Having your cake and eating it too

It is not the major political parties that are to blame for the sorry state of affairs, but the electorate

More fiscal prudence and a few less promises here and there would have given them a smaller majority but, paradoxically, an easier time governing.
More fiscal prudence and a few less promises here and there would have given them a smaller majority but, paradoxically, an easier time governing.

There are various hot issues to talk about at the moment in Malta - Mater Dei bursting at the seams; Arriva leaving us in the lurch; and the notorious Individual Investor Programme.  As expected, a quick flick through comments and blogs on the internet shows that Labourites and Nationalists have diametrically opposing views and opinions on these matters. However, in my opinion, it is not the major political parties that are to blame for the sorry state of affairs, but the electorate. Just like our southern European brothers and sisters, the Maltese population wants everything while it is prepared to give nothing.

The last electoral campaign was surreal. Despite being in the middle of a financial crisis, with the government finding it impossible to balance our budget, both parties were promising the moon. Any visitor would have thought that Malta was sitting on a trillion dollar reserve of crude oil. My column is becoming nauseatingly repetitive, but I just cannot help it. PN promised an income tax reduction during the 2008 election. They postponed their promise till the last second and then dumped it onto the following legislature. PN were well placed to predict the problems Labour would face in office - after all they had been there and done that for several years. Election after election they promised state of the art healthcare, free education with stipends, quick and reliable public transport, etc. But all their projects stumbled due to a lack of funds.

Joseph Muscat and the Labour Party learnt an unfortunate lesson from the Alfred Sant legislature: Malta doesn't want a reality check. Any questions regarding how they planned to fund their projects were just shrugged off; no "hofra" or "issikkar tac-cinturin" this time. The IIP project was clearly on the cards but was presumably (and possibly rightly) deemed to be too dangerous to try to sell to the public before the election.

We all remember the 2008 election photo finish which left Labour with a surprise defeat. Both parties seemed to have miscalculated the polls, as both PN and MLP were bracing themselves for a loss and a win respectively. In 2012, the rebranded PL did not rest on its laurels. But this time it overdid it. More fiscal prudence and a few less promises here and there would have given them a smaller majority but, paradoxically, an easier time governing.

Minister Farrugia appears to have been caught completely off-guard by the terrible state of our health service - however the fact is that both parties were totally aware of the problems plaguing our general hospital. The disorganised state of the primary health system, which is dumping everyone into the hospital service, the inefficiencies within Mater Dei and the elderly care problem which is slowing it down on the other end, are the root of it all. The solutions are easy. A few millions to integrate electronically all private GPs to the government health care system with online notes and e-prescribing. Another few millions to get rid of the paper files at Mater Dei, making everything more efficient and data available at the touch of a button. A couple of millions to make services for the elderly widely available within the community and a few more residential homes for the elderly. Finding the millions is the real issue. That ball is not in Godfrey Farrugia's court, but in Castille's. Increasing (or at least keeping the same) income tax rates, increasing energy bills, or adding new taxes or fees are out of the question. So what is the other option? Selling citizenship!

The "citizenship for cash" scheme is all about money. Nothing else. The furore it caused, both in Malta and beyond, was expected and comprehensible (albeit in some cases rather hypocritical, given the fact that countries such as Austria and Cyprus have schemes very similar to our own, with no residency requirement). However, people must decide, they cannot just complain without giving alternatives. I would be happier if the government reforms the student stipend system, introduces health care co-payments and leaves income tax brackets at the previous levels. But election after election have shown that I am clearly part of a small minority. If the majority don't want to pay more taxes, don't want a reduction in social benefits, and want education and healthcare completely free, then what option do we have?

avatar
Dear Mrs Cassar, quite a nice summation of the situation if it wasn't for the huge slip in the interpretation of the Austrian and Cypriot Citizenship schemes. There has been enough misinformation in the government PR regarding the schemes of other EU countries in order to put ours in a better light and yet here we have you repeating the same trash in an otherwise well written opinion. Gaining an Austrian citizenship is tied to so many bureaucratic restrictions that, not even by a stretch of imagination can this be compared to ours. The Cypriot one is more straight-forward but it stresses primarily on direct investment in the local economy with no mention whatsoever of a donation to state coffers. This leaves Malta as the only scheme bartering the privilege for money with no mention of direct investment since the purchase of government bonds and an immovable property certainly do not qualify as such. If anything can be labeled as an ‘indecent proposal’ Malta’s IIP will almost certainly be the only one to fit the bill.