Silence is not always golden

Various international credit organisations, including the International Monetary Fund, Moody's and the European Commission, have repeatedly confirmed that Malta's economy is on sound footing and that Malta stands out for its positive performance during the recent global recession. But while the rest of the world is piling praise on Malta's performance, the opposition continues injecting a doom and gloom overdose into the political scenario.

It is true that not all is yet perfect on this fair isle of ours but this government has achieved much and will continue to do so with or without Labour's cooperation.

During the recent difficult times Malta experienced, Labour's support has been conspicuous by its absence and its silence on crucial issues deafening. Others allege that Labour's sole strategy is to put spokes in the government's wheels. The only noise we have heard from the Labour camp concerns the increase in utility tariffs and, yet, in spite of the entire hullabaloo, the Labour leader will not give a guarantee that, as Prime Minister, he would subsidise the bulk of our consumption and reduce our utility tariffs at least by half.

On other matters Labour's silence speaks volumes and we are in the dark as far as Labour's policies go. A sterling example of the opposition's indifference is its deafening silence over the Mepa reform. Although, in August 2008, Labour committed itself to give its fullest contribution and even commissioned a report to analyse the reform, Labour's proposals never saw the light of day. Then, during a parliamentary debate, when it finally came out with its three proposals, it transpired that the issues had already been discussed and consolidated in the Bill.

During these last two years, the government has introduced several other major reforms, on the environment, education, health, public transport etc., and, yet, the opposition chose to sit pretty on the fence in its typical non-committal pose. Even on other crucial issues of national importance such as immigration, the drydocks privatisation, the removal of subsidies etc., the opposition, all guns blaring, refused to offer any solutions whatsoever. To be fair, though, it has uttered a whimper or two as far as its proposals go.

It has suggested that the government should import goods itself; that it will give its MPs a free vote on divorce and it will open a second University. It is all well and good to squirt underdeveloped proposals but Labour would be a tad credible if it explains what will happen to our free choice as consumers' and to importers' livelihood if the government starts importing goods itself? If Labour really wants divorce why will it not include this pledge in its electoral manifesto? If it is really serious about opening another University to compete with the one we already have, will education remain free? Who will attend once there are no waiting lists? Will students receive stipends and, if so, who is going to finance the costs? Labour and education really don't go hand in hand, do they? What with its "repeater's" class proposal; the removal of student stipends; the numerus clausus imposed at the University and the closure of Mcast, just to mention a few major Labour-misguided policies.

The "progressive" Labour movement has promised to start a new political season. Well, apart from refusing to cooperate with the government, not committing itself on major issues and flinging half-baked proposals, here go another few examples on Labour's new way of doing politics.

Its leader turned up half an hour late for the state television debate during the 2009 MEP June electoral campaign. He declined an invitation to a state dinner because he prefers eating hamburgers. He kept Juan Carlos, King of Spain, waiting for a meeting he had with a Labour Party delegation. He failed to follow protocol and walked into the state dinner held for the king under the patronage of the President of Malta after the Prime Minister instead of before him. He did not participate in the official commemoration of Remembrance Day, better known as Poppy Day. He failed to attend the official ceremony at the foot of the monument on Independence Day last September but chose to place his wreath later on and failed to turn up for the official opening of the EU-Arab League Secretariat aimed at fostering dialogue between the EU and Arab states. He even forfeited his parliamentary right to rebut the Prime Minister's Budget 2010 speech last November.

How progressive is all that!

The role of the Leader of the Opposition carries responsibilities and should be fulfilled in the proper manner. Moreover, as leader of a political party, he should never tolerate any misconduct from his sidekicks and should have been the first to rebuke them for waving an English daily in Parliament in an attempt to hijack the last Budget speech. He should have censured the "groups of friends" who set up "hatred" sites against the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party and he should have condemned the tasteless and verbal violence spewed forth by Labour supporters during the protest march last month. Breaking silence then could have gained Labour a couple of brownie points.