(Excerpt from a play which will not be written.)

            Enter Israeli PM NETANYAHU with trusted  ADVISORS. He has just returned from Washington.

            NETANYAHU-Are we protected against all surveillance?

            ADVISOR(1)-Absolutely. In this bunker even the CIA stands no chance of picking up what we say.

            NETANYAHU-I want to brief you on where we truly stand after this last trip to Washington. And about Trump.

            ADVISOR(2)-Yes Prime Minister. He's handing us everything on a plate. You got on very well with him.

            NETANYAHU-He's completely bonkers, as I always realised. But this latest crazy idea of his suits us well. We need to play along with it. Some eighty per cent of Gaza buildings have been demolished. Let's get that figure up to ninety five per cent. Asap.

            ADVISOR(3)-But why rush?

            NETANYAHU-We must do it before that crazy guy changes his mind.

            ADVISORS (1), (2), (3)-But he won't do that!

            NETANYAHU-Really? And what if Qatar or Saudi Arabia propose that he builds a mangificent Riviera in the Arab Gulf instead, and they pay for it all? Before he changes his mind, let's pour all the bombs he'll be sending us from Washington onto Gaza.

***

ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

Doesn't it sound strange how in the ongoing exchanges about magisterial (and other) enquiries meant to reveal unacceptable administrative and political practices, almost not even once has anybody referred to the Anti-Corruption Commission? As an institution, this supposedly is placed at the forefront of the work being done to control abuses in the exercise of state power.

Such a curious development confirms once again that the Commission is not fit for purpose. It was always like that as of its very inception. Yet successive administrations of both parties have considered that it is an institution which needs to be maintained. Now, why should that be?

***

DUN VICTOR

The first time I met him was in the year 1966. He was the rector at the Seminary and a member of the University Council. I was one of a group of students who were trying to set up a university society to promote free speech. We needed the Council's endorsement in order to set it up and secure some funding. As part of our efforts to lobby for this confirmation, I went to see him. I explained what we wanted to do. He listened attentively and courteously. He promised his support. Naturally over the years, he could not have remembered this meeting. I did.

Many years later, we met a number of times on the annual graduation day at the Caritas centre for people who had successfully followed the programme given there to help overcome drug addiction. One had to be impressed by his evident happiness at the success achieved during the previous year. I agreed fully with the zero tolerance approach of Caritas towards drugs, wherever and whenever they were consumed.

In the year 1997, I discussed with him how the private and public anti-drug services could work together under one national plan. The private services were all run by the Church. I wished them to become part of the executive decision-making process alongside the public service to prepare and carry out in synergy an overall anti-drug strategy. However there would have to be agreement that the approach had to be secular and not confessional in scope. He immediately assented.

Dun Victor Grech deserved full honours in this country as a courageous protagonist in endeavours, carried out according to progressive values, that focussed on urgent social issues