Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/494410
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 APRIL 2015 24 Letters Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. Get rid of the Ornis Committee The new coast road A fresh breath of democracy So the Ornis Committee had voted to open this year's spring hunting season on April 12, the morn- ing immediately following the referendum. During the discussion (I assume there was one) and the subsequent voting were the follow- ing facts considered? 1. The polls were to close to voters at 10pm on Saturday, April 11 and then two sets of ballot boxes have to be processed, one for the referendum, and another for the local council elections, where ap- propriate. This is very likely to go on into the early hours of Sunday (and this is not taking into account any delays or recounts) before a final result is announced and it is also very likely that many people, including hunters would be asleep when the result is announced. 2. Dawn breaks on Sunday, 12 April at 6.34am. Given that the law allows hunting two hours be- fore dawn, if the hunting season did open as recommended by the Ornis Committee, the hunters would be allowed to shoot from 4.34 am. 3. Given the minute (and possibly non-existent) time window between a final official result be- ing announced – especially if the result is 'No' – and the opening of the season at 4.34 am, how was the result to be disseminated through- out the population, particularly the hunters, so as to prevent any hunter breaking the law and claiming ignorance (and as everyone knows " ignorance of the law is no excuse"). Finally, I find it strange that the government did allow ample time for everyone to be aware of the result, but the Ornis Committee did not appear to have given it any thought at all – coincidence, or what? Surely it is time for the Ornis Committee to be dispensed with as it is a useless appendage to the government and an added expense to the taxpayer? Clifford John Williams by email Like most motorists and users of the coast road, we cannot wait for this new facility to be opened. However, let me make a warning! Motorists and their passengers alike are not going to be able to enjoy the sea view or coastline. You simply cannot see it anymore – not unless you are riding in the cabin of a refuse truck, or a public / private transport bus! Please observe the next time you drive along any part of the acces- sible areas, and make any attempt to get a glimpse of the sea. The height of the newly built rub- ble wall and its retaining concrete support does not allow one to get a clear view of our wonderful shore- line, not to mention the sea itself. Furthermore, there are no open- ings in this wall to allow access to the shoreline. And lastly, what is to become of the horrible external side of this concrete wall, when viewed from the sea, or even the shoreline... Jean-Marc Bianchi Madliena The news, as yet unofficial, that Malta qualifies for objective one EU funding is welcome and a sigh of economic relief in an otherwise difficult business climate. The resultant funds linked to project develop- ments will hopefully upgrade the coun- try's infrastructure and help to boost the economy. Beyond this potential future shot in the arm to the economy, the financial situation in the country is in dire straits. An analysis of the report of the London based think- tank shows that our country is lag- ging in competitive terms behind the remaining EU members. We are indeed near bottom of the league. We have fewer women in the work force, our children leave school at too early an age, our terti- ary education numbers are low, our rate of economic growth is low, the number of patent applications in- significant, greenhouses emissions high and we have a high deficit. In short the country is not on a sound economic footing ("Finanzi fis-sod"), a far cry from the infa- mous electoral poster so proudly displayed by the Nationalist party. We are simply not competitive. We have only excelled in information technology. This is no coincidence, but the consequence of a fully focused ministerial policy and commitment to the expansion of IT in the country. People are concerned, the mood is rock bottom, strapped for cash and paying an ever-increasing amount of taxes and government induced price hikes. There is far less confidence in the market place. There is a crisis, no matter what is stated by the Prime Minister. Further to this, there is a general feeling that we do not have the medication to ad- dress this crisis. Dr Lawrence Gonzi must take note and act fast. He must also act to utilise those individuals from his elected members of parliament who can give added value. He could use such a much-needed approach to mend fences. We recognise that gone are the days when governments can simply kick-start the economy with some magical wand but something must be done and quick. This government, more than its predeces- sor - that was only focused on presenting a rosy economic picture to help its electoral chances to win the EU referendum - is more conscious of the need to take the economic bull by the horns. Accordingly, it has initiated a restruc- turing process in many of the state owned companies; it has pruned certain expenditure and has removed holidays falling on a weekend. Yet in spite of this, for many, expenditure is still increasing and revenues are on the decline. There is a growing feeling that government measures are just not working. People are not seeing the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. The