Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1187474
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 24 NOVEMBER 2019 NEWS RAISA GALEA "WE'RE shocked at how they treat certain people", Head of Developers Association San- dro Chetcuti once said in an interview referring to foreign contractors. "Their values are not like ours. […] It's scary! God forbid we end up embrac- ing that type of culture…! Our members prefer working with Maltese workers than with for- eign ones, we treat our workers as though they're family." As the plunder of the little remaining open spaces on the island engulfed in construction dust continues, it becomes ever more pressing to identify the culprit of this malaise. During the protest "against developers' dictatorship" and the protest march for the environment, a group of civil society organisa- tions and NGOs came together to challenge the developers' lobby; however, MDA seems prepared to meet this indict- ment head-on – by shifting the blame on foreign workers and contractors. 'Cheap labour' and ecological degradation It is a fact that the majority of workers employed on building sites are non-Maltese. Con- struction is one of the main industries where migrants and refugees – treated as a source of cheap labour and handsome profit by contractors and de- velopers – find employment. Prime Minister Joseph Mus- cat himself acknowledged and justified this state of affairs by stating that he would prefer "those helping workers in the sun to be foreign.'' Apart from being a health hazard and a vehicle of envi- ronmental degradation, the frenzied construction is often blamed for making Malta look like a "third world country" and, according to the Head of MDA, this has everything to do with the presence of construc- tion workers from "third world countries". He is not alone in this perception. Ironically, the lack of health and safety en- forcement on building sites attracts public exasperation primarily since it harms the country's image in the eyes of tourists and potential inves- tors, and not because of the risk it poses to workers' lives. "Be- cause of these migrants Malta is getting a bad name,'' read a comment under a social media post criticising low construc- tion standards – a post which featured a photo of an African worker plastering a brick wall. Shifting responsibility for the dire situation in the construc- tion sector onto foreign work- ers could be an easy trick for developers. After all, the for- eign workers are the ones car- rying out the works and can thus easily be accused of not abiding by the rules, while the MDA can pose as a disciplined player – when, obviously, working conditions are set by employers and political regula- tors, not the individual workers themselves. Less obvious yet also wide- spread is a second association of migrant workers with an- other anti-ecological aspect – dirt and disorder. In his in- famous claim (for which he later apologised) "I do not want the Maltese to be picking up rubbish from the streets", the Prime Minister clearly referred to African workers, who them- selves are often labelled as gar- bage (żibel). Occupied in gar- bage collection and frequently housed in unsanitary condi- tions, African workers are of- ten looked upon with disgust and disdain – almost as a form of visual pollution – the oppo- sites of white clean-up activists who are heralded as environ- mental heroes. Thus, either as a nuisance ex- posing the lack of health, safety and environmental enforce- ment, a form of 'visual pollu- tion' from a racist viewpoint, or, most importantly, a source of cheap labour for the rav- aging construction industry, foreign workers appear impli- cated in the ongoing ecological decline on the islands. Indeed, those are false premises. Mi- grants' bad living conditions and the low pay are both means of making profit from them, whereas a lack of health and safety enforcement helps in making such exploitation even more profitable. Until recently, anti-foreigner sentiment signified panic for a supposedly crumbling na- tional identity, culture and Catholic values. In response to it, the government encour- aged the electorate to tolerate the presence of foreign work- ers for practical reasons – as mandatory servants to Malta's economic growth machine. However, as more eNGOs and concerned citizens are (rightly) criticising the rationale be- hind unsustainable economic growth, it also raises a question on the most efficient strategy for halting the rampant con- struction. It could be tempting to link the latter with the sup- ply of underpaid foreign work- ers. The potential implications of reasoning along the lines of 'influx of cheap labour ruins the environment' are grave. If we are to protect the environ- ment, then clamping down on the number of foreign work- ers could be legitimised as a way to slow down the building frenzy. Thus, by attempting to curb over-building, green campaigning might unwillingly give the xenophobic sentiment a moral ground it previously lacked. This kind of argument is likely to appeal to broad sec- tions of the Maltese popula- tion: resentment towards for- eigners would no longer be a shamefully racist act, but an expression of concern for the environment. The surge of xenophobia and greenwashed nationalism would then be un- stoppable. The 'solution', therefore, ap- pears to be at hand: expulsion of migrants and foreign work- ers would not only preserve the supposedly homogeneous Maltese culture, but also the environment. We must keep in mind that such a race to the bottom catalysed by resent- ment and racism is a plausible scenario because it is the path of least resistance. Blaming the most vulnerable members of society who, on top of being underpaid, lack political rep- resentation and voting rights is just too easy. Although well-meaning and certainly necessary, anti-de- velopers campaigning might indirectly stir nationalistic and reactionary sentiments when it is framed in such a way. Moreover, it could force NGOs and civil society organisations into a strategic deadlock with no easy way out. Protests for environment and marches in solidarity with migrants are supported by the same crowd whose relation to the devel- opers' lobby varies depending on the context: while being a definite adversary of green campaigning on the one hand, developers could be an ally of pro-migrant advocates as employers and benefactors of migrant labour on the other. This contradiction could un- dermine the arguments of hu- man rights activists since they can be accused of backing the influx of 'cheap labour', so det- rimental to the environment. Way forward: targeting developers' profits So whom can we identify as responsible for the ecological deterioration of this archipela- go? The migrant workers? No, it's still the developers and the economic model that encour- ages over-building as a source of quick profit. To stir clear from empower- ing xenophobic arguments, green campaigners should not limit their criticism to devel- opers' faulty morals and lack of enforcement in the indus- try, since the perpetrators are prepared to shift the blame elsewhere. We must attack the source of their power: profits. Tremendous sums churned out by the construction indus- try are enabled by low wages and soaring property prices, not the availability of foreign workers per se. Money cannot lay idle. Abet- ted by low labour costs, profits made from property sales and Foreign workers: scapegoats for environmental degradation in Malta As the plunder of the little remaining open spaces on the island engulfed in construction dust continues, it becomes ever more pressing to identify the culprit of this malaise Shifting responsibility for the dire situation in the construction sector onto foreign workers could be an easy trick for developers. After all, the foreign workers are the ones carrying out the works and can thus easily be accused of not abiding by the rules By attempting to curb over-building, green campaigning might unwillingly give the xenophobic sentiment a moral ground it previously lacked