Editorial
Anger over anti-democratic threats
Both the Labour Party and the General Workers' Union share a distinct misconception. It is that they are the only champions of the workers' interests. Were this to be true, the party would have had the master key to the seat of power at Castille, and there would have been no need for all the other trade unions in the country. The situation is of course vastly different, with the Nationalist Party enjoying as much backing from the workers as the MLP and most of the other unions growing stronger by the day.
When the new Labour leader, Joseph Muscat, said that the language used at the GWU meeting for dockyard workers last week "provided ammunition to those people who are actively working against workers' interests", he was only resorting to rhetorical political talk of times past. If he did not mean this, he should have been more categorical and identified those who were working against the workers' interests. This kind of talk does not go down well with his mission of promoting a new political season. On the contrary, in exhuming the socialist vocabulary of times past, Dr Muscat runs the risk of giving his mission an early burial.
Dr Muscat has a problem, one that he could have easily avoided had he been politically shrewd enough. By attending the GWU meeting in Paola, he played straight into the hands of those who were clearly carried away and indulged not in hot language, as some preferred to describe it, but in open incitement and intimidatory and threatening language. With the GWU seen by most as a political ally of the Labour Party, he could have foreseen the situation. The fact that he did not speaks volumes.
Threatening to topple a democratically elected government is very serious talk in any circumstance, and Labour should have had the courage to come out in far stronger terms against such language than it did in its statement. Indeed, the threatening language used drew widespread national anger. People had generally thought that such antics as displayed by GWU speakers at the Paola meeting had long been forgotten. The fact that union speakers felt the need to threaten the government in this way suggests that the union is in great need of reform.
Despite its fine talk, Labour still seems to find it difficult to wriggle out of its old shell. But wriggle completely out it must if it wants to win the support of the uncommitted voters, who are not at all amused at the turn of events over the shipyards' privatisation process. And does the Labour Party, now so keen to get the young to its side, think that young people can ever get enamoured with a party whose leader finds himself at a union meeting where one speaker steals the show with talk about toppling the government? When the Labour leader is so eager to usher in new times for his party, it is strange how many wrong turnings it is taking.
The government could have tackled the privatisation process differently, but this in no way justifies the kind of anti-democratic threats made at the GWU meeting. Hopefully, the mediation efforts being made now will help break the deadlock between the GWU and the government and lead to a smooth privatisation of the shipyards.
Popular Stories
Labour Party resorts to political...
Why calling an election now makes sense
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Top businessman touches some raw nerves
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
Smoke signals of the very worrying kind
Did justice prevail in the Lockerbie...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Frustration over fuel price increases
In Discussion
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Labour Party resorts to political...
Does it really pay to use public...
Roadworks, traffic chaos and...
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
This country must remain competitive
Frustration over fuel price increases
Shameful case of lack of accountability
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Charles.j.Schembri
Aug 21st 2008, 01:54
John Saliba ...yes very true it was Mr.Mintoff who introduced the four day week in order to try and stop unemployment, so well said by yourself, and It was Mintoff and his government that ensured that some 20% of Malta's workforce were forced to join military corps of Bahhar u Sewwi, Dirghajn il-Maltin,..... but like today the world had problem, remember oil was going up, ok not as much as today....but again it was relevant, did I blame your PN even thought we today, have the hedging which is suppose to guarantee the prices..... we are now paying 95% surcharge.
Look at today all our textile industry is almost all dead...did I blame your PN, thought I am sure they did nothing to help the industry. Then you go on and tell us about the unemployed do you know the figures for today,(5086 in April of 2007) no counting the university and school leavers, .....or is it then that interest you only.
John Saliba
Aug 20th 2008, 23:34
Yes, Mr. Schembri, it was Mintoff's government that introduced the four day week in order to try and stop unemployment. It was Mintoff and his government that ensured that some 20% of Malta's workforce were forced to join military corps of Bahhar u Sewwi, Dirghajn il-Maltin, etc, doing nothing but digging holes and filling them up again. Plus another 10% unemployed. Yes it was Mintoff that ensured that we had just one brand (cheapest brand) of toothpaste, chocolates, condensed milk, televisions, corned beef and many other products. Mintoff's greatest achievment was the democracy he practiced, not to mention the political transfers, abuse of power, corruption and violence which existed at the time. No wonder the editorial states that "Labour still seems to find it difficult to wriggle out of its old shell". Labour's past will keep on haunting it and the majority of the electorate will keep on supporting the government.
Charles.j.Schembri
Aug 20th 2008, 22:35
well you PN gentlemen....enjoy your time in government....that is all, but please don't forget all the social benefits were given to us under a MINTOFF government...and every time your party voted against, which includes voting of 18, women right to vote, pension for all including people who do not work with the government, free school and UNIVERSITY, so your children would not need to pay like other across the EU, children allowance and minimum wages and bonuses....and remember your PARTY VOTED AGAINST ALL OF THESE..............................
mark tanti
Aug 20th 2008, 21:28
Mr Peter Muscat, If you follow any game of the Olimpics you will come to know that the rules of the games are not set by any of the competitors but by an Idipendent organisation
The rules of the game which you mentioned were all set by KMB (not yet PM) and the shamefull Electoral Commision of that time. The rules of that game consisted of a shamefull jerrymandering exercise lead by KMB which gave that antidemocratic result. As said in this editorial the MLP and the GWU should stop considering themselves as the workers champions. Along the years all workers have learnt who treated them best between the two parties and that is why Labour remains in the opposition. MLP supporters who keep insisting that by the rules of the game Labour had the right to govern in1981 are only doing a disservice to their new leader who is saying that we wants to strengthen democracy.
