The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom
It depends on what criteria one uses to measure the better or the worse. I go by substance and experience leads me to conclude that a legislature is normally split in two halves. The first half is where the medicine is applied; where the unpopular decisions are taken to address the country’s problems; where government generally is less popular as it suffers the mid-term blues as the electorate feels the pinch of the tough medicine without as yet perceiving the benefits of the cure.
As our
parliamentarians wished each other happy holidays in the House before its summer
recess, two
fifths of the legislature was archived into history. As quite often the legislature does not run
its full term, which would mean general elections in peak summer of 2008, then it could be
argued that this legislature, which was sanctioned by the general elections of
April 2003, will have passed its half way mark before parliament resumes late
next September.
The question is –
are we kissing goodbye the better or the worse half of the
legislature?
It depends on what criteria one uses to measure the better or the worse. I go by substance and experience leads me to conclude that a legislature is normally split in two halves. The first half is where the medicine is applied; where the unpopular decisions are taken to address the country’s problems; where government generally is less popular as it suffers the mid-term blues as the electorate feels the pinch of the tough medicine without as yet perceiving the benefits of the cure.
Memory flashes
back to the Labour government of 1996-1998 where it
had only time to give account of the first two years where it was constrained by
the inherited problems, whose fatherhood entirely belonged to the outgoing PN
administrations of 1987 – 1996. One can
well remember the very sensible measure of applying a token fifty cents charge
on free medicine prescriptions, not as a fund raising measure, but purely to
discourage waste in free medicines being claimed
unnecessarily.
Surely one can
easily recall the unjust criticism against such a necessary and sensible
measure, with Labour being accused as having lost its
social conscience. Because Labour government’s life was cut all too short as it was
forced to face the electorate with a record of pain and no gain, the measure was aborted and the medicine
problem remains not addressed till
today.
Government’s
medicine bill is going through the roof.
Bills due for medical supplies to local importers mount unpaid and
importers have pooled together to issue a common legal warning to government
urging it to pay its dues. This is
quite an unprecedented event which indicates that government finances are
scraping the bottom of the barrel and that any claimed improvement in government
finances ought to be taken with a pinch of salt as unpaid bills continue to
mount unrecorded in government cash-based accounting
system.
In the meantime
the Central Bank regularly reminds the government in official speeches of its
Governor, and no doubt even in private meetings, that it can only meet its Euro
targets for reduction in public deficit to within the
Maastricht criteria if a system of co-financing for
public health services is introduced.
Co-financing in
simple words means that public health service would not remain free as at
present but consumers of such services will have to start making some
contribution both to ease government expenditure as well as to remind consumers
that non-payment does not mean it is free.
There is no free lunch anywhere and someone somewhere is paying for free
medicine, whether it is through our current taxes or through accumulating debt
which burdens future generations.
Memory also
flashes to the re-structuring that Labour government
of 1996 – 1998 wanted to do in the student stipend system for our tertiary
education. Knowing fully well that that
system was neither sustainable nor fair, Labour wanted to shift part of the stipend payments
to a loan system which students would pay back to society during their
post-graduation economically active life.
UK introduced similar measures by demanding
co-financing top-up fees for tertiary education to keep it sustainable. Labour wanted to
keep it entirely free but simply shift part of the stipend to a recoverable
loan. Hell broke loose and the PN, in
spite of their blame in constructing an unsustainable stipend system, was scandalised at
Labour’s loss of social conscience for attempting to
do what was right and necessary.
Here we are seven
years later and the monetary authorities regularly have to remind the government
that if its finances are to meet the criteria for Euro adoption it needs to
restructure the cost of educational services.
My experience
shows that if such measures are not taken in the first half of the legislature
it will be difficult, unlikely and almost impossible for government to take such
decisions in the second half. As the
general election starts getting visible on the horizon, with electoral districts
boundaries revised, agreed and all, government will become increasingly
sensitive to its political fortunes and will start doing what is popular rather
than what is right.
So if in the
first half of the legislature we have not taken the tough measures that our
economy really needs and without which we cannot make it to either joining the
Euro or to achieve successful and effective economic re-structuring, so why
is it that government is equally suffering mid-term
blues? Why such blues if we have not
taken the pain and consequently cannot expect the gain in the second half of the
legislature?
The simple answer
is that this is a fatigued administration that has over-promised and
under-delivered. The first half of the
legislature, for all the promises of the new incumbent at the helm, will be more
remembered for faux pas like Malta House in Brussels rather than for any new energy in truly
addressing our chronic economic ills.
A typical case of
such fatigue is the administration’s inability to appoint a new Ombudsman when
the current incumbent has exhausted the two terms permitted by the
constitution. What efforts were made to
find a name acceptable to Parliament to avoid leaving gaps in this most
respected public post amongst society?
Why should these efforts, if indeed any were made, not be made visible to
the people to give us account that our parliamentarians and the executive
are doing the minimum expected of them?
Is it reasonable
to expect a better half for the remaining time of the current legislature? I think it is more reasonable to expect more
of the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment