However much the Prime Minister tries to deflect public attention from the furore over the pay rise to parliamentarians, the issue still tops the national agenda. And it is most unlikely it will go away before at least some kind of relief is given to those that have been most hit by the recent price rises. Politically, the Labour Party will surely not let go of what most people classify today as possibly the worst gaffe committed by the Nationalists in this legislature. There have been other gaffes but this has fuelled considerable anger. The problem for the Nationalists is that the more they have tried to calm the people’s nerves over this, the greater has been the reaction against it.

Nationalist Party apologists have tried to play down the uproar, arguing it was high time ministers and members of Parliament received adequate remuneration for their work. The argument is most valid, though it is doubtful if all of the members merit a rise. For, even though MPs are quick to point out that serving in the House today requires much greater preparedness than in the past, absences from parliamentary sittings give one clue of the manner in which some deputies regard their work as representatives of the people.

The government has been consistently sidestepping the kernel of the issue, which is the manner in which the rise has been worked out and, even more so, publicly announced. Government speakers, including the Prime Minister, have held that the decision had been made public when it was taken two months after the last general election. They particularly refer to an interview the Prime Minister had given to The Sunday Times. But in this interview, for example, Lawrence Gonzi had only expressed an intention of what he had in mind of piloting. The government had eventually gone ahead with the plan but it did not make it officially public. This is surely not the way to go about the exercise. It is not all those who have been criticising the government that are wrong over this, as government speakers have said, but the government itself for treating such a sensitive matter lightly.

Former Labour leader Alfred Sant went into the heart of the matter when he wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives arguing the matter exposed MPs to ridicule, rage and contempt, undermining the constitutional function of parliamentarians. One may doubt the validity of the contribution some of the parliamentarians give but Dr Sant’s argument can hardly be faulted. He was also quite to the point when he argued that other parliaments had transparent processes and parliamentary resolutions to abide by regarding salaries of MPs. Although these never existed in Malta, Parliament “had never been treated in this way before”.

Should not Malta too have such transparent processes? How can the government think it can justify its move when the intention had only been given in a newspaper interview and an article or two? And is it not greatly ironic that, while other countries have been speaking about austerity measures and cuts in spending, the country finds itself spending so much time dissecting a rise the government has awarded to ministers and parliamentarians?

Still, even though the people are unlikely to forget the matter, the country now needs to move on, discussing vitally important issues, such as how to step up the rhythm of economic growth.