The Labour leader likes to say he does not answer hypothetical questions. But that is not true. Thankfully, Alfred Sant has a whole programme to implement based on the hypothesis that he might win the election, 10 years after losing power in 1998.
I catch up with him at the Labour headquarters between one campaign event and another, seemingly on good form two months since his operation to remove a malignant tumour from his lower intestine.
“I’m recovering very well, according to the doctors,” he tells me. “I always wish to be better, obviously. One of the major constraints is that you have to heed your doctors’ words. I have no intention of going against their advice just for the sake of it.”
I tell him jokingly that considering his surgeon is one of his own candidates, quarrelling with him would not help much either.
“That’s one of the least of my considerations,” he says, taking the joke.
We meet four days since the university debate, when students whom PN secretary general Joe Saliba called “revolutionary” and “anti-establishment” were chanting their partisan slogans and booing Sant even before he opened his mouth.
Sant seems quite serene about the whole debacle in his typical toning-down approach, but he does speak of a sinister victimisation of Labourite students which makes them afraid to speak out.
“Usually, at university, the context is how much of a majority is the usual Nationalist crowd against you,” he says. “This was the first time there was a rent-a-crowd by the PN. It was unusual, in that sense. I think there’s a silent majority that does not express itself because it’s afraid, partly. They’re afraid of being victimised by lecturers, they’re afraid they would be discriminated against by university, and they’re afraid that if they come out in public they would be labelled.”
On the other hand, I tell him, Labour’s own past at university puts it in a historical position of antagonism. This includes Sant himself, from his presence on the university’s selection board in the 1980s, to his broken promise to keep the stipends. Could it be he is still carrying that label?
“They’ve tried putting lots of labels on me. But I don’t agree there is an overwhelming feeling about this. If you speak to the silent majority, they would remember that the last tampering with stipends happened in 2005.
But, I tell him, he had promised he would keep them.
“The Nationalists did the same. What’s different?”
Is that your only defence?
“How can you say I’m not credible when someone else did the same? Didn’t you see how David Herrera (the KSU president) came out? He talked about 1997, when he wasn’t even at university, but forgot about his own time, when the Nationalists reduced stipends and he said nothing. So what’s the benchmark here?”
I’m sure the PN is not your benchmark, I tell him.
“I’m talking about the benchmark of those students; the PN is their benchmark. How can you compare what was happening 10 years ago with today?”
Another promise you had made before 1996 was to keep the workers’ self-management at the Malta Drydocks. That was another explicit promise which you did not keep.
“We had discussed with the workers’ representatives and told them: listen, here’s a Lm19 million deficit. Those weren’t going to be paid from their own money but from the people’s money. Self-management, yes, but were they ready to take responsibility for those Lm19 million? Obviously not. How could they expect the people to keep financing their debts while they kept managing the company in their own way? So we felt this was a democratic way of operating, that who is forking out the money must have a say in the management, too.”
But you had promised self-management…
“I had no idea there were that kind of problems building on each other.” We all know the Drydocks were going to the dogs…
“It’s always going to the dogs from what is said about the ‘yards, but you have to know exactly what’s happening.”
This is actually the last year in which the ‘yards can be subsidised. How will he issue the salaries in January 2009 if he’s elected prime minister?
“I already said the shipyards restructuring plan has to be renewed so that we can really move forward. So there must be a certain timeframe in which certain funds are still handed out, not least certain investment funds which in the last years were not handed out as much as they had to.”
Do you mean you will still subsidise the shipyards?
“But in the context of a restructuring plan.”
The EU says there’s no way about it: subsidies should be phased out by the end of this year.
“We’ll discuss with the EU and tell it we have this national problem, which is also therefore a European problem, so let’s do as other countries did and let’s agree on temporary alternative arrangements.”
Would you privatise it?
“We’re not considering options at this stage. First we have to see what the situation is. It’s true that the government has let us have a look at the company’s accounts, but that’s not enough.”
It’s a problem that’s knocking on the door that will be facing the next prime minister, I tell him.
