The woman now known as the ‘Simshar widow’, 30-year old Stephania Carabott, pleaded guilty to begging. After taking into consideration her “unique circumstances”, the court let her off with a conditional discharge.

Now begging isn’t an especially heinous crime. It’s more of a nuisance than anything else, so in this regard the punishment fits the crime. However, I take issue with all those who claimed that the state, the Church, the EU, or any entity they could think of had abandoned Carabott to her fate. They haven’t.

She, however, continues to perpetuate her sorry condition, by refusing to do what any able-bodied young woman would do in her circumstances – work. Why shouldn’t she?

She is young and physically healthy enough to trudge around various localities to beg, and does not yet have any children who need her at home. She has a roof over her head as she still resides in the property – which is owned by the Joint Office – she shared with her deceased partner.

So what is stopping her from going out and doing something productive instead of moping around and asking for handouts? Does she expect to spend the next 30-odd years of her life retelling her sad story and living off the sympathy cents? Her plight is a tragic one, but it is not unique..

I know of other women who do not have a wage-earning partner to depend on, who have children to bring up, and who do so without an ounce of self-pity. Some of them battle with life-threatening diseases like cancer, and yet they still get up and try to earn a living every morning.

Our sympathy and admiration should be reserved for these people and not for those who wallow in misery and perpetuate a culture of dependency.

• Why do I get the distinct feeling that state funding for political parties is in the offing?

Firstly, Labour MP Charles Mangion made tentative noises about it. In an interview last week, he first said such a measure might not go down well with the electorate, saying: “Taxpayers, especially now, might not be willing to shoulder the additional cost which they would invariably perceive as a burden.”

Well, that’s very true. Cash-straitened taxpayers are not going to look kindly at the prospect of coughing up more money to finance political parties, and any such proposal is going to go down like a lead balloon. So you would think the idea would be consigned to the bin of unpopular ideas and instantly forgotten.

Instead, Mangion continues sending out feelers about it. He added: “What should be considered is when the economy can take it, and how it would come about.” So, it’s not a definite “No” then, but waiting until the economic climate is right.

Labour isn’t the only political party testing the ground for the introduction of public funding of parties. Consider the statements about the subject made by Nationalist MP Franco Debono.

He has been entrusted with preparing the legal groundwork for a new law regulating party financing. This should include provisions regarding the disclosure of the identities of donors – a provision which has been a long time in coming.

The fact that both the PN and PL are mainly bankrolled by business donors is an open secret. It is hard to believe that these massive donations are motivated solely by a desire to help a particular political party.

The thousands of euros making it into the party coffers come with strings attached. Once the party on the receiving end of such largesse is in office, it’s payback time and donors expect recognition for their generosity.

The payback comes by way of preferential treatment, lucrative tenders and permits. This makes for an uneven playing field for those who cannot afford to pump big bucks into a political party in the hope of securing advantage.

You can’t stop donations being made, but it’s in the interest of transparency to see who’s making them and if donors are subsequently rewarded. We should be able to follow the money trail and see if the donations are really a form of ‘investment’ at the taxpayers’ ex-pense. At least that’s the idea behind the law regulating party financing.

Now both the PN and the PL have been quibbling about the threshold above which donations should be declared and that at which they should be capped. Debono is supposed to be looking into this aspect of the law. He says he does not favour political party financing by the state because – you guessed it – people would disagree with it.

That’s the predictable disclaimer. But then there’s the tiny twist in the tail where Debono admits that mandatory disclosure could lead to fewer donors, prompting an eventual argument in favour of party financing by the state.

Call me cynical but I think this is the endpoint which the PN and the PL have in mind. They are both massive organisations, weighed down with money-sapping media arms requiring a steady flow of income.

State funding would be the ideal solution as it would be a sure thing and would – in theory at least – free them of the need to honour the unofficial deals with their donors.

I suspect that in practice state-funding of political parties would do little to improve the situation. Even if it had to be in place, it is doubtful whether it would replace donations by private people and the resultant system of patronage.

Then there’s the little matter of how the funds are to be allocated. Will the PN and PL stitch things up so there is practically no possibility of other parties receiving public funds? Will they be the only recipients of our money?

Both parties should come clean about their intentions in this regard so that the electorate can see if and how it’s paying for their party and how many times over.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt