Although a baby’s first teeth usually develop while still in the womb, they actually start to emerge through the gums when the baby is around six months old. We call this process teething. According to the NHS online guide, early teething should not cause a baby any problems – unless it affects feeding, in which case it sucks (or rather literally, it doesn’t).
We’ve heard the phrase “teething problems” used many a time this week of course thanks to Arriva’s bungled arrival into the world of Maltese gemgem, political intrigue and hot suns that would melt even the most defiant revolutionary spirit. I’ll put forward an early caveat (warning) here: yes, I still live in Luxembourg and I have not had the opportunity to try out the system myself so I am speaking purely from an outside point of view – probably by the time I savour the pleasure of an air-conditioned bus trip to Għadira in August it will be a different kettle of fish.
Incisors
The confusion of the first few days of service cannot really all be dismissed as ‘teething problems’. Once you remove the (by now) 70 renegade bus drivers from the equation you still end up with a number of extremely disappointing facts. They range from the obvious (shelters from the sun) to the technically avoidable (ticket machines going loco) to the downright silly (bus size problems on certain routes – Balluta Hill) and to the profanely inept (bad planning of certain routes: including prime suspect Bisazza Street, Mrabat Street and more).
I am aware of the fact that I subconsciously keep trying to give Arriva a break – maybe that stems from having experienced efficient bus systems across Europe that are similar to the plans on paper in Malta. There does however seem to be a gaping absence of ‘local input’ in the planning part. Either that, or the locals involved in the planning were as apt for the job as Hitler would be as a kindergarten assistant in Jerusalem. Is it another case of the ‘ċuċ Malti’? I doubt it. Arriva must know by now that Malta’s transport system is neither that of Athens nor of Berlin or Strasbourg. I am convinced that they are engaging in a lot of listening at this point: taking note of all the tweaks that are needed to mother this baby out of the teething trouble it has. My hopes are still pinned on an eventual success for the company.
Canines
One thing I cannot really accept is Austin Gatt’s position in the whole saga. We are at pains as a people to distinguish between the responsibilities of a ministry and those of a private company that has embarked on a huge project. Gatt’s ministry might be responsible for having chosen Arriva out of a number of tenderers but after that it should be Maltese Public Expectation vs The Boys from Arriva. Gatt does not help by speaking as though he was the CEO of Arriva (vide the driver sacking business) but neither does the mentality that we have been groomed to have: that any service is ultimately given to us by government. We find it hard to understand that a faulty ticket machine is a problem we should track down to some incompetence within Arriva and not in Austin Gatt’s ministry.
I do not say this to defend Austin Gatt or his ministerial minions who have suddenly vanished from sight unable to take the flak for the bad planning. I say this because what we have on balance is a national transport grid: something that would benefit everybody by being efficient – and not just Austin’s men. We all have a duty to scrutinise Arriva’s performance as much as we have a social duty to collaborate with the company and help it through its teething problems where justified. At the end of the day Gatt and his men may push the button on penalty clauses, (just as Arriva was eager to get compensation for the Bisazza Street gaffe), but an efficient transport system is not built on penalty clauses alone.
Molars
It is part of the inevitable course of 21st century Maltese politics that party positions are created by default. The divorce issue gave us a Labour position built by default. Labour never pronounced itself in favour or against divorce. It just defined what it was not: in this case Labour’s position was that it had no party position. The ploy worked for the man in the street who now sees Joseph’s team as the champions of progressive nothingness and is happier for it. We may soon see the same business with Arriva. Joseph’s team will nurture the discontent of the public on this issue. What we will not know is whether Labour’s team are proposing a return to the old Xarabanks or whether they too would be trying to solve Arriva’s teething problems if they take up Austin’s ministerial job.
As things stand Labour need not take a position but will still win sympathy from people who want something different from the status quo. How that will solve the problems of the shelters, the bendy buses, the ticketing machines and the unruly drivers is anyone’s guess. We’ve seen it all before in the VAT-CET saga haven’t we? Same; same but different. The crisis of representation is doomed to continue and trust you me: the teething problems in this case are gargantuan. Blessed are the oblivious for they will vote PLPN and be satisfied.
Got Milk?
Francis Zammit-Dimech penned an interesting article this week in the Times (Vision of a changing nation). In it he distanced himself from the ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’ approaches within the PN and made a case for a modern party based on a mosaic structure glued together by values such as the common good and human dignity. It might be a working solution that challenges the clumsily assembled ‘umbrella party’ visions and ‘new liberals’ a-la-Frank Psaila. There is a case to be made here especially if the likes of Zammit-Dimech can manage to convince the party that Christian-Democrats can and will feel comfortable legislating in favour of minority rights based on the common good and human dignity.
