Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1104601
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 APRIL 2019 12 April 2009 Work permits denied to failed asylum seekers ASYLUM seekers whose application has been rejected twice are no longer considered eligible for temporary, renewable three-month work permits, after a recent change of policy by the Employment Training Corporation (ETC). An ETC spokesman confirmed this week that rejected asylum seekers are no longer being al- lowed to renew their temporary work permits – valid for three months – which up until recently enabled them to legally carry out casual work, pending their removal from the country. ETC's initiative coincides with a similar pol- icy, introduced in the past two weeks, whereby rejected asylum seekers are encouraged to leave the open accommodation centres run by the government's integration agency, OAIWAS. Before this policy change, failed asylum seek- ers could reside in an open centre after their period of mandatory detention, and were eligible to receive a 'per diem' allowance of about €4.50. Now, permission to remain in open centres is limited to a maximum of six months, after which all existing benefits are automatically suspended. Social worker Terry Gosden, who formerly ran the Marsa Open Centre, expressed alarm at the new policies, which he claims will fuel racism and create more social unrest connect- ed with immigration. "All failed asylum seekers currently living in the community, whose number is unknown but may be more than 1,000, and who are working legally, can no longer renew their work books," Gosden explained. "This places both themselves and society at risk, as they will very soon be unable to acquire the basics for survival, like food, shelter, and so on." Gosden claims the initiative will endanger the stability of our society. "We will be turning a large number of people, whose only crime was to seek asylum, into criminals. When they start stealing to eat, or start sleeping on the streets of Valletta, racism is likely to soar. The scenario is frankly scary." While concurring with the need to regularise the position of failed asylum seekers, Terry Gosden told this newspaper that the way for- ward is not to "starve them back to Africa", as he describes this latest tactic. "Yes, we should encourage people to return to their country of origin, by a mixture of forced returns, and Assisted Voluntary Return pro- grammes which Europe would willingly fund," he said. "But the way we are going will turn us into the outcasts of Europe. We should be hard on Europe, not victimise the victims. As things are, this policy will endanger these people's ability to eat, as well as risk losing what's left of our humanity." MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Cynical resolution on Gozo Tunnel Editorial This extension is as flexible (and) a little bit shorter than I expected, but still enough to find the best possible solution... Please do not waste this chance. EU President Donald Tusk on the decision to extend Brexit date to 31 October INADVERTENTLY, Transport Minister Ian Borg and Gozo Minister Justyne Caruana may have exposed an endemic political problem, by attempting to conjure up an artificial par- liamentary consensus on the proposed Gozo- Malta tunnel link. Last week, these two MPs adopted the un- orthodox approach of seeking parliament's support for the Gozo tunnel project by pre- senting a motion asking MPs to back the development. The motion refers to the electoral manifes- tos of the two major parties at the last elec- tion, which both promised a permanent link between Malta and Gozo. It also notes that plans for the project started in the 2008 legis- lature by the then Nationalist administration, continued in the last legislature and works will likely go beyond the current legislature. The motion recognises the challenges the project is expected to create in terms of waste generated by the digging, and the need to preserve Gozo's natural beauty and its cultural identity. It finally calls on MPs to back the project. However, this attempt to rope in the Na- tionalist Opposition can be interpreted as just another cynical pre-electoral move to undermine any sort of opposition there might be to the Gozo tunnel. While the Opposition was itself the party that promoted the idea when it was in gov- ernment, by forcing a 'resolution' style de- bate in the House that demands unanimous support for the Gozo tunnel, Labour intends using bipartisan agreement as a way of un- dermining reasonable opposition from civil society and environmental NGOs. The government is clearly interested in nullifying any sort of opposition that ad- vances positions that would, given the scien- tific and other environmental objections that would emerge based on studies, make a 'no tunnel' option the more sustainable choice. This newspaper has no doubt that a tunnel link between Malta and Gozo will serve as a pretext for the creation of land reclamation projects through the generation of an un- precedented amount of construction waste. The attempt by Labour MPs and the business class to force through this project with scant attention given to the mounting opposition to the tunnel by environmentalists and civil society, is another blot in the way the Labour administration treats issues of sustainability. There is also an undeniable party-political dimension to this manoeuvre. Labour knows that the PN, now suffering a massive trust deficit that will probably result in yet another drubbing at the European elections, has its back to the wall. Any attempt at represent- ing reasonable and rational opposition to the Gozo tunnel, not just by environmental NGOs but also by heritage organisations and others who demand holistic transport re- form, will be used against the Opposition to further undermine it politically. This is particularly cogent, in view of our recent survey that suggests broad popular support for the tunnel. Politically this places the Opposition in an awkward position for two reasons: one, by opposing the motion, the PN would be perceived as going against the prevailing public opinion; two, because the minority that opposes the tunnel is like- lier to be composed of traditionally National- ist sympathisers. Support for the tunnel is very strong among 2017 Labour Party voters, with 74.7% agreeing with the project. On the other hand, 48.8% of Nationalist Party voters said they agreed with the tunnel, with 37.9% giving the project the thumbs down. This creates problems for the PN. By back- ing the motion, it would alienate a sizeable chunk of its voter base. But by opposing it, the backlash would be even greater. Politically, then, the strategy places Labour in a win-win situation. But it is an insidious strategy, because it subjects what should be a scientific decision to the equivalent of a popular vote. Perhaps the most damning aspect is that the motion simply takes for granted that the tunnel will be approved to begin with; even if Environment Impact Studies and geological studies still have to be published. Such studies may well indicate that aspects of the current proposal may have unaccep- table environmental and cultural heritage impacts. In the most extreme scenarios, there could be irreversible impacts on the water table, and possibly even geological problems that make the tunnel impossible in practice (or, worse still, dangerous). It is, in effect, to study these possibilities that the entire planning process exists in the first place. One cannot just override it at will: no mat- ter how urgent the social (or political) need for any given project may be. Otherwise, we may as well consign the entire planning pro- cess to the dustbin of history. However, the biggest problem may even be unrelated to the tunnel proposal. It concerns abuse of the parliamentary system to engi- neer some sort of pre-determined outcome. Parliament's job is to debate the pros and cons of such a proposal… not to simply em- brace one option, to the exclusion of all oth- ers, while ignoring all scientific objections. This motion sabotages Parliament's most basic function: it is designed to kill discus- sion, not to encourage it. And rash decisions, taken in the absence of proper debate, are a recipe for disaster.