Tag: planning

Categories
Mediawatch

The Business of Worship

mosque_akkuza

The Office of the Prime Minister has been busy denying that there are any plans for building a mosque in or around the American University of Malta. Yesterday, the Malta Independent had reported the result of a Social Impact Assessment on the Zonqor Site for Sadeen’s University and had:

“revealed how the Social Impact Assessment on the Zonqor site suggested the inclusion of a mosque on campus seeing that the majority of students attending the American University of Malta are expected to be Muslim. It did not suggest a new mosque for the Cospicua campus since students would be able to attend the Paola mosque. The report, by Dr Marvin Formosa and Mr Joe Gerada, also called for a multicultural education campaign for residents of Marsascala. [The Malta Independent] never implied that a mosque would be built but simply stated the facts that emerge from the document, which was disseminated to the media by the OPM last week.”

The opposition media had jumped at the opportunity to fan the waves of anti-muslim sentiment in Malta by highlighting this suggestion. It is one thing to sell the new University as an opportunity for heavy investment in Malta, it is another to understand the obvious implications of attracting the purported 4,000 or so students and all their needs – including those spiritual. The fact of the matter is that the people happy clapping Joseph Muscat on his visit to Dock number 1 in all the pomp and glory (all the while showering new gifts on the local populace like some character in Sid Meier’s Civilisation) might have quickly turned into a disgruntled lot had the highlight been on the obvious consequence of having to cater for the spiritual needs of the same student population.

This was never meant to be the discussion about whether or not Malta needs a new mosque. Chances are that the current number of practicing Muslims  in Malta warrants a new mosque anyway. The Paola mosque might have become too small for the burgeoning community so we are probably talking about an inevitable consequence anyway. Allah knows whether another construction enthusiast from the Middle East might turn to investing in the construction of a spiritual refuge and whether that will also be considered a good “investiment f’Malta ghall-Maltin”. Good luck to Joseph selling the land space necessary and convincing any local council to become the beneficiary of such heavenly blessings.

And that, really, is the case. Whether or not the OPM intended to heed the warning signs of the Social Impact Assessment is neither here nor there. The truth is that this dubious university investment obviously has the government by the balls. The whole point is neither improving educational standards in a region that is a stone’s throw away from Tal-Qroqq (compare the “South” to Gozo – arguably the furthest region from the UOM but with the highest percentage of students in tertiary education for a very long time) nor about  bringing money or employment that will stay in this fictitious “South”. The point was finding an excuse for Sadeen to build his residential part on ODZ land. In a throwback to Mintoffian begging bowl years disguised as supposed smart salesmanship, Muscat bent over backwards to appease a construction specialist and grant him the people’s land. To sell the project he invented stories about improving education – for whom? Will the sons of Cottonera who failed to attend the UOM for free benefit from the four IT degrees of a haphazardly assembled university?

He sold the lie that this would increase employment for the area: It’s a lie because you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of residence when employing someone. He sold the lie that the students would leave money in the area. Would they? If Sadeen’s plans are what they seem to be then the students will be spending most of their money in the “American” University itself – when they are not travelling around Europe thanks to the student visa that will perforce be issued (u hallik minn  Joe Sammut). Those who will not be doing the Grand Tour d’Europe will be living in and around the AUM right? Which is where the need for a mosque comes in. Not just a mosque mind you. Is it fear tactics that lead me to mention proper food catering (hallal), maybe a bank or two dealing in sharia approved commerce. How does this impact the local population?

Which is the point I want to get at. The issue of integration where a muslim community is concerned is far from being an openly discussed one in Malta. The assumption is that this is a catholic country with catholic mores. A new mosque is the least of the worries if worry it is. What it cannot be is an unplanned afterthought forced on a community without much planning and education. In a country where the press goes with the flow and ignores the nuances and effects of the choices it makes when reporting we are far from having a clear plan that understands the functioning of a multicultural community. The adaptation of our society to one that really understands and works fully with integration cannot happen as a result of hodgepodge spin-offs of ill-thought planning by this government.

It cannot happen especially in the context of a project that is one big sham from start to end – an excuse for a university that leads to the raping of public land outside a development zone (compromise or no). The mosque cannot become Joseph Muscat’s Trojan to his prostituting of more land and resources to the highest (and shadiest) bidder.

