Perhaps the leading item on the media last week was the rebranding of Air Malta. I found the new aircraft livery to be vibrant, exciting and long overdue. Previously, it was somewhat bland and unattractive. The new colours and wording have brought our national airline in line with its competitors.

... we just cannot go back in time- Austin Sammut

An investment (meaning expecting a return) – as opposed to an expense – seems to be the right word to use, as stressed by Air Malta CEO Peter Davies. Time will tell but it looks encouraging.

As we all know, the airline is undergoing a massive do-or-die restructuring exercise, approved by the European Commission. This encouragement was strengthened by the confidence exuded by chairman Louis Farrugia during a recent TV discussion programme. It gave the lie to the usual prophets of doom.

I just hope that Air Malta will continue to compete with the low-cost airlines effectively. I also hope that its onboard service improves and that prices do not increase.

The decision by Malta International Airport to waive landing charges during the winter months is positive.

Also worth noting was the statement made by president of the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association, Tony Zahra on the same programme, who maintained that he would like to see Air Malta keep its market share of 55 per cent and that no other airline would exceed a share of 10 per cent. This shows confidence in our national airline and is a sign of support.

I for one have and will continue to use Air Malta when its flights and routes are convenient and on the same lines as the others. I encourage all to do the same.

There has been talk of privatising part of the airline, to which both the government and the opposition are not averse. This would tend to make it more efficient. Obviously, the government would keep a majority and retain full control.

Malta’s insulation requires that in no way can we be dependent on others for our crucial links with abroad. This is particularly significant for our tourist industry, which is flourishing, thanks to the joint efforts of the government and the other stakeholders.

The launching of the 2013 pre-Budget document is most obviously an emphatic sign that, failing the unexpected (or the expected?), the Nationalist government intends to fulfil its full term of office. Not that we really need this, given the Prime Minister’s repeated determination to do so.

It is a positive document, perhaps not in terms of individual aspirations, such as the income tax reduction to 20 per cent (although this has not been totally excluded; though unlikely) but certainly in terms of serious and realistic governance.

The reduction of the deficit to 1.7 per cent and of the national debt to under 60 per cent of GDP would, if achieved, give our new government a sound footing and a strong platform for future progress and stability and continue to sustain the strong economy we have today. Further measures will be taken to strengthen employment, education, the environment and the family. These are the basis of a strong society.

There is also much legislation to be passed through Parliament pre mid-2013, not least relating to the controversial cohabitation and IVF laws, as well as the sweeping reforms being pushed by Franco Debono in the areas of justice and home affairs and the regulation of political parties.

A negative factor which is scourging our country at the moment is “thuggery”.

We have had repeated reports of excessive police force when confronting individuals, particularly foreigners.

We have had reports of bouncers (many unlicensed) beating up patrons at favourite nightspots. We have had reports of members of the armed forces and detention services officers manhandling refugees to the extent that one, at least recently, succumbed to his injuries (though, admittedly, the task of the armed forces and these officers is by far not an easy one).

And just now we have read a report by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo in a Sunday paper that persons with criminal records were engaged (or were they officially?) as security personnel outside the Nationalist Party headquarters – not that they did anything wrong, mind you. But this claim definitely requires an explanation or, perhaps, rebuttal by the party secretariat.

For goodness sake, we just cannot go back in time. One shudders when recalling the individuals who surrounded officials of both parties in the 1970s and 1980s – though this was essential and crucial in a number of cases I clearly recall. We all thought this was over. Let us deal with our national “thuggery” syndrome before it is too late.