It makes sense to occasionally repeat that when saying no, one is not invariably being negative. Frequently the best way to be positive is by sayng no. When the yes that one expresses springs from conformism - from the need to show one is in agreement with all others - and the majority is actually formed around such a need, the risk increases that all become passengers on a wagon that is rolling towards disaster. This happens when all concerned, or almost, fail to realise that bad decisions are being taken because they are based on the wrong premises.
If the ones who say no, propose alternatives to how matters should be considered and conducted, they are being of great service to the community. They introduce an element of choice. They encourage a greater attention to what is actually being said. These are hugely important functions in a society that seeks to develop in progress.
By the same measure, if one says no simply to have said no, without making any serious alternative proposal regarding the conduct of affairs, then saying no and being negative mean the same thing.
***
VALUE
What is being done to really ensure that government outlays are well spent?
It is true that the office of the national auditor is doing sterling work in examining how government projects and departments are being run. But too often its evaluations appear to concern efforts carried out long ago and for which few remedies can be envisaged to correct what went wrong. It is possible from this kind of work to devise proposals for organisational changes that improve operations. But their impact is rarely so meaningful.
What is needed is a managerial audit that is carried out while a project proceeds. This is becoming increasingly crucial as today practically all major government capital programmes are being farmed out by contract to the private sector.
***
AT THE UNIVERSITY
It hardly makes a difference that the council of university students ended up apologizing for having banned all mention (pro and con) of abortion in the week of meetings sponsored on campus for new students. The worst aspect of the affair was that the ban did not come from the university authorities but from students' representatives.
I was very concerned to note how the top-down "protection" of citizens by the imposition of censorship is still as much a part of our society's consciousness as when long, long ago I was a student at university. After all the self-praise that we indulge in by way of how progressive and open-minded we are, not least because of our "European" values, it is shocking to discover how an obscurantism of the kind displayed in this affair still prevails.
Some sixty years ago Professor Jeremy Boissevain had asked in an article he wrote: Why do Maltese people ask so few questions? Twenty years later, he considered that conditions had changed sufficiently to allow for an open debate between citizens. I wonder what he would have made of this latest episode!