There is a certain irony in the fact that, apart from the government, the Malta Developers Association (MDA) has emerged as the only defender of Planning Authority executive chairman Johann Buttigieg.
But, through its attempt, the association has done more to reinforce the arguments of his critics than to strengthen his position.
For years, the PA has faced criticism from environmental organisations, residents and civil society groups who believe that the balance between development and the public interest has tilted too far towards developers.
Whether every individual criticism is justified is a separate question. What cannot be ignored is that public confidence in the planning system depends on the belief that decisions are taken fairly, transparently and independently of commercial interests.
Against this background, the MDA's intervention in support of Buttigieg was hardly likely to reassure those who have questioned his leadership.
The association has argued that Buttigieg made a profound difference to an authority that has historically presented challenges to successive governments. It has also urged the Nationalist Party not to politicise the controversy, and called for a debate based on facts, rather than suspicions and unproven allegations.
Those arguments do not address the central difficulty facing Buttigieg: the question of whether he retains the confidence of the people and organisations whose interests the Planning Authority is supposed to protect.
Indeed, the MDA's endorsement raises an awkward question. If the association representing developers is satisfied with Buttigieg's performance, what does that say to those who have spent years arguing that the planning system gives insufficient weight to the interests of residents and the environment?
Politically and institutionally, the MDA's defence reinforces the very perception that the PA has struggled to shake off: that developers are comfortable with the way the authority operates, while environmental and community organisations are increasingly dissatisfied.
And these organisations are not few in number. More than 30 entities, including environmental NGOs, civil society groups, youth and student organisations, and residents' associations, have called for Buttigieg to step down. Moviment Graffitti and Friends of the Earth Malta have intensified their campaign, with activists disrupting an event at which he was due to participate, and subsequently 11 NGOs reiterated their demands for his removal at a press conference.
The Kamra tal-Periti has also called on Buttigieg to address the conflicts of interest that have emerged. Its intervention is significant because it adds to the concerns being expressed beyond the circle of environmental activists.
The government's response has done little to settle the matter. Minister Jonathan Attard has defended Buttigieg, while the Prime Minister has also tried to belittle the situation. Ultimately, responsibility for the appointment rests with the government, and it cannot indefinitely avoid answering questions about the standards it expects from those entrusted with public authority.
The issue is no longer simply whether Buttigieg believes he should remain in office. It is whether his continued presence serves the interests of an institution that needs public trust to function effectively.
The MDA is entitled to support him. But it should not be surprised if that support has the opposite effect to the one intended. When the principal public defence of a controversial Planning Authority chairman comes from the organisation representing developers, it inevitably invites further questions.
The MDA may believe it is defending Buttigieg against political pressure. In reality, it is strengthening the argument made by his critics: that the planning system has yet to convince the public that it stands firmly on the side of the wider community.
That perception alone should be enough to make the government pause.