Internal security and the welfare state (1)

The arson attacks on journalists' homes indicate a threat to our freedom of expression, the very core of our democracy, and a threat to our internal security and safety.

It denotes a deeper, more serious matter than the superficial appearance of a few charred front doors, prompting both the prime minister and the Police Commissioner to try and reassure us that adequate mechanisms exist for the protection of the country's stability. One presumes the police have an established elite plain-clothes "special branch", with sophisticated investigative tools to deal with such threats. If not yet established, it is obviously time to set it up, perhaps with advice from Britain.

The prime minister could have done without this latest problem, having inherited so many other financial ones. However, I trust he will forgive me for reminding him that the number one function of Government should be protection of state security, its democracy, its citizens and its environment, and not wasting money on providing "free" medical care and drugs to millionaires and "free" tertiary education plus stipends to millionaires' sons and daughters.

These "Robin-Hood" style ("stealing" our money to provide them) social service gifts should all be means-tested. The services to residents of Government's old people's homes are means-tested, and so should all other social services.

In scrambling for votes, it is easy and convenient to forget what were the original reasons for the welfare state and for taxation. The welfare state emerged to provide a 'safety net' for the poor and destitute, so that they could live a reasonably decent life. It was never intended to waste taxpayers' money providing free services to the rich. Taxation was introduced to maintain state security and institutions; fair taxation meant extracting more money from the rich than from those struggling to make ends meet.

However, our present system seems to be doing the opposite. The absence of an annual local council tax on buildings' value (the core Maltese wealth), which would pay for all local council public services (including local government schools, local police and roads), and which all advanced countries have in one form or other, means that other taxes have had to be raised or new ones introduced, and these are hitting more the less well-off.

Increased VAT, electricity, water and fuel prices, overseas departure taxes, car registration tax, etc., all affect more adversely the less well off. The social justice boast has become a very hollow one indeed. Malta is slowly becoming an ideal location for millionaires, not for ordinary folk.

And who are all these millionaires? Look at the prices in property and boat adverts and you'll know what I mean. The Prime Minister's political party recommended EU membership, which, given our circumstances, I fully agree with. However, in these very early days of membership, one cannot blame most ordinary Maltese for not noticing one iota of difference. Car registration tax replaced import duty, and now we have the "scandal" of atrocious taxes on travel to other parts of the EU, when from Sweden to Malta is legally supposed to be "one country" (like Malta and Gozo).

The prime minister has promised a review of taxation and the welfare state, and claims he will not be deterred from instituting changes that might be unpopular for some but would benefit the whole country in the long run. He will need considerable courage and I wish him well.