Silence is indeed not always golden

It looks like Emmanuel Micallef has appreciated my "nostalgic love" for music of the 1960s to the degree of utilising the same title I had borrowed for one of my contributions and aptly naming his article The Minister's Silence. But whilst harmoniously reflecting on what he astonishingly describes as a "prevailing silence" he is at the same time preempting circumstances which "surely lead to conflict".

Here we go again. Maturity, reason, the interest of our workers and the national overall product are under a potential threat after the deputy secretary general of the General Workers' Union stated with a certain vigour that "the patient's reactions can be unpredictable". There is no "hidden agenda" here, only a national one, which everyone is so well aware of.

In his capacity as an official of a union that has a dominant interest in the ports, because of its members but also due to financial gains, being the "only shareholder of the Cargo Handling Co. Ltd", he goes on to say that silence prevails and my "lips are so tight on this issue". Wonder of wonders! Has the union's secretary general not communicated to his deputy that last Monday evening the Malta Maritime Authority, the GWU (as shareholders), Cargo Handling Co. Ltd and myself agreed to hold a meeting this afternoon to discuss the decision taken by the government?

I have untiringly repeated that the port reform is not intended to centre on the handling of cargo, therefore Cargo Handling, but to take into account all pertinent service providers at our ports, which list has no beginning and no end. However, for conspicuous spin reasons, Mr Micallef highlights this matter as the foremost pivot. As shareholder in a company which has blatantly disregarded several clauses in the agreement entered into with the MMA, and now facing a reform aimed at achieving proficient ports and competitive tariffs, with benefit to industry and consumers at home while safeguarding thousands of jobs within the manufacturing industry due to reduced burdens on the import of raw material, alarm bells have gone off within the union's corridors. He says: "We have no option but to confront the challenges ahead by all means possible". What are these possible means? Is this a national threat?

The only "challenges" that lie ahead should be to attain efficient and competitive ports for the benefit of the workers that the union represents and not of orchestrating a public outcry defending services among the most expensive in the Mediterranean. At times there is a mammoth divergence between language and proceedings. In this case, the GWU states it is on board the reform but action-wise I believe we have yet to be convinced.

I have met throughout these weeks with several stakeholders: the Federation of Industry, the Chamber of Commerce, port workers, shore foreman and even the private sub-contractor. With regard to the latter "service provider", engaged by the cargo handling company, I am neither against the sub-contractor nor against the payment of services rendered but I am unquestionably against payment over and above another made to Cargo Handling Co. Ltd for the same service, which is not carried out. If this is not illogical, then one could also claim that the sun is actually a mirage!

This besides the company being the most expensive service provider with a good 30 per cent absorbed into its coffers. This will surely be challenged by the shareholders and I earnestly look forward to explanations. During a cordial meeting held on September 20 with the union's top officials and the directors of the company, all were in favour of the reform whilst obviously having different views on the present operational proceedings. As is known, the company's contract expires in July 2006.

The only "cards I keep to my chest" are the clauses blatantly ignored by the company and resulting in additional burdens to import/export operations. When the time is ripe these will be made public too. The government will not be held to ransom when it is confident that the exercise it has embarked upon will achieve a much desired sound working environment.

Mr Micallef well recall that I have called upon all port players to break the silence as every sector has to be an integral part of this collective reform effort. Several have approached me in private with constructive suggestions, many admitting various shortcomings. Others have refrained, keeping at heart personal interests.

As stated by the GWU, their "main objective is to come up with a reform which guarantees jobs and enhances our ports' competitiveness". Such statements fill me with confidence. This is our same objective and with outstretched arms I extend my invitation to reason. The government does not intend to postpone any further and, indeed, as Mr Micallef states, "time is running out".

There is one hurdle left; the conflict which lies within the GWU in representing the workers but at the same time wrangling with an intrinsic financial interest. Which one will it be spearheading?

Mr Galea is Minister for Competitiveness and Communications.

www.mcmp.gov.mt