My oh my, what a barrage of emotions were unleashed by what happened at the university on Monday. As I read The Times online report (with no by-line) about the four party leaders' debate, I must admit that my first reaction was that the debate had been organised by the PN university faction.
But reading through the comments, that was not the case, although it seemed that the students favouring Gonzi were in the majority, or at least they were the noisiest. “Dr Gonzi winning most of the applause, with cries of Gonzi, Gonzi, greeting him as he entered the hall,” said the report, and “The debate ending with more students shouting Gonzi, Gonzi.”
However, it seems that the report was a milder version of what really happened. There was no mention of the booing, and not allowing the speakers, except Dr Gonzi, to finish what they had to say.
Pulse’s (the social democratic organisation of students at the university, the College of Arts Science and Technology, the Higher Secondary and the Junior College) statement at the end of the report gave an inkling on what really took place. It deplored the behaviour of “certain factions” that acted in “a primitive manner”. It referred to the “constant intolerance showed towards the MLP leader in all his interventions.”
But it was through reading the comments that I got an even better feel of what went on. According to one blogger, “None of the supporters of the 3 other parties present acted in this way – only Nationalists showed this arrogance and disrespect.”
Now when it comes to politics, fairness flies out of the window so seasoned politicians should be used to that. However, I can understand the stance of some of the university students present who expected more than a Xarabank type of atmosphere at a university debate.
Maturity is not one of our national strong points, and that type of behaviour is the product of the incipient dumbing down we have been witnessing for a while now.
Sure, the young are exuberant and they should give vent to their emotions. However, a university debate is expected to demonstrate a bit more brainpower, argumentative capabilities and sophistication and less of the ‘massa’ mentality.
I would be interested to hear what the past rector of the university, Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, has to say on the matter.
Does free speech, for example, include hissing and booing? To my mind speech is coherent talk. I suppose the term ‘free’ can denote hissing and booing, which are inarticulate noises made by the intellectually challenged.
Sure, we are all prone to resort to emotional babble when scared or excited, but that is the kind of thing the university should be teaching students to analyse. And hopefully they will learn that in the long run showing disapproval by rational argument is more effective than by making incoherent sounds.
Moving on, what was really interesting and telling was that rather than people opining on the issues discussed at the debate, all the comments revolved around whether the students behaved badly or not and in personal attacks from one blogger to another.
The subjects raised at the university debate included MEPA reform, the state of the economy, tax cuts and education. Not surprisingly, all leaders said student stipends would be retained.
On MEPA, Lawrence Gonzi reiterated that he would take over that portfolio and delegate finance if re-elected. My guess is that considering their recent rapprochement, John Dalli would be given back the finance portfolio if he wants it. Remember, he declined it when he lost the PN leadership election preferring to take on the Foreign Office.
Alfred Sant responded, quite rightly, by saying that it would have been better had the Prime Minister intervened on MEPA earlier, given the repeated allegations of irregularities.
He also said that the decision showed no confidence in George Pullicino, who was responsible for environment portfolio.
I must say it will be interesting to know what portfolio, if any, the latter will get if re-elected?
Reading through the report though, it did not seem that Dr Sant performed too well. When asked for his interpretation of the results of the 2003 referendum, rather than answering, he asked the person putting the question why he had not asked him about corruption within the government?
Frankly, he should have answered the question instead of shying away and asking to be questioned on a matter, which ought to have been referred to the government representative, not to him.
The audience was entitled to goad him (irrispondi, irrispondi) to answer the question, even if he thought it was now irrelevant.
Now I can understand that the reception he got made him defensive, but as I said before, seasoned politicians should be up to dealing with that and with fielding awkward questions. Why couldn’t he have back-pedalled as Gonzi does so well? Admit he got it wrong and move on.
Dr Gonzi’s answer on dealing with corruption was that his government would be committed to carry on with ensuring the Whistleblowers’ Act went through when in government.
OK. But since Dr Gonzi’s record on acting on whistleblowers' reports, MEPA for example, has not been that convincing, one wonders whether an “Act” will make a difference?
I also question Dr Gonzi’s response on the Good Causes Fund. He argued that the donations had been made to sports and cultural associations, as well as philanthropic organisations, and “there was nothing wrong in this.”
In my book sport and entertainment, (and yes, even culture if he wants to call it that), do not fall under “good causes”, by any stretch of the imagination. And there is something wrong if bona fide philanthropic organisations have to compete with commercial organisations for crucial funding.
Besides, the entertainment (cultural) ‘good causes’ were headed by well-known PN supporters, which makes it all the more suspect. However, it seems there were no boos on that response.