Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1234806
2 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 • 12 APRIL 2020 Governments cannot face this crisis alone Editorial THE latest data about the spread of COVID-19 makes for both encouraging and inauspicious interpreta- tions. On the plus side, imported infections (which ac- counted for all local cases until March 16) appear to have stopped altogether since the beginning of April: a fact which illustrates the importance of having stopped global flights to Malta (though it also raises the question of whether this decision should have been taken sooner). However, there is a flipside. The same data also suggests that local transmissions are now picking up in earnest: shooting up from 100 cases on 1 April, to over 250 last Friday. More worryingly still, it turns out that on Friday, 80% of the newly-detected 13 cases were all either health workers or carers, or patients in hospitals or institutions. This can only once again reinforce the message that Malta needs stronger lines of action where self-isolation and quarantine are concerned: espe- cially to ensure protection of the most vulnerable, and the over-65 bracket. The government should therefore start a targeted campaign to protect people who, for various rea- sons (not all related to COVID-19), find themselves trapped in enclosed environments. These include residents of the open centre for migrants (now under lockdown), as well as residents of retirement homes, patients in hospitals, and inmates at the Corradi- no Correctional Facilities. But as Health Minister Chris Fearne rightly pointed out on TVM's Xtra last Thursday: "Both our health facilities, and our coun- try's other facilities, have their limits." As such, the private sector also has a role to play in the national effort against COVID-19. Hotels, for instance – which are now in disuse any- way – could help by offering up their establishments for all health workers and carers at very heavily dis- counted prices. But while some private enterprises have distinguished themselves by proactively work- ing towards the common good… others have done the opposite. It is distressing to note that some shops and busi- nesses have increased their prices – sometimes even of essential commodities – in view of the heightened demand. This may well be standard in times of nor- mality; but in times of crisis such as today – with the prospect of mass-lay-offs, or drastic salary-cuts across the board - it is tantamount to profiteering; and as such, it should be considered a criminal of- fence. Was it the right decision? This week, EU finance ministers agreed on a €500 billion package to cushion the economic blow caused by the coronavirus pandemic. The major stumbling-block during negotiations was whether member states like Italy, already strug- gling with enormous external and domestic debt, should be given more liquidity through a Eurobond: where all member states would share liability for the debt, thus guaranteeing its repayment to investors and banks which buy that debt. Italy, France and Spain pushed strongly for shar- ing the financing the debt, which has been a red line for Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and Austria. Instead the money will come from the EU's rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), strictly for corona-related costs. Member states can draw on a credit line of €240 billion at low interest rates, but only if it is spent on "direct and indirect" health care, cure and prevention costs related to the pandemic. Italy and the Netherlands clashed over this conditionality, which was originally designed to help finance countries that have difficulties ac- cessing the markets and came with tough austerity measures. An additional €260bn should be made available for "temporary, targeted and commensurate with the extraordinary costs of the current crisis", which however come with conditions. What will make this work is to have the member states agree on the measures before Easter. Workers and companies cannot wait much longer than that. Would the Eurobond have worked? What is cer- tain is that a Eurobond would have Europeanised a substantial part of the debt of member states: send- ing out an unequivocal message of true European solidarity for the economic impact of the coronavi- rus. However, it is clear that, insofar as economic measures are concerned, the lack of trust between northern and southern states is alive and kicking. Arguably this emanates from the less than disci- plined fiscal behaviours of certain Mediterranean economies. But of course, the question to the gov- ernments like those of the Netherlands, is whether they truly believe in the political union that the EU is supposed to be. The Netherlands takes pride in carving a global role for itself, notably through its human rights em- issaries, its financing of local NGOs, and its active interest in member states' governance. Does it be- lieve in the Union enough to also back the mutualis- ation of debts? Clearly, the answer remains 'no, not really'… and the same goes for various other member states whose affinity with 'the rest' always stops at the table of the finance ministers. 10 April, 2010 Walker distances himself from pre-electoral boathouse frenzy Malta Environment & Planning Authority chair- man Austin Walker publicly distanced himself from the legalisation of dozens of boathouses on the eve of the last election, before presiding over a MEPA board meeting which shot down 17 ap- plications to sanction illegal boathouses that had 'missed the boat' in February 2008. On four separate occasions in February 2008, dozens of illegal boathouses were approved by the MEPA board, presided by former chairman Andrew Calleja, on the premise that they met the conditions set by the Dwejra Action Plan. At the start of the meeting, Walker made it clear that "this board is different from that of 2008", and that the present board "is not disposed to approve any illegal building" and "if possible it will make sure that no sanctioning will take place." The present board includes three members who were already on the board in 2008, namely Michael Ellul, Joe Tabone Jacono and Anthony Zammit. And while the board was discussing an applica- tion to waive some of the fines imposed in 2008 when a number of boathouses were sanctioned, Walker interjected saying that "if this application had been presented today, possibly we would not even have approved it… times have changed." Most of the applications discussed last Thurs- day involved cases deferred in February 2008. But this time round the board was adamant not to sanction any development which was not visible in survey maps and photos taken in 1957 and 1968, including boathouses which fulfilled the conditions of the Action Plan. Walker even invoked a circular issued to archi- tects asking them to remove any illegal develop- ment before presenting an application to sanction, when faced with an application of one of the few boathouses which had a regular permit issued in 1971. In this case the applicant was given three months to remove any illegal development on his site before applying to sanction the additions made over and above the 1971 permit. The recently approved MEPA reform stipulates that MEPA can no longer sanction developments in 'special conservation areas' but this prohibition is limited only to developments carried out after May 2007. But in this case MEPA has refused to sanction development carried out before this cut-off date. Quote of the Week "It's not acceptable that we see multi-mil- lion rescue packages for the European indus- try, but at the same time, it's claimed that there are no resources for the protection of migrants" Gordon Isler, Sea-Eye chairman MaltaToday 10 years ago