Unlike John Consiglio (‘Confusing issues’, May 3), unfortunately, I have never had the pleasure of dwelling in the ivory towers of academia and professional consultancy but instead chose to apply myself to the real world of the hard unrelenting coalface of big business, creating hundreds of jobs in the process.
Be that as it may, in a previous article (‘Claiming credit for growth’, April 22), I made three economy-related assertions.
First, that certain tragic events in Europe had significantly raised Malta’s attraction as a tourist destination and contributed to the boom in tourism with local hospitality-related industries going from strength to strength.
Second, the unexpected colossal collapse in the price of oil from a peak of $125 pb in 2011 to a low of $27 pb in 2015 or down by a massive 79 per cent, an unprecedented drop in price and more than equivalent to a significant royalty income from an oil discovery in Maltese waters, a substantial bonanza to any economy which relies on heavy imports of oil and gas.
Third, that the combination of those factors had a significantly positive outcome on the Maltese economy.
Not rocket science. Given the clear and relevant impact of just those two events on the Maltese economy, any Econ 101 student should grasp the logic behind those statements without the need for macroeconomic bells and whistles.
I may not be as well informed as Mr Consiglio to dispute the relevance of economic indicators during the years of the previous government in comparison to what I assume are more favourable current numbers now. However, I am sufficiently informed to know that such indicators may wax and wane in sympathy with indicators of other countries in similar regions as well as wider global economic trends and are not always a direct outcome of domestic government policy, particularly in a relatively very small and insular economy.
I would even venture to suggest that the EU’s moribund economy in previous years, and which had tested the borders of recession, might have had some serious deleterious effect on smaller fellow member economies.
Mr Consiglio states that I linked the state of the Maltese economy to the Panama scandal. That is totally incorrect. Any implied link between Panama and the economy was purely related to the element of distraction and consequent loss of potential opportunity that the ongoing controversy might be causing to the administration of the country by this government.
Superior numbers in Parliament translate to might and not right
He also took umbrage at my adverse comments regarding the attempted trivialisation of the Panama scandal by certain ministers, including the Finance Minister, and he goes on to point out that the minister’s competence has been well established by his participation in important meetings with EU finance leaders and the IMF. I am glad he mentioned that.
If competence were easily established by virtue of meetings attended by ministers and heads of State, much more would be expected of Prime Minister Joseph Muscat given his penchant for rubbing shoulders with the likes of David Cameron, Angela Merkel and other highly-regarded leaders.
Despite Mr Consiglio’s apparent abundant knowledge of economic matters, he seems to be totally unaware that at the very time the Finance Minister was making clearly evasive and facile comments about the seriousness (or lack of) of the Panama scandal, no less than his EU boss himself, Jeroen Dijsselbloen, head of EU finance leaders, and the IMF’s Christine Lagarde had joined the rest of the global financial peerage in unanimously condemning unequivocally the modus operandi and obvious nefarious intent of the setting up of structures in Panama. In fact, on April 23, Dijsselbloen endorsed a series of measures to fight tax and transparency evasion methods exposed by Panama.
Iceland’s prime minister had resigned over the same matter but the former Maltese minister for energy who had reportedly conducted secret energy-related negotiations with Azerbaijan, a country not exactly regarded as a shining beacon of transparency and good governance, remains in the Cabinet despite the Prime Minister’s pronouncement that doing nothing was not an option.
Perhaps, he should have stated in Parliament that doing next to nothing is his prerogative as in Malta superior numbers in Parliament translate to might and not right and he is prepared to take advantage of it.
It will serve no useful purpose to dwell further on these matters and, as far as I am concerned, this matter ends with this response. There is, however, evident sheer frustration and concern among several Maltese industry leaders that the government is being bogged down in self-manufactured controversy and risks missing certain opportunities that potentially could be spun off the prevailing attractive economic climate, given the consuming intensity of the political vitriol fuelled by a bewildering lack of proper action by the Prime Minister to clear his decks and make a fresh start.
This government came in on a wave of popular support with a sense of urgency for change. It showed initial promising talent and a keenness to get on with the job.
It beggars belief that it has managed to dig itself into such a hole of negative sentiment in such a short period of time.
Still, as has been said before, democratic countries get the government they deserve for better or for worse. Perhaps we can at least agree on that.
Anthony Trevisan is a businessman.