The school that was opened twice

Three ministers turned up a few days ago to open a school in Gozo.

The government’s mouthpiece, the Department of Information, told us that Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for European Funds Chris Fearne, Education Minister Clifton Grima and Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri were at the Nadur primary school for the “opening” of the complex following what was described as a €6.3 million modernisation project.

The three ministers were pictured mingling with the students. As we have repeatedly said, there is no better photo opportunity for a politician than to be seen smiling at a child. We saw it when the three-year-old girl from Gaza was brought over some weeks ago for treatment in Malta. We saw it again in Nadur.

The presence of three ministers for such an event is justified by the authorities because, they would argue, the education minister must be there because it’s a school, the minister for European funds must be there because the project was funded by the European Union, and the Gozo minister must be there because, well, the school is in Gozo.

While at it, there should have been Miriam Dalli too, as her ministry provides energy to the complex; and Michael Falzon too, because he is responsible for children’s rights; and why not Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi too, since the school is built on public lands. In a nutshell, if one were to stretch the argument, all the Cabinet should have been there.

But then, wait a minute… wasn’t this school in Nadur that same one that European Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen opened last September when she came over to Malta for a summit on migration? The EU chief had been whisked away to the sister island – and photos were taken of her having a coffee with the Prime Minister on board the ferry – to take part in the “opening” ceremony. In her speech, she had described the complex as “brand new”.

At the time, and before von der Leyen had been taken to Gozo, the government had ignored the criticism, spearheaded by independent candidate Arnold Cassola, that the work at the school had not been finished. “Please do not let our Prime Minister use you to trick us, the Maltese people,” Cassola had said in an open letter he had sent to the EU chief. “The works are far from ready and everything is just a PR show utilising your presence in Malta.”

Cassola had gone as far as publishing photos of areas of the school which were in a mess. “They will not show you that part of the school which is in a pitiful condition,” Cassola had told von der Leyen. Needless to say, the government went on with its plan to have von der Leyen “open” the school, even though it was clear that Cassola was right.

Yet, at the time the government continued to insist that the Nadur school had been completed and inaugurated. In an opinion piece on Times of Malta in October, a few weeks after von der Leyen’s visit, the then parliamentary secretary for EU funds, Chris Bonett, had boasted about the work that had been carried out.

He referred to the Nadur school as being “one of our flagship initiatives which we have unveiled recently.” Note the word “unveiled”, which is a substitute for “opened” or “inaugurated”.

So, we ask, if the Nadur school was “unveiled” by von der Leyen in September, why was it “inaugurated” again by three ministers a few days ago?

It’s evident that Cassola and others who jumped on his bandwagon at the time were correct to say that the works at the school had not been completed, and that von der Leyen’s presence was just a PR exercise. It’s evident that the government took von der Leyen, and all those who thought the work at the Nadur school had been completed, for a ride.

The government has mastered this kind of deception. What has happened with regard to the

Nadur school has taken place elsewhere. Ministers “visit” projects when they are planned, approved, start, are midway through, towards the end and when it’s all completed, and the way these events are described and the kind of information that is filtered leads unsuspecting minds to believe that so much is going on when, in the end, it is only one project.

Even the words that are being used to describe certain projects are being carefully chosen to portray affluence. For example, we have noticed how the government is constantly using the term “investment”, when instead it should be “cost” or “expenditure”. According to dictionaries, an “investment” is the process of using money to return a profit. The embellishment of a garden is a “cost”, but the government is using “investment” simply because “investment” sounds better and implies that a profit is being made.

This is the country we are living in today.