Skip to main content

For future generations

This article was published in The Times of Malta on Tuesday 21 April 2015



Now that the spring hunting referendum is done and dusted and the result has sent out so many messages for our analysis and attention, I think it is time to step back and reflect carefully on what this whole process we have been through has actually meant.

It is first of all very important to highlight the fact that this was a citizens’ initiative.

A small number of civically minded people got together and launched the petition calling for the referendum, acquired the necessary number of subscribers and launched the process.

A hot potato that successive politicians had hoped would cool down on its own was tackled head on by these persons, who deserve to be publicly praised and acknowledged for what they managed to do, whether we agree with them or not on this issue.

It should have remained so – an issue isolated from our usual partisan divide.

The arguments should have focused solely about the pros and cons of stopping the government from applying the derogation built in the Birds Directive and allowing spring hunting. This seemed to have been maintained initially when, just a few days after Joseph Muscat’s pronouncement that he would vote yes, Simon Busuttil followed suit, explaining his decision on the basis of consistency with past policies of the Nationalist Party in government.

Busuttil declaring a Yes vote did not mean he was encouraging people to vote yes. He also declared this was his position and not an official party line, hence a free vote.

Such a declaration is not made to influence people but to put oneself up for scrutiny.

Unfortunately, when the surveys started to show a significant majority of people in favour of the No, this did not go down well with the Labour Party.

Egos, or, probably, just one ego, would be bruised if the people voted no, notwithstanding the fact that the leader had said he would vote yes. So there was a unilateral decision to recreate the divide for this referendum along party lines.

In the last two weeks, Muscat did not only voice his support for the Yes vote repeatedly but he also accused Busuttil of secretly working and campaigning for the No vote.

That changed the ballgame. He effectively turned the referendum into a PL versus PN vote, knowing that he still enjoys the following of a significant majority who follow his lead above all other considerations.

The Nationalist Party stayed out. Yes, of course, there were a number of us who were publicly pro-No but there were also a number pro-Yes. It was a free vote, after all, a citizens’ initiative, and we respected that to the last day. Muscat did not. How dare mere citizens take the lead on this or on any other issue, for that matter!

There has been some criticism levelled at the PN for taking this stand and it is worth noting.

However, it is also worth explaining that the statement by Busuttil had effectively removed any element of partisan polarisation.

Muscat slyly injected it back in with his rhetorical statements in the last two weeks and skewed the result.

Notwithstanding this, practically half the population voted no, showing an environmental awareness and sensitivity hitherto never expressed by a Maltese electorate.

This is the very strong message that came out of this referendum. And this is the message that we are going to listen to.

Protection of the little natural environment, including our limited water resources – from overdevelopment, from pollution, from greed – is now very much at the top of our political agenda.

The key to success is education and we politicians need to be educated ourselves, first and foremost, as politicians should listen, learn and then lead.

Then we can promote and propagate the appreciation of the real value that the environment gives to society as a return on any investment we put into it.

It is a value which is not necessarily instantly recognised and, thus, might not help you win your next election but for which future generations would be forever grateful.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Shema Yisrael, the cries of the Palestinian people

You live a peaceful life in a modest home. You've never bothered anyone and you've never caused trouble. Out of the blues, a group of people claim that they should live in your house. Why? Because they have been persecuted in a war, and they claim that some 5,000 years ago, their God had told them your home was their promised land. Somehow, the whole community agrees with their wishes, and asks you to grant them your spare-bedroom. You oblige. After a few months, they take the whole top-floor. In a few year's time, they take over your kitchen. After a few more years, they own your house and keep you and your family locked in the bathroom. They don't even allow you to get out, while they strip-search you the few times they do. Even if it's a medical emergency. Sometimes not even medical personnel and ambulances are allowed to see to your needs while your children die in your hands. Desperation starts hitting you. Life seems to offer no hopes. In moments

The Great Energy Proposal

I followed the example of a facebook comment uploaded on another blog to work out the savings my household will make with Labour's energy proposals. Our bill for of €717.80 for 7 months is divided into: An electricity service charge of €36.86 Electricity consumption of €404.83 A water service charge of €33.46 Water consumption of €242.65 Through the new tariff scheme, reducing the electricity consumption bill by 25% and the water consumption bill by 5%, our bill will read: An electricity service charge of €36.86 Electricity consumption of €303.62 A water service charge of €33.46 Water consumption of €230.52 A total of €604.46 for the same 7 months. A reduction of €16.20 a month. But this reduction comes at what price? This grand plan, the one we have been expecting for all these years, will materialize  if  we find a private investor ready to fork out €500 million in capital investment,  if  we reach a 10-year fixed price agreement,  if we manage to b

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is