Malta is treated fairly and honestly by the system. You can’t have a situation where a prominent member of the PN appears to be breaking all the rules in order to have a house built, while someone within spitting distance is refused permission to build a tool shed or a pump house. If the government is going to throw away the rulebook then let’s throw it away for the little man in the street as well.

The actions of environmentalists are not having a negative impact on the economy and on jobs as has been stated. What is having a negative impact is the neglect of everything that makes Malta unique in the world. Those who claim that decisions in favour of the environment have caused unemployment in the building industry, ignore the fact that jobs in tourism are suffering and will no doubt soon be shed due to the fact that tourists are put off by Malta’s over-development, the noise and dirt caused by contractors working in tourist areas, as well as by uncontrolled traffic on the roads. Making the NGOs scapegoats and blaming them for the downturn is an ingenious way of trying to hide the fact that the government and its various authorities, developers and architects have for years been harming the long term future and sustainability of the Maltese Islands.

The NGOs are simply pointing out that the system has been failing and it is shameful that leading newspapers should suggest turning a blind eye to illegal practices and damaging projects in order to “get the economy back on track”, while blaming hard-working NGOs for the damage wrought by years of mismanagement, cronyism and short-sighted policies.

James A. Tyrrell

NORTHERN IRELAND

Stephen Calleja writes:

James Tyrrell fails to make the distinction between a news item and a comment piece. The story I wrote last week entitled “Environmentalists’ action ‘causing great harm’ to the economy” was a news item. It was quoting sources; it was not my opinion and it contained only comments made by entrepreneurs. I think that, in this case, it was he who launched a “vitriolic” attack against me for no reason.

G. G. Debono says that I should reveal my sources. Coming from someone who does not want his full name in the newspaper, the comment is risible. Well, sorry George, I will never do that. Not even a court of law can force me to do it. So, forget about it. There is one thing I will say – that the sources who gave me the information specifically requested their anonymity because they fear that environmentalists will target their projects more than others. Considering the reaction received following the article, I see what they mean. And, like Mr Tyrrell, Dr Debono does not distinguish between a news item and a comment piece.

Albert McCarthy speaks of a hidden agenda. Just because a story was carried in which the views of entrepreneurs were expressed, it does not mean that there is a hidden agenda. Don’t they have the right to speak up? Or do environmentalists think that only they have the right to make their voice heard? Is there a hidden agenda when environmentalists’ comments are published?