Editorial

It pays for one to be discerning about what one is told. Sometimes even the truth can be deceiving.

What do you understand, for example, when you read a story that says that Tecom are "bound to make a capital investment of €68 million in fixed and mobile telephony by 2009"? This is what Investment Minister Austin Gatt said back in May 30, 2006 but this immediately struck those in the know as somewhat odd. This is a company endowed with copious reserves and it certainly did not require an injection of cash.

In fact, many questions were raised in the media about this, apart from parliamentary questions by Labour MP Leo Brincat. Dr Gatt repeatedly referred him to the agreement tabled in Parliament. Why the minister preferred to direct an MP to a multitude of pages and technical language rather than give a straight answer is anybody's guess.

In fact, the agreement filed among the documents indicated by the minister does not specify that Tecom will make a capital investment - if one understands this to mean that they would write out a cheque. Rather, the company was asked what its investment plans would be for the future and it confirmed a plan that was very similar to that already drawn up by the Maltacom board, covering investment in infrastructure and new networks.

In a nutshell, Tecom was being asked to guarantee that it would not disrupt the direction being taken by Maltacom and that it would not drain the company of the reserves this investment would require.

Perhaps Mr Brincat did not ask the right question but time proved his instincts right. The share capital of Tecom in Maltacom (now Go) has not changed in any way - as it would have had to be, had that "cheque" ever been written.

The issue here is neither Tecom nor Maltacom. It is about the terminology used by Dr Gatt and whether clearer language should be used to ensure that the impression given to the public is the correct one.

A more recent case underscored this same principle in a different scenario. Lufthansa Technik Malta will have a new hangar and facility representing a €55 million investment. Again, it emerges from an interview in The Times Business (June 28) that, in fact, this does not mean a cheque for that amount from them.

Although Lufthansa is forking out quite a lot (and adjusting its share capital to reflect this), a considerable part of the investment will go towards the cost of constructing the hangar - which is being paid for by Malta Industrial Parks. Lufthansa Technik Malta will lease the hangar for a 30-year period so the outlay will be recouped over time. But hands up all those who thought that a €55 million investment meant just that.

No one would underestimate the importance of Tecom, Lufthansa Technik Malta or any other investors. Malta is lucky to have them and to benefit from their expertise, their work ethics and their role in training Maltese. Indeed, let's have more of them.

And this is not whining about the amounts that the government forks out either. One cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. No one should query the government's decision to pay for a facility for Lufthansa Technik Malta that will generate 550 jobs in five years and which will result in training for many more.

The point is that, alas, some announcements are solely aimed at hitting the headlines in order to get political mileage rather than giving the full picture.