Last Thursday, Social Policy Minister Michael Farrugia ‘revealed in a tweet’ (‘said’, traditionally) that a man from the UK was planning to sell his house there and move to Malta, the rest of the cunning plan being that he would apply for social housing here and live off benefits. The role model came courtesy of his Maltese girlfriend, who was also on welfare.

Incredibly, it was the villain himself who broke this fine story to Farrugia. Nor was it an exception. According to the minister, “if he had to list all the anecdotes he heard every day he would write a bestseller” (Times of Malta, June 12). Angels and Demons perhaps? Or, more to the point, Crime and Punishment?

Certainly the emphasis would be on punishment. Farrugia’s tweet was the latest in a series of strongly-worded warnings that government was about to get tough on benefit fraud. He even went on Dissett to show his teeth, presumably inspired by the Prime Minister, who played much the same tune in a public meeting held some weeks earlier. The idea is that fraud has got out of hand and will no longer be tolerated.

It is a truism to say that benefit fraud is a bad thing that shouldn’t be tolerated. It is also the case that cutting abuse is primarily an administrative rather than a political matter.

Which is why I find it hard to hold down my antennae when the government top brass choose to go on and on about the demons who milk the Socialist kindness. Something tells me there’s nothing like a spot of rabble bashing, especially when it involves single mothers or some other paragon of immorality.

The macho talk and bullish posturing also give me some idea why Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca was given the gilded and glazed patron-saint treatment. (That’s placed on a pedestal and put away to safety in a niche for the best part of the year.) To her credit, I can’t imagine Coleiro Preca going on television to rant about the people who live off the fat of the land.

I can, however, picture her screaming at the peacocks and banging on the fine marquetry. I also tend to sympathise, because we may be witnessing a thinly-veiled assault on two of her most cherished (by her own account) things.

First, the poor (also known as ‘the most vulnerable of the vulnerable’, ‘the weakest of the weak’, and so on). The statistics presented on Dissett showed that benefits take-up – and therefore abuse, assuming this accounts for a percentage of use – is highest in places which are also known for their lion’s share of poor and generally ill-resourced people. Valletta apparently scored highest.

What that means is that, fraud and all, most of those who depend on benefits just about manage to get by in any case. Whether or not one has a legitimate claim to them, social benefits are what they are. One might therefore ask two things.

First, to what extent is ‘fraud’ simply a means of putting some meat on what otherwise is a pretty skeletal existence? Second, how would draconian anti-fraud measures impact people who are struggling as it is?

The second line of assault seems to target what I would call ‘non-productive welfare’. Sounds like a wonderful idea, except what I mean by ‘non-productive’ is types of welfare that tend not to make the headlines.

It would appear that government has quite a bit of time for benefits that lend themselves to triumphalist renderings. My jaw almost fell off my face the other day when I heard that someone was considering subsidising gym fees for overweight people. (I would qualify by a right royal kilogram, if I could be bothered.) It’s also really nice to be able to declare free childcare for all, irrespective of earnings. And so on.

Other routes are not so lucky, either because they are well-trodden, or because they don’t involve grand proclamations, or both. Unemployment benefits and the like have a nasty habit of ending up in people’s pockets without first going to a press conference. They’re so old-hat they’d make bad television anyway. Unless, of course, the topic is their abuse and the need to crush it.

How would draconian anti-fraud measures impact people who are struggling as it is?

Speaking of which, I’d love to know how Farrugia intends to go about it. The point is that since welfare often has to do with people’s personal circumstances, getting tough on benefit fraud may also involve some rather Orwellian devices.

Take that perennial and favourite target, single mothers of ‘unknown father’ fame. Someone sent a comment to Reno Bugeja during Dissett saying that the best way to expose them would be to for one to attend a First Holy Communion event and let the unknown fathers parade themselves.

Sounds plausible enough, until one pictures the scenario. As the children spill out of church all happy and dressed up on their big day, government officials accost a man in a suspicious-looking suit and demand to know his reason for being there. “You may play mummy’s friend all you like young man, but you will fold under questioning. Follow us.”

There’s another thing. The war on fraud rests on the logic that abuse robs the Exchequer of money that could be used more wisely elsewhere. It’s a fine logic and I have no problem with it.

So fine, in fact, that I’m surprised the fight isn’t also taken to the other end of the field. I have in mind the white-collar crime, the millions of euros lost to friendly tax regimes, the lists of perks that put meat on an already-robust existence, and so on. On those, not a word.

I seem to remember Joseph Muscat telling Mintoff “ejj’oqgħod” (“do drop by”) the last (and first?) time the old man paid a visit to the Labour Party headquarters. I suspect Muscat is secretly relieved that il-Perit is no longer physically able to take him up on his offer, and that ghosts don’t exist.

mafalzon@hotmail.com