The title of this week's contribution was suggested by a headline appearing in The Times today week reporting a speech delivered by Prof. Edward Scicluna at a business breakfast. What Prof. Scicluna said has been amply reported in the media and, as such, does not require repetition here. In any case, my contribution this week is not meant to provide a reaction to Prof. Scicluna's speech.

It is very ironic that, within the same week, the government published two documents giving its ideas on two reforms that are critical for the proper functioning of our economy. The first is the White Paper on the next stage of reforms of the public service and the other is about the pensions reform. Each require a detailed examination and cannot and should not be treated together.

However, the initial reactions that we have had to them were interesting and merit some counter-reaction. Moreover, the two reforms are, in effect, linked to each other as is any other reform that impacts on the services provided by the public sector.

On both issues, the two major unions- that is, the General Workers' Union and the Union Haddiema Maghqudin - have put forward the same reactions, even though I am sure there was no concerted effort to do so. They have advised caution. They have asked for more time to digest and assess the proposals put forward, to consult their membership about them, and to submit their own proposals. They have told government to take it easy and not to push ahead with the reforms.

What one needs to appreciate is that these are two issues that we have been discussing for years. We have been told repeatedly that reforms need to be effected to make the pensions system sustainable and to render the public service more efficient such that it is not a burden on the business sector and on the public in general. They are issues that are and will continue to cause a drag to our economy unless they are addressed effectively. They are issues that aim to hit hard at the core economic problem that we have - public sector expenditure.

Moreover, we have spent the three months of summer hearing this, that, and the other about how the government seems to be doing nothing and that it probably does not even have the willingness to do anything. During these three months we have been told that the government must address the issue of public sector expenditure not by raising taxes in the short term but by taking steps to effect some structural changes that would provide an effective solution in the long term. It must address the issue of the regulatory bodies that are being created as they may end up being a burden on the taxpayer and the business sector.

However, the minute it publishes its proposals on two key issues that are likely to impact on our economy and society in the long term, we are told to wait by those same people that have criticised government for not doing enough to address the challenges facing the country.

Others have probably done worse by keeping quiet as if these issues do not concern them. One cannot but help feeling that some organisations have no real interest to be real social partners other than in name and that their interest is purely to be lobbyists representing sectorial interests and to speak up when some of these interest appear to be threatened.

It may be claimed that since we have been waiting for so long for proposals to be published on these issues, why should a reaction to them have to be submitted within a short period of time. The argument may appear to be correct but then one can hardly claim government inertia in the same breath.

We also need to look at the linkage that exists between the issue of public service reform and the issue of the pensions reform in the light of the claim that has been made about government inertia over the summer months. One key aspect of the reforms that have been introduced in this country over the past 15 years has been a redefinition of the role of the state in the economy. We have had a clear strategy of cutting back on the operating role of the state in the economy for it to take a more regulatory role.

It has been very evident that not all social partners have accepted fully this change in the role of government, as seen by the expectation of trade unions that government provides employment to persons whose job has disappeared for one reason or another, or the expectation by some parts of the business sector that government invests directly in the economy to provide an added stimulus.

Given this new role of the state as a facilitator in the economy rather than an operator, requires a more efficient public service. Similarly the need for the state to have enough resources to provide a sustainable welfare system also requires the public service to be more efficient. I do not believe that we are appreciating enough the point that because of our insistence that the government continues to play the role of an operator in the economy rather than the role of a facilitator and the role of a regulator is burdening the public sector with inefficiencies that eventually slow it down.

It is true that the government is not a business organisation but it still needs to operate in a business-like manner. Our expectation is that it provides services that aid efficiency and productivity in the economy. Given this expectation, we need to make sure that the government is allowed to operate within such an environment.

The behaviour of some organisations has impeded the government from doing so and they do not appreciate the fact that in order to achieve social cohesion, the pace with which the government moves is very much influenced by the pace with which the other social partners move.