Now that the general election is over it would not be unwise for all concerned to ponder on recent past events that did not only dominate the political arena but practically all quarters of the local community, from Church authorities to constituted bodies/organisations, and from workers' unions to professional institutions.

The April 12 general election definitely confirmed the controversial referendum result of March 8 on whether Malta should join the EU or not. Though legally the yes votes in the referendum won the day, the issue left some doubt due to the political parties' stand on the matter, both in the run-up to the referendum and the subsequent declarations by the parties' leadership.

The general election result gave an unequivocal signal that the destiny (for better or for worse) of Malta was in the European Union. So be it: the people have spoken.

This notwithstanding, the election has once again confirmed that Malta still stands as politically divided as ever before. It is now up to the leadership of the two leading parties to work out a formula as to how best the country can move ahead as a member of the EU. I do not foresee an easy way ahead, unless all MPs commit themselves to truly carry out their duties for the common good of the country and its people.

After the swearing-in ceremony, the prime minister was quoted to have said that he would welcome the help and cooperation of the new opposition in parliament. In Athens, he even expressed his wish that the whole Maltese community should find its way to work together as one people, to ensure Malta's future success.

We all know for a fact that this is hardly possible without a serious change in the local political mentality. There seems to be consensus within our political society that the government and the opposition agreed to disagree on practically anything tabled in the House, unless, of course, the issue is a revision (obviously upwards) in the parliamentarians' remuneration.

It would not be fair on our parliamentarians if I fail to also mention the amendments to the Members of Parliament Pensions Act. Here again they never failed to find consensus. This infamous legislation makes our parliamentarians privileged citizens. Wonder of wonders, no other issue (national issues included) ever succeeded to bring the House so close together.

I wholeheartedly commend the prime minister's gesture in inviting the Labour opposition to cooperate with the government for the country's well-being, but mere words are not enough. The prime minister should transmit a genuine sign of goodwill, if he truly wishes to induce the opposition to play ball.

The prime minister should extend his invitation to the opposition in a way that would leave no doubt as to his government's serious attempts to unite the country. The government must be seen to be doing all within its power to unite the country.

The prime minister should therefore waste no time in extending its true hand of friendship and genuine sense of goodwill by offering the opposition the opportunity of submitting its nominations to fill posts on government-owned and/or controlled corporations' boards and other committees. Anything short of that would render the prime minister's public pronouncements as mere vague political talk.

We are all conscious of the extent to which the country is politicised, and surely the government need not be told of this situation. The government is likewise aware of the politicisation that exists in government-owned/controlled institutions.

However, it would not be out of place to make mention of just one institution that has brought constant division in this country. As the prime minister insisted in his referendum campaign, we should forgo personal interests and think in term of the nation's dire needs.

Public broadcasting is perhaps the most criticised institution in the island, with the strongest objections coming, mainly, from the two leading political parties. It has been the centre of controversy every since the Labour government nationalised Rediffusion.

Government after government made mockery of the set-up. Despite reorganisations and restructuring exercises, public broadcasting remained, in substance, what had been moulded some 30 years ago in the form of Xandir Malta. The station's employees are consistently compelled to play musical chairs to the tunes of successive administrations.

The latest restructuring proposal which has been on hold for some time now is again not the answer to the station's ills. The proposals are unprofessional and brought general distaste and bad blood among the workers.

PBS's problem is twofold: political and managerial. The proposals sidestepped the real issue. I had deemed the previous proposals to be doomed to failure and time has proved me right. I see no light at the end of the tunnel in this instance either.

Before proceeding with the pending restructuring proposal, it would be wise and proper for the government to reconsider this situation, in the light of the prime minister's demands for unity, particularly now that public broadcasting has been entrusted to a new minister.

Sharing boards/committees with nominees from the opposition is tantamount to translating words into actions. It would be a feather in the government's cap to introduce the necessary transparency that is so lacking in the local style of governance. Whether the opposition cooperates or not, the government stands to gain with such positive moves.

With the typical old "buddy boys" styles of governance, it will be sheer waste of time advocating unity and cooperation. Without the cultural change in our political society, I anticipate a bumpy road ahead.