Whoever expected to see a sea of flags on Maltese and Gozitan roofs last weekend must have been disappointed. The flag fest was, after all, a silly idea that received the response it deserved – indifference.

The fest was promoted as an occasion that would unify the country. So much so that, although it was marketed by the Malta Tourism Authority, it was supported by the Tourism Parliamentary Secretariat and the Public Dialogue Secretariat as well, who brought in their Opposition counterparts to endorse the event.

It’s funny that the government and the Opposition see eye to eye on these silly ideas and then bark at each other constantly on other more important matters.

It was supposed to be a tourist attraction. But, tell me, which tourist would come to Malta to see flags flying on roofs? It would be better to concentrate on providing a better service to our guests so as to avoid complaints such as the ones we had recently when tourists were left for more than an hour on the Cirkewwa quay because a supply of oxygen needed to be transported to Gozo.

Had the flag fest been successful, all it would have achieved would have been extra rivalry and pique – and we already have enough of that.

What was even sillier is the fact that nobody realised that such an activity would have meant an extra cost for the government because employees needed to be paid overtime for going to their offices on Saturday and on Sunday to raise the Maltese flag in the morning and lower it in the evening.

At a time when costs should be reduced, spending so much money on these trivialities should have been avoided. Maybe the ministers and parliamentary secretaries should have offered their services.

I am all in favour of re-enactments, concerts, Notte Bianca activities and other events to attract more tourists, apart from offering entertainment to Maltese people as well.

But silly ideas are just that, silly ideas, which should not be repeated.

***

I am not an environmentalist. Neither am I a land speculator or a businessman. All I own is the flat I live in and I am still paying for it. This leaves me with a possibility to be objective and look at any development for what it is. I do not say “no” to any development as environmentalists do; and neither do I say “yes” to all projects like people who have a vested interest do.

But there is one thing I have noticed each time something is written about the environment. And this is the way green activists respond.

Most newspapers, including The Malta Independent on Sunday and its sister daily, often support the environmentalists’ point of view. They give them a great amount of space, in news stories, letters and opinion pieces. Editorially, they have always written about the need to find a balance. And this is how it should be.

However, the moment there is a story that gives some space to the thoughts of businessmen and speculators, a barrage of accusations is levelled at the newspaper and the journalist involved.

It happened to me over the past couple of weeks – I wrote a story in this newspaper in which I quoted (I repeat, quoted) sources saying they were having second thoughts about proposing their project following the resignation of Victor Scerri as PN president over the Bahrija development controversy.

Many letters were received, with the people writing not making a distinction between a news story and an opinion piece. I wonder how many times I am going to say this – it wasn’t me who was saying that environmentalists are harming the economy. Got it? Do you want me to say it in Chinese for you to understand?

One even asked me to reveal my sources; another said I had a hidden agenda. It’s as if environmentalists think they have some God-given right to be the only people entitled to an opinion and to express it.

***

Two weeks ago I wrote about communications coordinators employed with ministries and parliamentary secretariats. Most of them (all except three, in fact) reacted with phone calls and e-mails in which they expressed their appreciation of my analysis, and some of them even suggested meetings to discuss ways how to improve cooperation. The article, as such, served its purpose.

Only Mario Schiavone, the Education Ministry’s man, described it as a personal attack against him in a letter published in this newspaper last week. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion, although I do take exception to some of his gratuitous comments about ethical behaviour.

He never informed this newspaper that someone else was replacing him while he was out on leave – neither when we called him, nor when we e-mailed him. Secondly, on the day my article was published, he should have listened to the newspaper analysis on Radio 101 to know how PN pundits taking part in the programme agreed with what I had written.

The most important bit of his letter was his admittance that he failed to give a reaction to stories about inflation in education in spite of several attempts. Even here, the article served its purpose because some days later Mr Schiavone was prompt in his reply to another set of questions I sent him.

For me, the subject is closed as well.

***

A tour with the Champions League trophy started in Milan last week. I was not surprised that there were many more Inter (than AC Milan) fans who attended the event to see the trophy at close range. It’s understandable. Inter have not won the competition since 1965.

[email protected]