We will need to wait and see whether this line can be elaborated further. The parliamentary legislative track record seems to still be confused and is based more on interest-based legislation than clear guiding principles. Even in the seemingly frivolous – such as alcohol sales regulation and that of entertainment – there seems to be an intellectual and ideological dishonesty and hypocrisy at work. How else do you explain that village festas have been given a carte-blanche regarding alcohol sales while a concert organiser has to adhere to strict conditions and pay an exorbitant fee as a guarantee in order to organise his event? This is a simple but effective example of the inconsistencies that are the order of the day when umbrella-parties feeding off conflicting networks try to please the world.
Ironically, the more ‘avant-garde’ (wankellectual if you like) part of the nation seems to be the one sacrificed on a regular basis. Which is why we get censorship problems and why 21st century social habits are still out-lawed (as in not legalised) in our nation. When they do try to find some balls and legislate (see for example cohabitation) they get it all so damningly wrong (not making it available for persons who were previously married).
First Ladies
Ever since Lady Di’s tragic death in 1997 we have witnessed the concept of public grief develop into a hideously impersonal theatrical show pumped up by the media and fed by the big brother syndrome that afflicts the general public. We are not the first generation to suffer from this morbid concern with the remembrance of the deceased that so often smacks of lack of real respect. The Victorians were notoriously fixated with their complicated rules for mourning and dealing with death that culminated with the huge confusion on how exactly to go about the funeral arrangements when the great Queen herself joined her beloved Albert in the sky.
Public outpourings of sentiment tend to become cringe-worthy after a while when it is blatantly obvious that the act of condolence has become automatic rather than genuine. When people start to fall over themselves in a race for the dramatic we slip into the theatrical and the hyperbolic, quickly losing every sense of decorum. In my book this smacks of disrespect to the recently departed. We have not reached the stage of the ancient Romans who would hire mourners to wail and scratch themselves behind the funeral procession but we are risking losing any sense of social decorum by following this folly that is public mourning in the 21st century.
I never met and did not know Mrs Fenech-Adami. She passed away within a day of Betty Ford, the wife of former US President Gerald Ford. Obviously I did not know Mrs Ford either. On a human level I can only offer my sincere condolences to the families of the departed. They are the ones who will feel the biggest emptiness as a dear beloved leaves them for another world.
On a public level I can appreciate the two very different first ladies of two very different nations. Betty Ford was a political animal through and through. She is remembered as a woman who battled for civil rights – pressing for abortion rights and women’s rights during her husband’s presidential period. She never shied from the public view and used her position to push political objectives she believed in. She will be most remembered for her personal fight against drug and alcohol abuse. After having confronted the demons herself in her own private life she transformed the battle into a public one – opening the now famous Betty Ford Centre in California and pressing for further awareness on the issue of drug and alcohol abuse.
Mrs Fenech-Adami could not have been any more different. Her husband’s latest public intervention – when he controversially suggested that divorce was a matter of conscience – highlighted the distinction between ‘moral’ and ‘political’ decisions. Whether or not we agree with Eddie, the stamp of Fenech-Adami’s moral compass was clear to see and it helps us understand the public face of Mrs Fenech-Adami. It is clumsy of us to try to pigeon hole Mrs Fenech-Adami’s public life into a political box. Mrs Fenech-Adami was not political. She was a strong, principled woman with a solid catholic upbringing. From what I can see, that made her the pillar and reference point of her family. We can easily confuse principles and values with humility and ‘knowing her place’, but we would be doing her a great disservice.
I like to see Mrs Fenech-Adami as a moral rock built on the no-nonsense, principled approach that you might disagree with but cannot help but admire. It is with that memory that I offer my sincere condolences first and foremost to the Fenech-Adami family and secondly to the wider family that had gotten used to having someone like Mary as a reference point – in that latter case I can see no reason for anything other than pride.
www.akkuza.com would like to extend another note of sympathy and support in what has been a sad week for some of us. A huge hug goes out to Mark and his family after the loss of a young, vibrant sister, daughter and friend. “Oh heart, if one should say to you that the soul perishes like the body, answer that the flower withers, but the seed remains” (Khalil Gibran).
This is the J’acccuse column from the Malta Independent on Sunday of the 10th July 2011.