blueprint for change must be based on the premise and acceptance that in implementing measures govern- ments' popularity will take a beating. What needs to be done will hurt but in the national interest it still needs to be done. Making Malta competitive goes far beyond erasing holidays that fall on a weekend. Dr Gonzi ever focused on reducing the deficit, a laudable target, needs simultaneously to address the issue of growth. The one is not in conflict with the other. Indeed growth is the quickest way to reduce a deficit that can only be erased in the short-term with a surplus budget, how- ever unlikely this appears in the foreseeable future. The shortest route to growth is via an increase in earnings from the tour- ism industry, the further expansion of the financial services sector and the attraction of foreign direct investment. It is all of these three sectors that should be attracting the prime minister's attention. Addressing the deficit and ignoring growth is clearly a short-sighted policy. It also gives a sense of dejà vu of the short- lived Alfred Sant government. More than ever, observers are comparing Dr Gonzi's first year to Dr Sant first year of govern- ment. Attention should be given to kick-starting the economy. Leaving more disposable income in people's pockets is the surest way for this to be done. This is the very antithesis of what government is doing currently: proving itself to be mighty efficient in introduc- ing and collecting taxes yet very lacking in the improvement of public services. The feeling of people and companies being cash strapped is having a detrimental effect on the economy. People are not spending because they are not optimistic about their future earnings and are far too stuck with their monthly commitments. The measures taken so far are far too few and are being introduced far too late. Dr Gonzi must carry on introducing further much-needed reforms whatever the electoral fallout and must address the equally important issue of growth without painting a landscape of doom and gloom. Deficit control and stimulating growth at the same time is the difficult way forward. Too little too late Editorial • 10 April 2005 When, some 20 years ago, a group of us who had formed the Moviment Referendarju Malti lobbied to obtain, and achieved, the right to the abrogative refer- endum, little did we know that it would take an odd-20 years for the first such referendum to be held. With the exception of Xara- bank, which had two pro- grammes on the subject, there was very little debate on the subject on radio and TV. Given the fact that it was clear that the part y media houses did not want to support the democratic debate, the full onus of respon- sibilit y to ensure that the public was adequately informed about the subject should have fallen on PBS. Our public media were not capable of assuming this. One should not forget that a number of the debates transmit- ted on TVM were imposed by the Broadcasting Authorit y. Even here, this body, whose function is to regulate and ensure adequate information, failed miserably! Given that this was the first abrogative referendum it should have imposed and ensured that there was enough information on the voting process along with the opinions. The Broadcasting Authorit y used the same measuring stick of a normal election, when the part y media houses are in overdrive, which ensure that there is more than ample information on their positions. In this case the part y media were absent along with PBS and the BA, because the institutions are geared to support political parties and not there to facilitate real grassroots democ- racy. One must applaud the English print media, not only because they were bold enough for their editorials to take a stand, but also for the coverage given to both sides. It was these media houses that led the battle for public in- formation, rather than our public stations. Yet the democratic mess is even greater. Let us not forget the obscene decision taken by the Ornis committee announcing the date when this year's spring hunting season was to open. This is a body appointed by the state which has spat on the face of all people in Malta, be they 'yes' or 'no' or 'don't give a damn'. This t ype of undemocratic ar- rogance would only be found in banana republics. One can also mention the Electoral Commission, which from the start had bypassed the timelines set by law for the verification of signatures. The Commission had the responsibil- it y to ensure that the elector- ate understood the referendum question and the answers. And it should have seen that how to vote was clear to all. None of this happened as this body is only set to think in (political) part y mode. A referendum, especially one instigated by social partners, as was the spring hunting refer- endum, has shown the total weaknesses of our institutions to support any real democratic process. Along with this we have a government whose key elements do not believe in referenda. To whoever wins or loses yesterday's referendum, I believe that given all the institutional odds, both did well. Even the level of discussion was mature. It shows that our country has evolved democratically more than some members of the politi- cal parties wish. Lessons, though, need to be learnt. Changes need to be made. A fresh breath of democracy has reached the islands, passing through the cracks of the walls of parliamentary democracy. Let's keep it going. Darr yl Grima Via email YOUR FIRST CLICK OF THE DAY www.maltatoday.com.mt