It is very ironic that, through a contribution to the press, one exposes oneself as being naïve of the subject or topic one is writing about. Nowadays we do not lack such type of persons who think they know all when they know little or nothing at all. To make matters worse, such people very often make assumptions to hide their pointless arguments. And, unfortunately, such persons present us with a clear example of the dilemma of democracy that gives the right to everyone to hold an opinion even if, by their arguments, they will tread on the absurd.

Since the day the General Workers' Union, once again a protagonist in provoking a national debate, made public its thoughts as to how the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development should be reformed to serve its proper purpose as an authentic forum for real and healthy social dialogue in our country, certain media correspondents, in their reflections on the union's proposals, amazingly concluded that the GWU does not believe in social dialogue and, thus, it has given up.

They seem to base their arguments on one single proposal in which the GWU holds that the government, of today and tomorrow, should not have a permanent seat or a direct role in MCESD. They said nothing about the rest of the proposals, as if the much-needed reform of MCESD rests solely on the direct or indirect involvement of the government within the council. They mentioned nothing about the fact that most of the GWU's proposals were endorsed by different organisations that make up the social partnership mechanism in this country.

How can one assert that the GWU does not believe in social dialogue considering the fact that one of its innovative proposals is for the MCESD to be expanded in order to include representation and participation of civil society and this to give it the voice that up till now it does not have? This proposal is coherent with the GWU's firm belief in the important role civil society can play in the social and economic advancement of the Maltese society.

It is true that the GWU is saying that the government, and any future government, should not be an integral part of MCESD. The first logic behind this is that MCESD was set up as a consultative and advisory body and should remain such.

Secondly, the government's representatives very often, if not always, have to refer back for an opinion or approval and, thirdly, but equally important, MCESD should never be a government within a government. How can anyone ask for advice when one is sitting on that same advisory body? I doubt how proper this can be.

Moreover, it is highly incorrect and a distortion of the truth if this GWU proposal were to be viewed as a desire for the total elimination of the government from the national social dialogue forum. The GWU is only proposing a lower profile of the government within MCESD. This model of social dialogue has been in place for several years in various northern and southern European countries and it has worked well. Then, why not Malta?

In this context, the GWU went even further by proposing the inclusion of civil society, such as women organisations, pensioners, persons with special needs, youths, consumers and professionals.

I, therefore, beg to differ with all those who are concluding that the best way forward is not the one proposed by the GWU. In my view, their belief is pointless when considering that the GWU's proposals are aimed at making MCESD a stronger and a freer forum for social dialogue. Adding to this, the GWU has already declared it will not be obstinate on its proposals and it is prepared to accept any discussions and analyses, so much so that it is willing to merge its proposal with those coming from other social and economic organisations until, finally, the best and appropriate formula is found for our country.

Mr Vella is the GWU's media and information executive.