The whole public transport issue has brought Austin Gatt well into the limelight and he now shares the same "love him or hate him" status Dom Mintoff once had. It is no surprise that they both attract the same protests, strikes and controversies from one or more sectors of the public. He appears to be the strong, hard-headed politician this country needs to get things done, although a closer look at Dr Gatt's plans may reveal some flaws and one may realise that things are not as black and white as they may seem.

Firstly, unlike Dom Mintoff in 1971, Dr Gatt and his party failed to include this "major reform" in the public transport sector in their electoral manifesto. One must keep in mind that this is not the typical reform we hear about every year. If Dr Gatt plans to keep his promises of trams, water taxis and eco buses while liberalising all, hence changing the system from top to bottom, then I believe that this would be the biggest project ever in public transport in the 20th and 21st centuries so far. Yet, Dr Gatt and his party failed to mention any of this massive masterpiece project only a few months ago before the election. Did they forget? Did Dr Gatt simply dream up this whole project during the four-day strike? Maybe it wasn't convenient to mention this project before the election because it would have meant more than 1,000 public transport vehicle owners and their families not voting PN, which would definitely tilt the scales to the other side. It would also mean that Jesmond Mugliett's letter promising no changes for the next five years would stick out like a sore thumb. Statistics claiming that public transport has improved in the last years would have to be put aside. If public transport, according to Dr Gatt, is so bad, I'm sure it wasn't any better a few months ago. I simply cannot think of any other reason why this project wasn't mentioned before. Can readers?

Secondly, since Dr Gatt is not intimidated by bullies and would only agree to something if he agreed with it in principle, then I suppose it is safe to say that Dr Gatt is in favour of the compensation sums given to the hearse owners. So unless we live in a country where some citizens are more equal than others, I should assume that Dr Gatt has the same compensation schemes planned for the buses, red minibuses and white taxis, irrelevant of the cost, since they have all been affected the same way. What makes hearse owners different from the rest?

It is funny that when the government is on the receiving end, similar situations automatically become more complicated. The car registration tax has been in the pipeline for the last couple of years, but despite getting warnings from the EU, nothing has yet changed. We have often heard Tonio Fenech (and the general public) say that we have to keep in mind the people that have paid the full registration tax in recent years and all the car dealers who have thousands of euro worth of cars which would suddenly depreciate in price. This would not be fair, I hear people say, and they would be right. So think about how even more unfair it is for the public transport vehicle owners who, unlike car dealers and owners, had no warning whatsoever. Many mini/bus and taxi owners have spent thousands setting up their businesses and several more thousands replacing their vehicles because they believed that it was an investment for the future. Owners have realised (while still in debt) that soon their investment will be worth nothing. Up to a couple of months ago, people were still spending all their life savings and going into several thousands in debt because they were assured that things would not change in the next five years. Little did they know.

Maybe things can be clarified by someone who knows more on this subject. Perhaps Dr Gatt himself.