Short-termism

If Karl Chircop's opinion piece A Reform Beneficial To All (July 29) in reaction to my Talking Point entitled Who Cares! (July 12) was aimed at trying to convince me and my generation that putting the pension's reform in deep freeze is in our interest, then he failed miserably. He even accused me of being a Nationalist militant. But I have no time to spare arguing with a Labour MP on the question of militancy!

He took the government to task for having spent well over "20" years in a consultation process and that it has squandered public money in so doing. The fact that civil society, employers, unions, youth organisations, pensioners, have given their worthy and studied feedback during this process means nothing to Labour. It only sees this consultation process in terms of money.

The question is: Where was Labour in those "20" years of consultation? Labour was "monitoring" the situation, Dr Chircop says. Why Labour chose to monitor instead of being an integral part of this process as were all members of civil society Dr Chircop does not say.

He does however defend Labour's four-page document when the only contribution it made to the reform was to freeze all talk let alone take action on this urgent matter.

Dr Chircop reiterated his party's claims that there is no pension crisis till 2025 or 2030. Now this is a classical example of Labour's short-termism. If, as Labour says, there is no crisis on the horizon till then, it is precisely why action should be taken now, as it is then that we, the young generation, will be approaching retirement age and it is then that we will suffer today's inaction, as proposed so vociferously by Labour and Dr Chircop himself.

Dr Chircop mentioned the reports drawn up under the 1996 Labour administration, and wants to make us believe that Labour always took pension reform seriously. He did not quote important parts of that document.

The New Initiatives & Projects Group Report - October 1997 said that the "welfare gap needs to be brought under control on a 10-year time scale, as this would otherwise continue to worsen the country's financial position".

Then it continued: "In line with bringing the welfare gap under serious control, serious consideration must be given to moving the pensionable age up to 65 years". That was nearly 10 years ago; it escapes me why a reform that was urgent a decade ago is no longer so today!

I think it pertinent to ask Dr Chircop some questions:

A few months ago Labour leader Alfred Sant appointed Dr Chircop to come up with a study. Is the four-page document presented a couple of weeks ago Dr Chircop's study?

If yes, then who did he consult, and where are the proposals? Or was the report written by Dr Sant himself and Dr Chircop's report was not even considered or, worse, never concluded?

A letter that Labour MP Marie-Louise Coleiro sent to the party's secretary general Jason Micallef ended up in the wrong hands and was made public. She accused Mr Micallef of only giving an interpretation of a hand-out on the subject, which hand-out she had asked Mr Micallef to give to the members of the party's executive council. She accused Mr Micallef of being economical with the truth. Does Dr Chircop deny this? Does this mean that Labour did not even consult with its members let alone with civil society before publishing that four-pager?

Dr Chircop mentions economic reform, public debt and public finances as reasons to postpone pension reform. Of course they are important, but one thing does not exclude the other, and any serious political party has to be able to plan for the long-term future. Unfortunately, Labour is only focused on winning the next general election, and thus cannot afford to take positions so as not to risk disappointing anyone and thus lose votes in the process. But this is not the way how to do politics. The pension's situation is an issue we are facing now and will become more acute in the coming years.

Procrastinating, as Labour is doing, will solve absolutely nothing. It will only make the situation worse and the people who will suffer will be us, the younger generation.

Dr Chircop argued that the government should make sure to have everyone on board before embarking on this reform. With the majority of civil society already on board, Dr Chircop hasn't yet realised that only Labour and a very few others have remained on the shore!

Three years ago, on June 19, 2003 Dr Chircop said "il-Partit Laburista jaghraf li hemm bzonn ta' riforma fis-sistema, sabiex il-pensjonijiet u beneficcji socjali jibqghu sostenibbli fit-tul". (the MLP sees the need for reform so that pensions and other social benefits will in the long run be sustainable). That was three years ago but five years before the 2008 general election. Now we only have two years to go, so I'm not surprised that what was good then is no longer suitable now!