“Remember that in 1996, in our first month and a half of government, we tackled this problem head-on.”
The proposal to halve the water and electricity surcharge would have no effect on some 30,000 families on the poverty line who are, according to the government, already exempt from the surcharge.
“Then government has no point in making a fuss about how expensive this measure will be,” Sant rebuts. “So government is saying it’s not such a drain on government finance, after all.”
The point is, I tell him, that the measure won’t even help those who really need it.
“Well, go to talk to the middle class families, the lower middle class families, the working class, and they will tell you if it’s a necessary measure or not.”
What about the argument that it will promote wastage?
“Nonsense. There is already a diversion of consumption if you look at the family basket. They are no longer buying certain things to make up for the water and electricity tariffs and surcharge.”
Sant explains that the surcharge is affecting people’s purchasing power by around 60% above the EU average.
“If you halve the surcharge as we’re proposing we’ll reduce that to 25% to 30%. So as you can see, both with the surcharge as it is, as well as halved, it is a great burden on the families. So it’s not true at all that our measure would promote wastage, also because there is a system of grading of consumption that will remain. So you already have an automatic disincentive against wastage.”
Another proposal, that of cutting tax on overtime, ignores the managerial class, which has no overtime but is not necessarily well paid.
“The feedback we’re getting from employers and industry is that the good, competent staff in the technical and managerial class are being poached all the time, so in that sector the salaries are steadily going up automatically under market forces. Even part-time won’t be affected, but you know, you can’t make a measure for everyone. One of the questions I was asked was, if someone has a fulltime and a part-time job, would the part-time job qualify for the income tax waiver? No it wouldn’t, there are measures and measures.”
One big question is how he intends controlling abuses.
“Isn’t it obvious that if someone had an agreement of a certain type and all of a sudden is being employed differently, one starts asking questions? But why should there be this kind of abuse in the first place?”
Because it’s too tempting, I tell him.
“And what about your pension rights? It’s one of assumptions we tend to make about the people, that they are short-sighted. It does not make sense to reach an agreement whereby your salary would be decreased and your overtime raised. Think about it. Would you do it? What happens when overtime is no longer needed? What would you do then? Think it through. What happens when there’s no more work and therefore no need for overtime?”
To the question of whether untaxed overtime will be capped, Sant gives a definitive “No”.
I tell him this overtime proposal sounds a bit like his decision to remove VAT – revealed by former Finance Minister Lino Spiteri to have been a single-handed decision by Sant which the former got to know about through the media.
“I came out with it single-handedly,” he concedes about VAT removal, “but the discussion in the party was extensive after that.”
I tell him nobody could contradict the party leader after he had committed the MLP in that way.
“I came out with it as a proposal. Some did tell me it was a bad idea, why not? We did discuss it.”
After you did a fait accompli? What’s the use of discussing that?
“Whoever wants to say it was fait accompli can say so,” he says.
Isn’t it obvious that when you speak, as leader, you are committing your party?
“The leader says what the party’s perspectives are, then we discuss them.”
It’s not really a perspective, it was a specific measure, I tell him.
“It was. And our own members wanted it; they kept telling us, ‘remove VAT, remove VAT’.”
Even about the devaluation of the lira there seems to have been no discussion, right?
“The devaluation proposal was in the context of our competitive rate being eroded. The advice that was being given, and even John Dalli had mentioned it, was that at that stage one had to find ways of becoming competitive through the economic exchange rate.”
Another hypothesis Sant makes is that of achieving 4% to 6% economic growth. How can he make that guess when the US is going through a recession, the International Monetary Fund has reduced its projections of our potential economic growth, and there are all the signs out there that there will be a global crisis.
“With the same argument: the growth rate of some countries went up steadily while ours was almost zero. My conclusion is there isn’t a correlation between how other countries fare and how we fare in our growth rate.”
No correlation? How can you say that?
“There isn’t a correlation, not no correlation whatsoever; don’t put words into my mouth. There isn’t a correlation.”
