The European Commission’s latest interim forecast shows that the Maltese economy is projected to grow by one per cent, one of the best performers in the eurozone (February 23). The Commission also reported that Malta is not one of the 12 countries at risk of new economic crises (February 20).
According to the International Monetary Fund, Malta is the 38th richest among 182 countries (February 25) but, in spite of these positive certificates, Malta is not immune to what looms on the horizon.
The IMF’s earlier warning that Malta’s resilience to date cannot be taken for granted and that continued vigilance is warranted cannot be taken lightly. Neither can the government ignore its call for further reforms, particularly over pensions, the restructuring of Air Malta and Enemalta and a better alignment of wages to productivity.
Although the government has succeeded in reducing the national debt, boasting of the sharpest drop in the EU in the third quarter of last year and although it has managed to cut deficit levels to below three per cent of GDP, it must take further measures to balance the Budget and ensure that that Malta’s economy remains structurally sound. Hence the government’s decision to trim expenditure to the tune of some €40 million.
Not so surprisingly, instead of supporting the government in this mega delicate balancing act for the common good, the Labour Party comes out with the silliest of statements. It accused the Prime Minister of “passing the buck by making top civil servants responsible for public sector expenditure cuts” (February 6). It went on ranting that the Prime Minister was using heads of government entities as “scapegoats” and that the government had announced programmes and initiatives when it was well aware it would not be able to implement them. It even went as far as alleging that the government does not have the moral authority to order the cuts.
Is Labour really insinuating that, instead of heeding the IMF’s warnings, the government should do the complete opposite, listen to its suggestion to deliver on all promises made in 2008 before the onslaught of the global recession even if they are no longer doable in today’s global financial scenario? Is it at all possible that Labour really wants the government to cut taxes at such a sensitive moment in time? Is Labour credible when it says that if elected to govern it will fulfill its reckless promise to reduce utility tariffs and taxation? No, it is certainly not.
I will bet my last euro that if Labour is ever in the driver’s seat it will reverse most, if not all, of its fanciful promises. It will do the opposite of what it is preaching today just as it had done in 1996.
It will raise tariffs and taxation. It will meddle with stipends, free health services and social benefits. It will reduce funds to local councils, to the police etc. and it will introduce a plethora of taxes. That is what Labour Prime Minister Alfred Sant did in 1996 when oil cost only $12 a barrel and when there was no international recession!
A future Labour government will introduce a myriad of “austerity measures” claiming that it inherited an unhealthy economic situation. This was the excuse Dr Sant had used when, contrary to what he had been saying before he was elected to lead the country (into the ground, might I add) in 22 months, he practically trebled utility tariffs, transformed student stipends into loans, imposed a tax on medical certificates and over 30 other infamous taxes.
The majority of Labour’s polices have been proven wrong over and over again. Its foolish advice has been bad throughout and the government has done well to ignore it. Labour’s nirvana promises are ridiculously unrealistic and just do not make any sense in this real world.
Its recent criticism that the government does not have the moral authority to order the cost-cutting exercise is totally flawed and, as The Times put it, “Labour would be wrong, very wrong, if, in its urge to put the Administration in a bad light it works up a sentiment against the government for trying to trim expenditure. This is not the way to win votes” (February 14).
To be quite honest, except for its constantly destructive criticism, I really do not know what Labour is all about. It has been sitting pretty on the opposition benches since 1987, save for the 1996-1998 stint. It has had all the time in the world to devise a strategy and carry out in depth studies on its policies. And, yet, what are its proposals on employment and working conditions, on sustainable economic growth, free health and education for all, on pensions, on social benefits and fiscal consolidation?
What are its policies on tourism, low cost airlines, Air Malta, Enemalta, the environment, capital projects, foreign and local investment, public and private partnerships, illegal immigration, financial services, innovation, productivity, competitiveness, etc?
How will it curb inflation, bureaucracy, illegal immigration, hunting and bird trapping, money laundering, drug trafficking etc?
A word to the not so wise: If you want to criticise it’s a free world but if you want to criticise constructively you have to come up with some solution. Likewise, if you really want to be believed that all is doom and gloom, stop smiling all over the place.