***

The TV station Al-Jazeera has announced in its official blog that it will no longer be using the term “migrant” and its derivatives to refer to the peoples being displaced across the Mediterranean and from the Middle East. The Doha based network has chosen to refer to all such persons as “refugees” from now on. The power of the media is also in the words it uses. Public opinion and sentiment can often be swayed or fanned by the use of certain terms and not others. It is decisions like this that highlight  the full force of words and their use in reporting.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Show me the tablet

Our country does not lie on a vast oil deposit. If it does have one then we either haven’t found it or somebody is very good at keeping it well hidden. We do not export massive amounts of goods and notwithstanding all the talk about the gaming industry and tourism there is only so much you can “earn” to justify spending. We are not even a diligent country in the fashion of Norway that invests most of the money it gets from its oil deposits into a fund for future generations. Inevitably when elections come round even though we may be completely drunk with partisan euphoria the crux of the matter will (or should) always be the same: “Show me the money”.

The tablet wars late last week had a strange effect on me. It was one thing having pointed out for a very long time the atrocious “race to the bottom” that the PLPN dichotomy signifies. It was another to see the manner in which this tongue-in-cheek brazen approach to having a go at insulting the voter’s intelligence has been developed. All the elements coincided – you had the auction of promises and the typical partisan reaction from both sides of our Lilliputian gap. Without batting an eyelid both parties had promised millions of euros of electronic equipment to our younger generations and both parties claimed a monopoly on this move being part of some wider education plan.

Wider plan my foot. Suffice it to say that the Malta Union of Teachers was far from impressed by this tomfoolery. How bloody typical. Remember this is the government that followed our decision to get into the EU but that failed to factor a course for translators and interpreters at University in the run up to membership. How is that relevant? It’s relevant because it is one thing to shoot ambitious plans off the cuff and another thing to actually be in a position to implement them. Ask Manuel Delia.

Before you run away with some twisted idea, this is not an amish attack on all things technological. Of course technology is the future but that is not the point. The point is that both parties very evidently treat this tablet business superficially. Rent-a-pundits will link to a single article in a Microsoft Public Network magazine and will tell you that this is proof that the PN’s tablet proposal has concrete background. Sure. With all due respect to the Mark Azzopardi who has been interviewed in the article I have my doubts how much a Miss World style wish at the end of an article in a Microsoft promotional e-zine to boot can be taken as “background to a government policy” costing 25€ million of taxpayers’ money.

Not to mention of course the fact that if this were really the background then I would begin to worry about how the government already is looking into one particular company (Microsoft) and then I would begin to ask more questions – specifically who represents Microsoft in Malta and who would stand to gain from a deal that puts Microsoft’s learning programme in every school?

As for Labour. Don’t get me started. Their approach is even more bungled and transparent when it comes to the lack of planning. We are lumped with another “remedial class”. Do you remember all the bla bla about consultation with social partners? Do you remember how open Labour is even on the social networks? Well, have I got news from you. They were not listening. Had they been listening to the educators of this country they would have known the immense logistical mountain that faces the schools should the tablet in every hand become a reality. What of LSAs and teachers who suddenly have four or five kids in class with some error on their tablet? Does Labour know that there is no logisitical IT support for every school? From what I am told even LSA coordination is bad enough with government schools having one coordinator for ten schools. That’s without the tablets.

This is not a case of a country not being ready for development and progress. This is a case of a country not affording the truckloads of bullshit that are being heaped upon it daily in this election. The worst thing about it all is not that “Everybody lies” but rather that “everybody is eager to swallow the lies” so long as it’s their party feeding them the bull.

J’accuse challenges both parties to admit that their tablet promise is the result of the drunken euphoria and passion that this election has brought about. We challenge both parties to take back their empty promise and instead to promise a planned introduction of a proper IT project – one that takes into account all participants in the equation, all cogs in the wheel – like teachers for example.

Tablets for all? Thanks, but no thanks.

