A large-scale project suggested for Fort Chambray in Gozo and the removal of a British barracks structure in the same area has now received the green light from the Planning Authority.

Plans to raze the British-era barracks at Fort Chambray, as part of a larger redevelopment project, comprise a hotel and housing units.

The saga of Fort Chambray has spanned decades.

A string of previous errors had caused the legendary fortress to be engulfed in controversy and untapped potential.

1,400 protests against the tearing down of the 1895 barracks and the many appeals from NGOs for the preservation and safeguarding of the site went unheeded. Both the PN and PL seemingly maintain a neutral position, even though PN MP Alex Borg passionately supports the proposed project.

The Gozo Regional Develop- * ment Authority clearly opposed the demolition of the Chambray Barracks, asserting that this heritage site must be safeguarded and maintained as it is an essential aspect of Gozo's identity.

At this point, it is impossible to predict the ultimate result, whether the Gozitan entrepreneur involved will reconsider, or if the State will eventually step in and assume control of the contentious Fort Chambray to develop it as a national initiative.

One anticipates that this possibly detrimental project may still be halted in time, similar to what was done with Qala.

We absolutely cannot allow the destruction and distortion of historical structures that represent our heritage to persist.

Justifying a revision of MPs' pay

MPs from both sides of the House have been pondering the need to revise MPs' pay. This has long been a debatable issue among those in favour and those against.

Before we review salaries, I think we should review the bigger question of what we want MPs for, what sort of responsibilities we want them to exercise, and what the appropriate overall remuneration package should be, using comparators with both the public and private sectors.

We should start by looking at reducing the number of MPs, clarifying their responsibilities and setting a benchmark responsibility equivalent in the public or private sector that reflects them. We must also sort out what, if any, outside interests the public wants MPs to have.

Our MPs should also look at how they can put their own house in order and reduce the cost of Parliament by running it more efficiently, tackling waste and inefficiency, and making it more accountable.

If the public could see them taking responsibility, asking the difficult questions that need to be asked, subjecting themselves and our institution, Parliament, to a high level of rigour and scrutiny, and trying to raise the quality and efficiency of the service they offer, I think they might gain more respect for themselves and the institution.

It is then that one might be a bit more willing to look at what the right remuneration should be.

More people continue to struggle to make both ends meet. Many will feel uncomfortable and unhappy, and will look on with incredulity at both the timing and tone of such a proposal.

The salary of MPs is the last thing we should be reviewing, not the first.

Illusionary politics

Our nation's or society's false self-image is always a variation on that theme, and many of our politicians have mastered the art of feeding it. They repeat, in one form or another, "We are a great nation and a great people: good, courageous, caring, wise, hard-working, generous and just."

There is nothing wrong with these assertions in themselves. They are sometimes true. But when they form the core of a false self-image, such flattering affirmations suddenly become always true and never to be challenged. If facts contradict the conceit, the facts must be denied. If individuals contradict it, they must be denounced and forced to apologise. The politicians who defend the false selfimage pose as patriots, but their patriotism can turn deadly.

There is no danger in seeing where we're great; the danger is in not seeing where we're not great.

As citizens and as a society, we tend to spend more than we have, resorting to borrowing to make up the difference. When the debt becomes due, we continue to borrow more. We have one of the highest dropout rates in the EU. We pay more for health care than any other country, in part because we eat badly, exercise little and demand that the doctor undo the damage.

Some politicians will talk about these problems, and they deserve credit for that. But many of them perpetuate our false self-image of greatness in the solutions they present. Their programmes for "fixing" the deep problems in this country are a series of relatively painless marginal adjustments.

This approach of tiny remedies for big problems is not just part of our politics. It's become part of our culture.

Proposing minor remedies for big problems feeds the false self-image of greatness. If the remedy is minor, then we're convinced we're not that messed up and maybe even still great. But if the remedy is huge, it does us the double insult of saying we're not so great after all and we're just going to have to work harder and pay more to fix things, which is going to make us mad because we're exhausted and simply fed up.

As long as we demand that politicians flatter us about how great we are, we are forcing them to downplay both our problems and the difficulty of the solutions, and that puts the country in danger.