So you’re saying that the rising costs of oil, cereals, and global recession have no impact on your growth projections?
“Look at the 1970s, when we had all these crises happening; maybe not cereals but there were tremors too in commodities and sales, we had one of our highest growth rates in our history.”
But we had a closed economy.
“With all due respect…”
It was a heavily protectionist economy…
“Hold on a second, these are antiquated ideas. If you look at the exposure of our economy in those days it was much higher than today’s,” Sant says, citing figures about GDP in foreign trade and foreign transactions at that time that showed the economy was highly exposed to the international markets.
Nowadays, I tell him, the scenario is different. The economy s no longer controlled in that way, apart the diktats from Brussels.
“No, now we have the mechanisms of the so-called free market, and you have state regulation, but you’re still subjected to the same external pressures….”
So there must be a correlation, I tell him.
“On the contrary, I’m saying that in the days when inflation was skyrocketing everywhere we had one of our strongest growth rates. My point is: one of the biggest problems we have in our country is that growth has been eroded by taxes and by underutilisation of resources. To me this is crystal clear. Why has tourism boomed again? Because all the underutilised resources are suddenly being utilised again.”
Part of the plan to boost the economy is to “use the underutilised resources”, such as hotel beds and unused spaces.
“The demand is already there,” he says. “Look at the demand for yachting services, for example. We have an enormous waiting list. Speak to the Chamber of Commerce’s yachting committee and they’ll tell you how long they have been lobbying to get things moving forward.”
Another Labour proposal is to reduce hospital waiting lists by 15% every year. How do they intend achieving this with the shortage of doctors, a veritable brain drain, a new agreement with doctors which so far does not seem to have achieved anything as regards waiting lists, and a large number of doctors who are more interested in working in private practice?
“Add to that the fact that at the Tal-Qroqq hospital the actual operating services are even less than there were at St Luke’s. There are fewer facilities: beds for example.”
I tell him the actual operating theatres have increased.
“But if you have fewer beds, consultants will tell you that if you have an inpatient that needs further treatment, he will have to be discharged and put on yet another waiting list. That’s because if you had someone as an inpatient for, say, four days, he would get all the interventions at once. Now they would have to be discharged at once, so then they would have to wait another month, two or more to get other results and interventions. So I’m not surprised at the extent of the waiting list.”
What you say actually adds to your problem of keeping your promise to cut the waiting list.
“Of course it adds to the problem. All this government has done is to add to the problems, not decrease them. Just by saying how good we are, that everything is state of the art, and just stopping there, we won’t make any progress. We have to address the problem by getting all doctors and consultants involved in a process whereby we manage our resources better and we also have to use the facilities of the private sector.”
That would mean you have to reach an agreement with private hospitals, a public-private partnership that is still in the air.
“That’s what the government is saying all of a sudden, too.”
How far are you prepared to go? Everyone knows how prohibitive private health care is.
“It’s obvious; we accept that. We’ll put forward proposals that respect the modus operandi of the private sector.”
They will charge you at market price.
“Yes, why not?”
And are you ready to pay their fees?
“If they’re reasonable, yes.”
They are not reasonable: very few afford private hospitalisation.
“Let me tell you; it’s one thing if you have a one-off operation, it’s another if you have a long-term arrangement with the government. This is normal in, say, England. You reach a reasonable package and stick to it. It’s a business proposition. It’s obvious they must have a margin of profit. As long as it’s transparent that’s all normal.”
What else will you do?
“We also have to launch ways of attracting doctors back to us.”
Will you increase their pay?
“Why not? We have to respond to the needs of the patient, the citizen. I can’t accept that a 70-year-old woman waits four years for knee replacement. Recently I had a phenomenal case; I even checked it to make sure it was true. A 90-year-old who needs the last cataract adjustment. You know when’s his next appointment? Four years down the line. That’s unacceptable. Will doctors earn more? Will consultants earn more? So be it, as long as the patient is getting the service he deserves. In our projections, the health budget has to increase. The same with the education budget.”
