Labour's vision for Malta

In his first major policy speech since becoming a member of Parliament - and on the 88th anniversary of the founding of the Malta Labour Party - Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat yesterday described the Labour Party's vision for the future as Malta the Best in Europe.

This could happen if the people of Malta and Gozo not only achieved but surpassed their environmental, economic, social and European aspirations.

"The movement of Progressives and Moderates is the hope for Malta's future," he said.

He expressed his belief in Malta as a great country of talents, skills and hard work; a creative country that knew how to face challenges and come out on top; a country that did not fear the future but faced it with faith and confidence; a country that wanted to achieve success that could be enjoyed by all; a country that in difficult moments would let nothing and no-one discourage it, but instead came out united.

"I believe Malta is capable of this. I believe," said Dr Muscat.

Labour's aims in this context would be an environment to be proud of, defending natural open spaces and following sustainable development; a competitive economy hand-in-hand with social development - above all, education - that would give a European quality of life to Maltese citizens.

Other aims include the best leadership standards at all state levels; a physical and technological infrastructure geared to sustain a modern economy; a social state, particularly in welfare and health, on a firm basis that would be there when one needed it.

Other targets would feature civil rights befiting the people of a European country; a culture of private initiative going beyond the economic sector to the civic and cultural sectors; an unstinting defence of national interests; active participation, rather than passive, on European levels; and solidarity at national and international levels.

Dr Muscat said the Labour Party would be starting out on this agenda immediately, from the opposition benches. Opposition was a word having negative connotations which could lead one to expect a group of moaners who said no to everything, but this would not be the parliamentary force he would be leading.

The Labour Party would be a positive force both in and out of Parliament. From the opposition the government should expect help for the country to advance and prosper, but it could also expect harsh criticism when the opposition saw that it was not the right decisions being taken.

Labour did not want the people to give them their trust because things were going awry or because they had had enough of the government. Labour wanted to earn the people's trust because they could see in it a positive force that would make the situation better, that would embrace progressive values that would rally all moderates to its side.

Above all it would be an effective opposition, promised Dr Muscat, because that was what democracy demanded, especially in front of a party that had had an almost absolute monopoly of power for more than two decades, almost a quarter of a century.

Even a party of persons with immaculate reputations could not hope to occupy the seat of power for such a long time without developing characteristics that would lead to scepticism regarding national institutions. That scepticism would cover not only the government but also the opposition and its relevance.

Under his leadership the Labour Party would work to bridge the democratic distance between citizens and their representatives. Each Maltese citizen, each Gozitan, man or woman, must feel that local councils, the European Parliament and the House of Representatives were theirs.

This was a major challenge that was being faced not only by Malta. It was the crisis of Europe, of globalisation. It was a crisis wherein the extravagance of a few had led an enormous system to the brink of collapse, and where the taxes paid by the many would have to step in to pull it back from that brink.

The solution was called "trust", said Dr Muscat.

He started his speech by making it clear that he was part of a generation that did not overly trust institutions and politicians, whoever they were and wherever they came from. It was easy to blame the lack of trust on the people, but he could not do this because he had come up through those ranks.

He knew the feelings of a young man who worked from morning till night, who could see that the decision-makers not only hardly cared about him and his colleagues but did not even know he existed. They were not aware of what small - but at the same time important - contribution such a person was making to the country.

It had been one such moment of frustration that led him to enter politics, with change topmost in his sights. He had thought that the first conference he had taken part in would be his last, because his message had been forcefully in favour of change in an environment that was hardly conducive to change. But surprisingly, his appeal had been taken on board and the Labour Party had accepted him in its ranks.

Today he was the Leader of the Opposition in the highest institution of the land, an institution he had perceived to be removed from the realities of everyday life. He was convinced his listeners included people who believed politicians did not understand them, that they presented two faces to the people - before and after elections.

If this were true, politicians needed to examine their conscience. Such an examination should include all aspects of what was known as "the State" - from government to opposition, from the judiciary to the civil service; from parastatal companies to security services; from regulators to planners.

Dr Muscat said he comes from a generation that was doubtful about the state's impartiality and efficiency; a generation that felt the state was strong with the weak and weak with whoever wielded power. An inefficient state that threw funds to the wind and then turned to the people for greater revenues to make good for the waste; that represented a minority of strong people and not the majority who worked hard for their families and paid taxes; that used the majority's moneys to safeguard the interests of a small but strong minority.

It was this perception that widened the chasm between citizens and institutions, between politician and electors. It would expand the sector of the people who felt that the best message they could send would be to stay away from voting because they would continue to be part of the majority that paid for the extravagance of the few.

Dr Muscat reiterated that he had entered politics with a view to change. But it was not a change that could be achieved by one section of society. There were people of all ages that wanted change. Ideals recognised no boundaries of age.

The party he was now leading was the same party that had led the country to several innovative concepts. But it was also a party that had made mistakes over the years. Even before his election as leader he had said it was time for the Labour Party to make peace with its past, and for political parties to shoulder their respective responsibilities.

He was conscious that the Nationalist Party had played a significant role to open the festering social wound of the politico-religious struggle. As the Church had done, the PN should shoulder the responsibility of its role and ask for the pardon of thousands of families whom it had hurt with this role, both active and passive.

Labour had hurt different sections of society. The aim had doubtlessly been genuine, but there were times when methods were heavy-handed and he could never agree with them. He had immediately apologised for the MLP to all who had been hurt. Now he was saying this in the highest institution of the land. Labour sincerely wanted to turn a new leaf.

At the end of the speech, Joe Debono Grech (MLP) deplored the fact that no Nationalist MP had listened to a maiden speech - something that had never occurred in all the years he had been a member of the House. The Speaker, however, ruled Mr Debono Grech out of order.