Land ahoy!

The brief the government received from the electorate in 2003 was crystal clear - to check the deficit and to curb public expenditure. That is precisely what this government is doing.

It has finally decided to stop playing Big Daddy. About time too, I might add. We are all sick and tired of passively watching our taxes steadily leak into the gutters.

Believe it or not, although the issue is no longer a controversial one, the deficit is still a cross the country is bravely bearing. The necessary corrective measures taken so far to balance the books are yielding the desired positive results and there seems to be general consensus that the country is on the right track.

The Gonzi administration has not minced words: Where state-controlled companies are concerned, subsidies have to undergo a rethink, shares owned in moribund ones have to be done away with, one way or another, and any further investment or capital injection is no longer an option.

"Few will disagree that the public purse - the taxes we pay, the public debt we are burdened with - should not continue to finance loss-making public enterprises." (Lino Spiteri's Overboard trilogy, part 3). Ironically, it seems Sea Malta's former chairman, Marlene Mizzi, was one of the few who disagreed with this policy.

A caring government cannot ignore the social repercussions the cost-cutting exercise could create. After all, there is the livelihood of hundreds of families at stake. So, while logically keeping the option of closing shop as a last resort, the restructuring, downsizing or privatisation process was launched.

Among the first candidates to undergo the Cabinet's rescue operation were the Malta Drydocks, Public Broadcasting Services, Air Malta, Malta Freeport, Maltapost, Enemalta, Water Services, Gozo Channel and Chambray.

It is now Sea Malta's turn. Considering that, during the last eight years, it has registered pre-tax losses of Lm3.6 million, it is no wonder that its days were numbered and privatisation was on the cards. Mr Spiteri confirms: "There is nothing to suggest that the Privitasation Unit has not done its work with its established focus, diligence and honesty." The government is simply treating this unprofitable enterprise as it treated other insolvent state-controlled companies. So what's all the fuss about? Why did its chairman resign?

It is totally unacceptable that, in an unwarranted emotional outburst, she saw fit to accuse the government of "abdicating its responsibilities". In his reply, the Prime Minister explained: "What you have recommended was what would have been the easy way out: The taxpayer funds what Sea Malta could not afford - to undertake the investments necessary for a sustainable and competitive future." Thank you, Prime Minister. I want my taxes to contribute towards the living and not to entertain some lifeless company's whims.

Chairmen appointed by governments do not necessarily have to agree with the political decisions taken, but when Sugar Daddy says no more gifts, they are expected to toe the line, especially when such directives are issued for the common good.

I am not suggesting that chairmen in public enterprises "become galleon slaves or clockwork soldiers" as has been suggested (Overboard, part 1) but the government is a superior entity "ultimately responsible and accountable to the House of Representatives and to the people at large".

To add insult to injury, in an interview carried in The Times, the ex-chairman confessed that "she was taken by surprise in 2003" when Minister Austin Gatt informed her that "the planned capital injection had been rejected some four years ago". Bearing in mind the political scenario and the government's stratagem to shed all its ailing companies, what, pray, was so surprising? Why would she expect preferential treatment?

If the ex-chairman was "out of synch with the government's plans for the company" (part 2) and was constantly insisting on continuous subsidies and new capital injections, why did she not resign in 2003 (if not four years before that) when her umpteenth request was unequivocally turned down?

She alleges that she stayed on "out of respect for the workers". What does that mean exactly? Surely it would be more important for her to stay at the helm on the eve of an imminent sale. Clearly, "out of respect for the workers", she should have at least refrained from performing her publicity stunts which could very well turn out to be the coup de grace to their careers.