It would hardly make sense if, in such a small country as Malta, the two main political parties were to disagree over what should be the main driving forces of the economy. Despite all that has been said by Labour so far, it is clear that, if they were elected at the next general election, they would not change anything substantial in the economic and industrial policies the country is following today. Both the Nationalists and Labour agree that tourism and the services sectors are important mainstays of the economy, two that have a greater potential for expansion.

Differences of opinion over the future of the other important sector, manufacturing, probably arise more out of political misunderstanding than real belief about what is good for the island. At least this is what one would like to believe, for it would be illogical if Labour were to insist, as some within the party might have unwisely implied through unmeasured comments or wild criticism in the past, that Malta's future in this sector lies in continuing to support, or even attract, labour-intensive firms of the type the country needed so badly in the first phase of the industrialisation effort.

The Times last Wednesday had contributions by both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition Leader Alfred Sant. As usual, Dr Gonzi was highly upbeat and wrote about his government's vision for the country, one of a modern economy with high value-added content, based on high-quality skills that will sustain a high standard of living for the people. Analysing the situation from another angle, Dr Sant pointed out that "quite a number (of economic units) are going under", but another segment was coping well to very well, with the new economic realities.

In writing this, he had in mind, too, disproving what he called the crass falsification of Labour's real approach to the situation resorted to by the Gonzi Administration and its media allies. Trying to make the people forget Labour's doom-and-gloom approach is one thing, describing it as crass falsification is a political twist of the first order. What counts is the message the Opposition Leader is trying to project in his contribution, that there are also firms out there that have managed to ride the storm and are doing well.

But then Dr Sant drew what he called the first lesson: That it is not true, as government ministers claimed, that manufacturing was doomed in Malta. Is the lesson correct? Surely not, for the argument has been all along that the country needs to move forward and go into areas in manufacturing that are more suitable to the island. Dr Sant is saying that Labour recognised that "we need to apply a differentiated strategy in boosting our job-creating abilities as a nation". What exactly does this mean?

Industry's best future would appear to lie in attracting investment, local and foreign, in the making of goods having a high-value added content. Existing firms that do not fall within this sector and which have nonetheless made it through their entrepreneurial ability are to be congratulated for their success. But should this detract the island from continuing to promote lines that yield higher returns to the economy?

Surely not, even Labour would agree to this, which points to the need on the part of the party to define, in simpler language, its policies. This would help remove wrong impressions and allow the contest between the parties to revolve around which of them can best make the right policies for Malta work.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.