Categories
Transport

Unplanned

ARRIVA is due to launch the new nationwide transport system on the 3rd of July this year. Drivers are being trained, fares have been calculated and new routes have been on the drawing board for quite some time now. While the size and type of transition will justify glitches along the way there is an irritating feel to the kind of transitional glitches that have surfaced recently. Two of them in particular:

1. The Bisazza Street gaffe: The man who would love to seem to be the brains behind the scenes a.k.a Manuel Delia of the Austin Gatt ministry (and PN candidate to be) explained that the detour around newly pedestrianised Bisazza Street would throw Arriva’s intelligent information system out of the window. As pathetic excuses go this one takes the ticket. Even the online commentators on the Times – not usually the best measure for spontaneous bursts of intelligent remarks – pointed out that an intelligent system does not get “thrown out of the window” every time there is a deviation.

It then transpires that, based on the agreement negotiated by Manuel Delia’s government with Arriva, the transport company will be entitled to compensation every time government works will oblige it to reroute. If we were to take the Times reporting as a fact then it would seem that such compensation is only due in the case of permanent rerouting:

The contract also lays down a formula for compensation under which a re-routing of this nature* will have to take place. This is calculated by multiplying distance by frequency, with the latter being the crucial element in this case. (…) Meanwhile, Mr Delia said rumours that councils would have to pay some form of compensation to Arriva for closing a road off temporarily were “complete rubbish”. In such cases, councils should inform Transport Malta of the planned closure which would in turn inform Arriva, who would tell its customers accordingly, he said.

*we are not told what “of this nature” really means and are assuming it is “permanent”

So in a country where roadworks are the norm – blockages almost a standard and government planning as controlled as a Brighton Beach Party – we have a government that ties this kind of clause into a contract. At least there is always the Resources Ministry to blame if the government is obliged to pay compensation for a Transport Ministry sanctioned contract. (see ADDENDUM) The left hand blaming the right anyone? So Mr. Delia… I guess what with all the lovely clauses you negotiated you also have one explaining to the taxpayer why he must cover the bill for your half-arsed planning.

2. The Bus Driver Shortage. And since bus drivers are not in great abundance it seems that the Transport Authority is having difficulties finding bus drivers to run the current system since many drivers are off training at ARRIVA.

As the yellow buses struggle to keep the public transport service running, with drivers being taken up for training by the new operator, Transport Malta has stepped in to ease the burden by helping with dispatching. (Times)

You cannot really blame ARRIVA can you? Then again.. what were they thinking?

3. Fare’s Fair?

Unless I am completely mistaken the fare business seems to have been settled. ARRIVA will be going ahead with the resident/non-resident distinction as the tiny disclaimer at the foot of the FARES page will show you:

*All the fares shown above are discounted Adult fares for Malta ID card holders.  To take advantage of these fares you must carry your ID card when travelling.  Full fare information for non-residents, as well as concessionary fare details, can be accessed here.

There is also the ARRIVA SAVER card that will require you to download and print a form, trundle off to the POST office (33 available branches), pay a €5 administration fee and choose between a 30 and 90 day top up.To be fair it seems that online top ups are in the pipeline. Still… this will not be the last that we hear on discrimination on basis of residence.

Interestingly there is this disclaimer regarding Gozitans or what seem to be the Maltese who carry an ID with an address in Gozo to save on the Gozo Ferry fee…

Please note, the Arriva Saver Card can be used in Malta only – unless when applying the customer can produce a relevant Malta ID card with a Gozo address, in which case they can also use their Saver Card for travel in Gozo.

I cannot understand this one. Is it telling me I cannot use the card in Gozo for buses in Gozo? What else can you have if not a Malta ID card? What kind of difference/distinction/discriminatory condition is “a relevant Malta ID card with a Gozo address”? This seems to me a very convoluted way of justifying the double-insularity exception for Gozo (the same one that allows Gozo Channel to “discriminate” fees). It would probably have been easier for two companies to have been formed ARRIVA MALTA and ARRIVA GOZO – each with their separate ticketing system. But hey… who am I to know?

ADDENDUM: In a MaltaToday report we read the following:

It turns out that it was only on 21 April – five months after Transport Malta signed the agreement with Arriva – that the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs asked Transport Malta to consider the complete pedestrianisation of Bisazza Street. This meant the decision to have a fully pedestrianised street was left up until too late for any changes to the Arriva contract.

Which might seem to be a saving point for the negotiators of the contract. Sure, until you realise that this will (probably) not be the last time the government (and yes, it’s useless pointing fingers at separate ministries) will decide to restructure the urban landscape. The timing of THIS pedestrianisation is not as much to blame as the clause that allows for compensation for rerouting in certain circumstances.