Speaking of education, the Malta Union of Teachers says the reception class won’t solve the existing problems.
“We’re projecting a reform in the kindergarten system that would benefit all children entering the first year of kindergarten. This is linked to an increase in teachers, added resources, more classes, an upgrade of kindergarten teachers – both new ones and existing ones.”
But the MUT is saying reception class is useless, I tell him, because abroad they have the same number of years leading to primary school.
“With all due respect, we have looked at the best systems abroad, like England, and we’ll be using that model. Look closely at the English model again, and you’ll see that’s their system. What you’re referring to is Scotland, not England. We went to interview Lord Adonis and thinkers behind this policy, and it’s working. It will give childhood back to our children. The point is that the foundations (kinder/primary) are not enough for our children. This is not an experiment at all; it’s been implemented in other countries and we’re looking at the successes abroad.”
Effectively the measure means children will get out of school aged 17.
“Of course.”
You’re raising compulsory schooling to 17 without declaring so.
“Why should this be worrying? We’ve raised working age by five years, why should this be such a problem? Of course this won’t happen overnight, you can’t just press a button and make it happen.”
Over how many years will you implement it?
“As quickly as possible in the context when you would have planned everything and dedicated all the resources necessary.”
But MUT is a major stakeholder here and is the most sceptical...
“I think the major problem right now is the government’s plan to remove Junior Lyceums. It’s going to remove the Junior Lyceum exam. It’s already happening. The Pembroke Junior Lyceum for example is being referred to as the Pembroke Secondary School.”
But what about this sceptical, important stakeholder?
“Yes this stakeholder has its reservations, and it has a right to have its reservations. We’ll get the electoral mandate and discuss with them.”
Would you form a coalition with AD or are you as categorical as Lawrence Gonzi in discarding the possibility?
“We’ll await the electoral mandate and respect the people’s wish. I don’t like talking in the air. Let’s see how the people express themselves in the election.”
Are you sorry for having called Mintoff a traitor?
“I don’t discuss remote events.”
You know you hurt many Labourites with that comment.
“I don’t discuss remote events.”
You don’t want to tell me whether you’re sorry or not.
“I don’t discuss remote events.”
Corruption and bad governance have been a constant rallying cry for Labour, but how far will Sant go in holding people personally responsible for their misdeeds? What about disgraced ambassador Richard Muscat’s massive squandering of public funds at Voice of the Mediterranean?
“It will depend on whether there is responsibility that could be proved in a criminal court. That’s the measure. If it turns out there is responsibility that could lead to criminal court, then yes. If on the other hand, the evidence is of the type that cannot be admitted in a criminal court, then we can’t.”
The same applies to the abusive ‘good causes fund’ which thanks to Tonio Fenech’s ‘generosity’ has given a new definition to the term ‘good cause’.
“If there is Eddie Aquilina receiving some €20,000 from public funds to finance his coffee table books from Tonio Fenech, there’s no other word about it: it’s corruption. But if the administrative procedures have been followed in a certain way that they are legally covered there’s not much to do.”
About Foundation for Tomorrow’s Schools, Sant says: “The coincidence between contracts issued and the people getting them from his district is crystal clear. The court did its own investigations and the Attorney General said that there was not enough criminal evidence to proceed against him. But it’s still corruption.”
I tell him Thomas Woods has not yet been charged in court, despite being sacked from Louis Deguara’s private secretariat, implicated in the bribes-for-pensions scandal.
“I don’t know why he hasn’t been charged, but of course criminal proceedings will go on normally.”
What about Zeppi l-Hafi, whose case will be heard on election eve?
“Wherever legal procedures are concerned we won’t interfere politically. But then when Labour is in government we’ll take decisions within the parameters of the law.”
Would you revoke his pardons?
“I don’t think there is that possibility, but if there is, I would consider it. I’m not sure about the procedure, to be honest.”
