Dr Alfred Sant's proclivity for sudden U-turns is fast becoming the hallmark of his leadership. How can the same Dr Sant, who during his short time in government, caused so much concern by his bewildering hike in energy prices, criticise the water and electricity surcharge?

It is to be remembered that the price of a barrel of oil was just $12 in his time. How can he claim any credibility, when he criticises the fuel surcharge, at a time when the price of oil has gone up sixfold? Yet the current price to the consumer is still lower than the price we would have had to pay, were it not for the miraculous intervention of the "traitor".

Now Dr Sant seems to be having second thoughts. He probably realised that the vast majority of voters are capable of thinking for themselves and are not easily duped by his promises and electoral bribes, when his track record on fuel charges precedes him.

The same shift in policy occurred with his new position on the introduction of the euro. His previous position about joining the Eurozone was identical to his position on the pensions reform issue. Too early... later, maybe... one day! He seems to be making a virtue out of procrastination.

On this topic too he is having second thoughts. Now he is indicating that he is no longer opposed to the January 1, 2008, target date for adopting the euro.

The debacle and U-turn about the introduction of VAT seems to be a painful reminder of the consequences to his party, deriving from his mistaken policy of forever being contrary.

It is humiliating for his party to have to see their leader continually searching for yet another lame excuse to justify a position that he should never have assumed in the first place.

Another instance of a U-turn by Dr Sant was his opposition to low-cost airlines. He used to insist that those who want to see the introduction of low-cost airlines are incapable of seeing beyond their noses. Now he is saying that they are not such a bad thing after all.

This is what Dr Sant had to say on this subject: "Whoever promotes the arguments that we ought to allow the introduction of low-cost airlines to compete and bring in tourists, is seeing no further than his nose, as others have done in the last few years.

"We cannot carry on in this manner, and we make it clear that we are never going to accept any attempt that may be made to this end. I have no doubt that this attempt is being made so that they can say that we have to introduce another airline to compete so that we increase our intake of tourists. This is not true, it is a false argument."

In this instance, his "never" turned out to be as ephemeral as a puff of smoke. All his stunning acrobatic somersaults and pirouettes are in each and every occasion proving that the government of Dr Lawrence Gonzi was right, and that he was far too hasty, imprudent and erratic in his criticism.

This country is being handicapped by the performance of the Opposition under Dr Sant's leadership.

As Dr Gonzi himself generously conceded, the affairs of government can be made a whole lot more efficient if the Opposition gave its input and co-operated instead of vainly trying to trip the government on every occasion.

Dr Gonzi cited the rare occasion when the Opposition participated honourably in the passing of the legislation for financial services. In that instance, the Opposition gained respect and was seen as contributing to the governance of this country.

Unfortunately, even that contribution cannot be fairly attributed to Dr Sant. It was his predecessor, Dr Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, and Labour MP Dr José Herrera who provided their welcome suggestions for refining and perfecting this important legislation.

The Government earns its respect and support by good governance in the interest of all classes of our society. The Opposition too can earn much respect by demonstrating their loyalty to all the people by their active participation.

I see the role of a good Opposition as providing serious alternatives to the government's proposals, or suggestions to improve on whatever the government proposes. Then with the political spin out of the way, the electorate would be in a position to discern who has the better policies for the sensible administration of the island.

People expect openness and honesty from the people who elect them. However, there are too many outstanding questions begging for a clear reply from Dr Sant. If he is elected again, will he introduce the sewage and door taxes that he was proposing as prime minister?

Many will recall that Dr Sant was being very economical with the truth when he claimed that he had no choice about introducing the sewage tax because it followed from an agreement that the Fenech Adami administration bound itself to. Now after ten years we can safely assume that he was mistaken.

Judge the PN by facts, the MLP by its U-turns.

www.davidagius.org