October 5 is very often remembered as being Union Day, the foundation day of the General Workers' Union. However, it also happens to be, since 1977, Student Day. It was the day when a number of students reading medicine at the university decided to protest against the reforms that were being implemented at the University of Malta because these reforms were seriously putting into jeopardy all their efforts to obtain an internationally-recognised qualification in medicine. Their slogan was: "We want to study in Malta".

They were joined in their protests by the rest of the student body and the reaction of the regime at the time was a brutal one. Students were beaten up, arrested and held in detention at the police depot unnecessarily, presumably to intimidate them.

The students had long been clamouring that there should be some form of assistance for persons who wanted to study at the university as this lack of assistance was seen to hinder entry into university. The government had abolished university fees in 1970, a step in the right direction; but a step that did not go far enough.

By 1975, university students were asking for grants, a form of assistance that was very prevalent in Western European countries. The government's response was the infamous student worker scheme, versions of which scheme were more likely to be found in the former Eastern bloc countries.

The way this scheme was conceptualised and being implemented was expected to reduce and not increase the number of university students, which was already the lowest in proportion to the rest of the population in Western Europe. In fact, this is what happened and a number of bright young people lost their chance forever to read for a university degree or had to spend large sums of money to study abroad.

In 1987, we had a total reversal of policy and university students started to receive what is referred to as the stipend. This assistance was extended to all post-secondary students, with some very minor exceptions. This initiative led to a large increase in the number of students that went through post-secondary education and an equally large increase in the number of university students.

The government had believed that an expansion of the opportunities for study at the post-secondary and tertiary level would eventually boost the economy as this would increase the skills base in the country.

The prophets of doom and gloom had claimed that this initiative would indeed increase the number of university students, but would eventually lead to significant graduate unemployment, as had happened, they claimed, in a number of Western European countries.

We know that this has not happened. The increase in the supply of graduates and young people with diplomas in a wide range of areas has led to the creation of work opportunities, as employers came to recognise that they could tap a labour force whose skills base had improved greatly.

The economy was in effect boosted by the increase in graduates as had been predicted by the proponents of that policy.

Economic data also prove this point. The last Labour Force Survey, issued in March, shows that the number of persons categorised as legislators, senior officials, managers, professionals, technicians and associated professionals made up 33 per cent of the total number of persons in employment compared to 31 per cent just the year before. These persons earn on average the highest salaries.

A look at the make-up of those persons seeking employment would note that only 6.6 per cent of those seeking employment would be classified under these categories. Therefore, the risk of graduate unemployment has been more than overstated.

There are now those who question whether we should keep on giving our students stipends. Any policy decision has to be viewed within the circumstances of the time.

In 1987, we needed to give a big boost to our educational system as well as our economy. Today, we are reaping the benefits of that big boost.

That should not be taken to mean that the stipends system should not be reviewed. If anything it should be reviewed in the context of today's circumstances with a fiscal deficit that needs to be brought to sustainable levels and a culture within the country that favours post-secondary education.

One needs to continue to encourage young people in Malta to pursue their post-secondary studies as this has proved to be beneficial to our economy. Businesses have been able to attract higher value added activities to Malta also because of the expansion of the educational system.

This is a phenomenon that is not unique to Malta. Countries like Ireland and Singapore have been through the same experience in the last couple of decades and Japan and Germany managed it after the end of the Second World War.

It might be that graduates would fill posts that were previously filled by non-graduates. However, this would only be a logical consequence as the percentage of graduates in the labour force increases and the percentage of non-graduates decreases.

It might also be that we would need, in the coming years, a selective system with regard to stipends, through the provision of scholarships based on merit, the financial means of the family of the student and the subject chosen for study.

Whatever happens, I believe the message is loud and clear. Our economy cannot afford to go back to the times when someone questions the validity of having as many students as possible attending post-secondary education and university.

This is why Student Day and what it represents cannot be forgotten. Our economy needs qualified persons to be able to grow and thrive.