Another hypothesis Sant will be facing, if elected to government, is that of facing President Eddie Fenech Adami on the day of his swearing in – his long-time opponent who went as far as lying about him stopping his son from entering University – a veritable lie which cost him a libel case in court.
“I hope I have enough maturity to deal with it,” Sant says about the prospect. “I think I have it. You have to distinguish between the person as person, and a person in his constitutional role.”
I tell him it could well be his historic moment of Schadenfreude, but Sant is not game for such speculation.
“I don’t mingle psychological factors with constitutional stuff,” he says.
I ask him what he means when he says that he expects civil society to take a stand before pushing divorce.
“I expect a repeat of 1994-1996, when there was a constant movement calling for divorce. There was a movement then, now there’s nothing. They have to start from somewhere.”
And what does he mean when he says the referendum is historically used as the right wing’s political tool?
“In Germany for example, Hitler used the referendum. In Germany you actually have a constitutional ban on referenda. The only country to use referenda well is Switzerland, because of its historical tradition.”
What about Mintoff’s Integration referendum? That was clearly not the Right.
“That was used badly. In fact I agree very much with Borg Olivier’s analysis of that referendum. The point is that the referendum is usually used by right wing forces.”
So will you change the referendum laws?
“It depends; in a referendum you must have an equal weight. What one side is proposing and what the other is saying must be equally represented. If we are to be fair and just, both sides should be given equal resources. If, say, someone wants to organise a referendum on divorce, there should be an equal allocation of public funds to those in favour and those against.”
Would you rather do away with the referenda law or perfect it?
“I think that if it’s such an important issue this has to be discussed thoroughly and maturely. One also has to be cautious that the majority does not impose its will on the minority on issues such as divorce. In 1998 we had reached the decision that divorce would be introduced after a referendum. On a personal basis I don’t agree with that position, because the majority would be imposing its values on the minority. But I also form part of a political movement and I accepted the idea reached democratically, although I still think it’s morally highly problematic. That’s why I insist that fundamental issues are decided in a general election.”
Sant will also in all probability face the same resistance and sabotage of 10 years ago in the civil and public service if he gets elected.
“That there was a certain resistance and lack of good will, that’s true, but we also had people who worked perfectly with us irrespective of their political allegiance,” he says. “There are two sides of the coin. That certain things were unacceptable is very true, even at the highest levels in the civil service.”
Clearly the worst act of disloyalty came from none other than the former head of the civil service and the apple of the Nationalists’ eye, Joe R. Grima – sacked by Sant against a hefty compensation, and cheekily returned to office by Fenech Adami without having the decency to refund his compensation.
“I had clashed with him and I can talk about it now because a lot of time has passed,” Sant says. “Part of the grading for managers in the civil service is a 15% gratuity based on performance. I felt that if it really reflected performance it couldn’t be that everyone received the same amount. Effectively the proposal I had received from the person in charge of the civil service was a bit skewed, in my opinion. So I told him to revise it so that it reflected performance. He changed the proposal and also informed people down the line that I wanted to change the performance gratuity. This is not on. He was the top manager there, and he was meant to answer to me directly. I informed him immediately he had lost my trust. But there were other people at the top level whom I was a bit wary of initially but who gave a sterling service right till the end, and who I appreciate to this day. You can’t measure everyone with the same yardstick. You should be neither too suspicious nor too naïve. You have to be human.”
He recently said on One TV that he does not share his deputy’s hobbies (Michael Falzon). He laughs when I ask him what was he referring to.
“Michael has the hobby of hunting. He has every right and I respect his right to have that hobby, but I don’t share his hobby,” he explains.
What about fireworks?
“Same with fireworks. Well, I’m not one who has hobbies. My major hobby is books, which is quite atypical.”
Indeed. Meanwhile he tells me literature and writing has been put on the backburner.
“I had a bet going with Joe Friggieri – he writes three play in three years and I a novel. He wrote one play and I wrote nothing at all, so we both lost the bet.”
And what if you lose the election?
“I don’t discuss hypotheses.”
Not all hypotheses, admittedly, but that’s Sant.