Q&A | Challenging the status quo | Malcolm Mifsud

What is your background?

I am married and have two sons, Julian and Timothy. I am a partner in a law firm, which I founded, and I am head of the litigation department. I am also the mayor of Pieta, President of the Central Region, a member of the Committee of Regions within the EU and member of the PN Executive Council.

How did you get involved in politics?

I was approached when I was 15 or 16 years old to join the local MZPN committee. I was promised that it only involved a meeting once a month! After many meetings and elections later I am now contesting the 2013 General Elections.

Why PN?

PN's vision, past and present, matches with what I think Malta should be aspiring to:  the open market, the EU membership, subsidiarity in the form of local government, emphasis on the creation of employment and investing in education.

What will you bring to the table?

If elected, this would be my first time as a member of parliament. However, I already have a track record in politics. I have been involved in many of the PN's structures, I have lead a local council for almost two decades where I introduced innovative policies. I have also worked within the EU institutions.

Therefore, I can contribute to good governance and offer realistic solutions to my constituent's expectations.

If elected, what will you be pushing for?

The first district is densely populated and therefore quality of life is of our residents is extremely important. I would work for the closure of the Marsa power station, traffic and parking management in Valletta, Hamrun and Sta Venera and the appropriate use of St Luke's Hospital.

On government administration, the bull must be taken by its horns. Government offices should work to assist the people who make use of them. We should attack useless and frustrating rules, regulations and policies that pop up here and there. Public officers should be challenged in Parliament on how they implement policies and on whether the people are satisfied with their services or not.

I am a great believer that Parliament should be more professional. MPs should not be a one-man band. MPs should be able to be guided by assistants and researchers. It would be only then that debates in Parliament would raise their standard and laws are of better quality and not just rubber-stamping drafts from the public service.

You have been a mayor and local councillor for the PN. Do you feel the PN needs a new injection of young talent after these past five years?

Absolutely. The PN is also potentially the party of real change. Being a party in government for 14 years, it needs people who can think out of the box. If the electorate gives us their trust in this election and elect to Parliament a strong dose of new MPs, it will find a PN with the energy required to introduce innovative policies.

I will work with the rest of the team to challenge status quo. People do not want simple substitution from an older politician to one with a younger face. I feel that people are crying out for a change on the way how we do politics and with whom we do politics. In fact, in my district this is what I am offering - a breath of fresh air.

Although the PL seems to be more polished than it was in past elections, it however seems not to have shaken off trying to please all and sundry. Today people know which promises are feasible and which are merely an electoral ploy.

 What do you tell people is the major reason for voting for the PN to be in power for another five years?

Jobs. The PN has a track record on creating employment.  In general, skilled and semi-skilled workers find employment with little difficulty. People are also opening their own businesses and risking their money in this small economy.

PN's main commitment is to continue to give the economic environment and confidence for job creation. Without a healthy employment rate, the other electoral promises will just not fly.

Has a lack of good governance by ministers and on public procurement been the major reason for the PN's trailing in the polls?

It is obvious the PN was not perfect and I do not think we should promise perfection.

In this legislature there were a number of good policies which were badly communicated. On the other hand the old problems of unreasonable and complicated red tape dogged the administration. 

On the issue of public procurement, it is always controversial in that someone always loses out on a contract. Nonetheless we should always be vigilant that on those deciding on tenders, be they politicians or public officials, in order that they do not out smart the system. Tenders are issued to allow government to get the best deals and they should never be intended to give good deals to contractors.

However, what I really feel is where PN's troubles started and is difficult to shake off is that we gave the impression that we lost touch with the electorate.  The government tackled one problem to another and succeeded in resolving these problems. However, government missed that personal touch with individual households and gave the impression that they knew what they are doing therefore, leave everything in their hands.

Notwithstanding this, the PN has identified this problem and recognises that if it is reelected to office, we have to keep in constant touch with individuals and listen to them before and when implementing policies.

Eddie Fenech Adami made a bold statement on Sunday - do you think the PN is still stuck with talk on the 'bad old 1980s'? Doesn't this 'negative' electioneering play into the hands of Labour's self-styled positive campaign?

Elections are all about the future. I believe that people will vote for a party and a candidate if they believe that in the next five years their personal circumstances and that of the country would improve. Our new voters were born when Dr Fenech Adami was Prime Minister, and therefore all the talk of Tal-Barrani for them is very interesting but happened before they were even born.

It is history as much as the Great Siege is history. They will be voting on the prospects of their future.

However, PL still put forward people from the Mintoffian regime. These people should not be left unnoticed in the light of the rhetoric of working for the middle class and that they have changed, when these particular individuals created and implemented policies - such as the creation of jobs through military corps - used violence against those who they disagreed with and left Malta as a third world nation.

I think we should not let them off the hook so easily. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with pointing out a politician's track record.

The PN prides itself of having public finances on a sound footing. Given that Labour is committed to the 2013 budget, doesn't this also mean Labour is committed to keeping public finances on a sound footing?

Labour should have voted for the 2013 budget if it believed in it. It was a political mistake on their part to ally themselves with a rebel PN MP. The consequence is clear now that Standard & Poor's downgraded Malta. Who is responsible for this: those who voted for the budget or those who voted against the budget? From this incident it is clear that the public finances and Malta's credibility come second to their political agenda.