Ideally, when a government takes decisions, they are of benefit to both people and businesses.
A government needs to find balance between commercial interests and the interests of the people in order to keep the country moving forward with a stable economy. An example of the government supporting the people strongly was during the Covid pandemic, and the support it gave businesses to keep people employed, in addition to the subsidies it had introduced.
However, it feels as though there are far too many instances where the people lose out.
Take the Mellieha land deal as an example, where the government passed on a plot of green land to a developer which is now planned to see apartments built. How does that benefit the residents of Mellieha?
The government has now been highlighting the importance of protecting green spaces, and creating new green spaces within the community. It's a bit late, but at least a shift in thinking on green space seems to be happening in this regard, but only after so many years of the public calling for change.
Yet another recent example of controversial land agreements is the alley on the Villa Rosa site.
There is also the way the Planning Authority has handled certain policies, and permits which saw thousands of objectors to developments that drastically impact the residents of an area. Planning applications have been approved regardless.
Looking at Valletta, the government had decided to allow music to be played until 1am on certain streets. Yes Valletta, as the capital city, should be filled with activities, but was the way this was implemented in any way beneficial for the residents affected? Couldn't there have been the introduction of more safeguards, like requiring more sound insultation for example?
One can also look at the construction sector. For so many years, various governments ignored regulating the sector. It took tragedies to bring about change, and an outpouring of public anger. It shouldn't have taken such tragedies to occur for regulation to come in.
Then, of course, there are government contracts which should have never been signed. The biggest example that comes to mind is the hospitals deal. The deal itself was annulled, after a court case that was filed by the Opposition saw the court mentioning fraud. Of significant note is that it was not the government that filed the court case. There were clear warning signs very early on in the deal's lifespan that something was amiss, yet the government at the time did not listen. This has resulted in hospital infrastructure that is now lacking, so much so that agreements with private hospitals for emergency care had to be signed, and so many millions of euros have been wasted as a result of the now defunct hospitals deal.
We've also seen the Prime Minister himself attack the timing of the conclusion of an inquiry for being so close to an election, the inquiry in question being tied to the hospitals deal that was of national importance. How were such statements by the Prime Minister ones that put the people's interests first?
This is not to mention the government's defence or reappointment of people who were at the heart of scandal.
Too often, decisions taken were more in the interests of the few rather than the interests of the general public.