Charles Camilleri
Aug 20th 2008, 17:50
@philip Dupuis. WE still remember how the workers were treated by labour Govt in the 70's and 80's. Ask the Dockyards workers who were forced to work overtime and get time of in lieu instead of pay, who were deprived of their workers' council by A. Sant who promised not to touch the council before the election of 1996. Ask the dockyard workers who took one day off on Imnarja how they were treated. Ask Govt workers who had to take time of in lieu in stead of money, As the teachers and the bank 's employees who were beaten up because they went on strike. Ask the doctors and University students. The list is endless. There is no comparison between treatment of worker now and during labour Govt. There is even less comparison between the standard of living and rights enjoyed now by the workers and during labour Govt. We had only one thing during labour. Submission to what big dad says.
Muscat Peter
Aug 20th 2008, 16:34
@ John saliba .. not only the truth scares you but it terrifies you too. The MLP won the elections in 1981 as per rules of the game then. I cann it as many others a perverse result.
Last General Election a minority voted for the present Adminstration as per rule of the game now.
Common sense and logic says that unless the rules of the game were changed no matter how many elections were held there was no guarantee that the final result would have changed. Parliament can change the rules: Parliament that the PN initially boycotted and thus much time was lost . Finally,the rules were changed thanks to the MLP in Government..
Same situation we live now.Unless rules of the game are changed there is no guarantee that we won't have an administration enjoying the support of the majority of the electorate.
As Mr Saliba pointed out that the present Adminstration will not overstay its welcome. Well done Mr. Saliba for advicing Dr Gonzi to change the rules of the game as soon as possible.
Yes Mr Saliba I perfectly agree. Hope you agree what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Prosit habib!
George Cremona
Aug 20th 2008, 16:32
An excellent editorial which tells the truth, nothing but the truth. In short: the MLP new leader is trying to make a clean sweep in his party with old brooms, very old ones indeed.
John Saliba
Aug 20th 2008, 13:58
Democratically elected government in 1981? The electorate in their overall majority wanted and voted for a Nationalist Government, through gerrymandering Mintoff manipulated the result to give him a parliamentary majority. Democratically elected my foot. Had he been honest and genuine, he would have at least called fresh elections. No, Labour abused and overstayed their welcome. As someone once said "the evil that men do lives after". That evil lives on in quite a number of Labour supporters. Sorry, Mr. P. Muscat, but your line of thinking scares the hell out of me. With people like you around, Labour must never be trusted again; never, ever!!
Philip Dupuis
Aug 20th 2008, 12:22
Surely it is not the owners of the Times of Malta and those who set its policy that could be considered the champions of the workers.
The P.N. champion of the workers?Look back at Malta's history and even at to-day's attitude of those who manipulate the P.N.and fill the dotted line with your reply
Muscat Peter
Aug 20th 2008, 11:20
I do not agree that history repeats itself but it is people who repeats history. The GWU is behaving in a similar way the PN did after the 1982 General Election.Though the present political situation is not much different, it is unacceptable to use same tactics used by the PN then to topple a democratically elected government.
As the Times well said " Threatening to topple a democratically elected government is very serious talk in any circumstance " . It is unacceptable in creating a similar volotile envirnment, we already experienced and which we all condemn.
Confrontation is never a solution and the GWU and the Government should know this.Certainly the new MLP Leader's suggestions of consultation and keep the national interests and the interests of the workers as prime objectives makes a lot of sense.Joseph made it crystal clear that he will never condone threats, intimidation or imposition, no matter where they come from.
It is wrong to threaten as much as it is wrong to impose. Two wrongs will never make a right.
Let us keep our fingers crossed and as the Times well said,let us hope that we will have a smooth privatisation of the shipyards.
Charles.j.Schembri
Aug 20th 2008, 11:19
Mr.Aguis....cannot agree with you more....only I am stating the PN promises and the facts now...like the TAX Reduction from 35% to 25%...............
Alfred Grima
Aug 20th 2008, 11:15
Does the Editor of this news paper had notice that this country is being run by the Nationalist Party and not by the Malta Labour Party? Judging by most of the Editorial comments one wonder!
Francis Buhagiar
Aug 20th 2008, 11:04
To the person who wrote this article.
If the words of those who are being treated as numbers, threatened to loose their gob is anti democratic, what are the words those university students who insulted, booed and offended Dr. Alfred Sant before the general election?
Is that what you mean by democracy?
A.Vella
Aug 20th 2008, 10:43
This editorial gives a very effective explanation of how one man cannot revolutionise a whole party alone. Musca,t in my opinion, needs to realise the great differences in the way of thinking between the party's hardcore supporters and the few votes MLP is missing to win an election.
It is time to start taking sides and sticking to them, cause people from both extremes will get confused and will not be able to identify with MLP's ideas and plans when compared to PN. Take for instance the shipyard case, the young generation are in great majority supporting the government, and cannot stand amateurish debates as those put forward by the GWU top bodies. When Muscat showed up for that meeting the young generation were seriously doubting all the nice talk of a forward-looking party.
To win the next election Muscat needs to concede some defeats to the government, when the government is in the right, so that people can establish trust in the person. I believe Muscat knows this very well, but the people surrounding him will never allow such actions.
Joseph Agius
Aug 20th 2008, 09:48
very well said! I am also finding it difficult cause Joseph's words are kind of different from actions till now. I hoped for change but it is so much the same. I hoped for an earthquake but still waiting. I hoped for a change in media style but yesterday I still could saw the gouder style of programme (Ok it had another face) but still same style which turns one off! I tend to agree with what Joseph says but disagree with what Joseph does!