When I visited Budapest last week, one of the first stops was at the Hungarian Parliament building.

Two things struck me: the first is the splendour of the structure and the pride with which we were told about its history, and the second is the fact that we were told that, with effect from the next election, the number of MPs in the House will be reduced by half from the current number of 386.

Both from the outside – the view from the River Danube is breathtaking – and the inside, the Hungarian Parliament is magnificently beautiful. It is sited right at the heart of the capital city, and carries great significance for the people of Hungary who, until 1990, were deprived of democracy as we know it and who therefore probably appreciate it more than we do.

It led me to think how parochial we are in having such a controversy over the building of the new Parliament building just inside City Gate. Regardless of their political background, Hungarians take pride in the symbol of their freedom and self-determination. Here, just because it was one particular party that came up with the idea, the other party and all its supporters have ridiculed it, or tried to.

What should be our own symbol of democracy – its present location never was its rightful place and deprives the Presidential Palace of its own particular significance – is mocked by half the population, and could possibly not even be used for the purpose for which it was built, now that there has been a change of government. There is a growing chance that the open air market will be moved right next door to it, yet another indication of an intention to deride the highest institution of the land and, in particular, the person under whose tenure the new Parliament building was conceived.

The decision by the Hungarian Parliament to reduce its complement by half is another matter that led me to think of the Maltese situation.

With a population of more or less 10 million, each MP in Hungary currently represents 25,000 people; when the reform takes effect, this number will rise to 50,000. Here in Malta, each of our MPs represents nearly 6,000 people.

One could be tempted to say that we have too many MPs, but it is hard to imagine there will be any attempt to reduce the number. I am sure that the idea will not feature in the constitutional reform that is being planned. MPs would not want to shoot themselves – and all their perks – in the foot.

Yet a reduction in the number of MPs would go a long way to resolving the problem of space that is being used as an excuse not to move the House to the Renzo Piano building. That is, if space is really the problem.

To think that we then have hundreds of local councillors administering our 68 localities – as well as hundreds of others employed in the running of such councils – the administrative costs continue to soar.

If we cut down on the number of MPs, local councillors and staff employed in the administrative system, we will probably reduce our public deficit by half. But only a non-politician like me can propose such an idea.

*      *          *          *

So, a flamingo was shot dead. A few days earlier, a man was shot dead in broad daylight on a busy street, and yet the social media – and a good part of the traditional media – gave more importance to the flamingo than the dead man. We even had footage of what was supposed to have been a feather from the dead bird surfacing on the internet. Yes, and I had a date with Julia Roberts.

The same thing happened when a dog named Star was killed more or less at around the same time that a woman was butchered, and yet we had people pitying the dog but not the human being.

I am no hunter. Neither am I an environmentalist. But we should put things into perspective.

I do not condone the bird’s killing. But I must say that Birdlife are partly to blame for its death. Were it not for it letting it be known to the whole of Malta – via press releases that keep on coming at any time of the day and which are then followed up with telephone calls just to make sure they had arrived – the flamingo would probably still be alive.

Advertising the arrival of a flamingo as if it was the Pope coming over for a surprise visit was bound to attract unwanted attention. Birdlife should have enjoyed the bird and kept its collective mouth shut.

*      *          *          *

The granting of amnesties always leads to a contrast in the way people react. The prisoners and their families are happy that a number of days have been deducted from the sentence, which means that the inmates are released before their original sentence has been served in full.

Society in general does not welcome such decisions, especially the victims of crime.

The Nationalist Party has criticised the amnesty that has been given, saying that it was just another partisan tool that has been used by the Labour government. The PN has not mentioned the fact that, in 1987, when it was elected to power, it did the same thing and that it granted a total of seven amnesties between 1987 and 2001.

I am not in favour of amnesties being given to prisoners, regardless of the reason and of whom it is that gives them. Prisoners are already benefiting from a system that allows them a shorter sentence for good behaviour. Amnesties favour the few and go against the will of the great majority of law-abiding citizens.

They should not be given at all. Victims of crime are not given amnesties from their pain and suffering. Some never recover from their trauma.

*      *          *          *

As we are going to have three Carnivals in a year, are we to expect to have three Christmases, three Easters and three Santa Marijas?

[email protected]