Bite Your Tongue

The Times of Malta



Last weekend we had important pronouncements from our major exponents of the two political schools of thought which deserve reflection and comment.

Dr.Sant`s admonishment of EU Enlargement Commissioner Guenter Verheugen was 50% right. Mr Verheugen has been talking quite undiplomatically on the needs for the MLP to change its EU policies.` Political parties in a democratic society should not be pressurised by outside forces to go against their own beliefs and what they perceive to be the interest of the section of society which they represent.

Not even in case of Austria`s Haider is it clear that EU members are actually serving democracy well in trying to block Haider rather than use more diplomatic pressure to point out that 73% of the Austrians did not vote for Haider.` What they should be doing is pointing out in clear diplomatic language` that should Haider use his power within the governing coalition to go against the wish of the 73% of Austrians who hold high democratic principles, then his party` will lose its credentials to be considered as part of government of a member country of the EU, which is founded upon basic democratic principles.

But in our case the Labour Party is fully within its democratic right to hold its own views on EU membership and no Verheugen has any right to interfere in Maltese internal political affairs. This is particularly so considering that membership to certain evolving structures within the EU might necessitate a change to entrenched articles of the Constitution.

Where the Opposition Leader was 50% wrong is in telling Verheugen that unless he bites his tongue we`ll bite it for him. Some tongue biting on the part of Dr Sant would be quite in order so as not to dilute the very valid point he was making.

An` acute dose of tongue biting is however particularly required by the Prime Minister. Over the weekend he warned the GWU that their protests against an effective reduction in the take home pay of most salaried employees is uncalled for.` The Union, through a prime-minister heavenly edict, should docilely accept such measures in the national interest. This dogma would have the Unions responsibly accepting that the country has serious financial problems which can only be` resolved if sacrifices are accepted without murmur in spite of` deep cuts in the standard of living of their members.

Now the Prime Minister stand would be totally valid if the following set of pre-conditions were to apply:

1.











If the Government held a valid electoral mandate to undertake austerity measures. 2.











If the Government was not principally responsible for the creation of the deficit problem in the first place. 3.











If the burden of addressing the deficit was being equitably spread in a socially just manner.

A objective review reveals that reality is diametrically opposed to these set of circumstances which could justify the Prime Minister`s stand.

The electoral manifesto of the government does not even come anywhere near to acknowledging the country`s financial problems. On the contrary in the short 22 months in opposition the Prime Minister was continually denying the existence of the financial deficit and depicting deficit addressing measures by Labour as uselessly cruel and totally against social principles.

The electoral manifesto promises the people who are now expected to make sacrifices without complaint, tax rebates not tax increases. It proposes to` them cheap utility rates not Vat on telephone bills. It promises no increase in government induced costs not a further increase in the price of transport and energy. It promised them millions of financial aid from the EU to solve our financial crisis without having to resort to higher taxes.

Had the Government been elected into a position it had no prior notice of, as had broadly happened to Labour in 1996, than it could be somewhat conceivable that the government tells the electorate, sorry but I cannot deliver my promises and have to take steps in the opposite direction because this scenario is totally different from what the one` projected and there was no way this` could have been known before.

But this Government cannot bring this defence.` They have been in office for all of these last 156 months bar 22, so they cannot claim not being aware of the financial state of the state coffers.` The Minister of Finance was certainly aware and he informed all his cabinet colleagues with the 1996 cabinet memo putting one and all aware of the impending financial crisis unless expenditure is reigned in. Over the week-end he also made the laughable claim that the mounting debt and deficit is the result of the wholesale public sector recruitment before the 1987 elections. Will please someone tell the Minister that this is year 2000 and that 1987 was thirteen years ago. Won`t someone please remind the Minister how many thousands have joined the public service since then and how many thousands have since retired or resigned.

As to the last test for the acceptability of austerity measures through equitable spread of the sacrifice burden this is certainly not the case. How can you leave the highest marginal tax rate unchanged and collapse the in between tax tiers and claim social justice` How can you allow people earning upwards of Lm15000 carry the same burden as people earning Lm8,000.

And if the Prime Minister thinks that anybody earning Lm100 per week can afford the burden of taxation and NI insurance without any hardship than it must be a long time since he last received school bills, transport bills, car repairs and licence bill and so many other bills which is just leaving the middle class squeaking under the pain of these austerity measures.

Why do I keep getting the impression that often people in power justify the unjustifiable through force, imposition and the stinking notion that all of us on this side of the fence are stupid gullible idiots`

Alfred Mifsud