Opposition leader Dr Alfred Sant has a lot going for him. For one thing he appears to have put behind him his recent health troubles, and in his recent public appearances he has exuded calm, self-possession and lucidity.
But sifting through his words, as well as through the voluminous proposals presented in his party’s ambitious “Plan for A New Beginning”, one cannot help but notice a lack of detail when it comes to individual proposals: a fact which is exacerbated by Dr Sant’s unfortunate habit of avoiding specific questions on the subject.
For instance: the Labour Party has in recent years placed much emphasis on golf courses as a means of enhancing our country’s tourism product. In particular, Labour’s manifesto proposes three such golf courses, in both Malta and Gozo.
More recently, Alfred Sant has gone into this proposal in greater detail. He claims that the former landfills of Maghtab and Tal-Qortin would be ideal for golf courses; more specifically, he insists that, unlike the Nationalist government’s previous proposal for ix-Xaghra l-Hamra, the ones Labour is proposing would be “stand-alone”. In other words, they would not require the construction of additional facilities such as hotels, villas, bungalows and other such amenities.
Leaving aside the environmental objections to golf in the first place (which focus mainly on our country’s paucity in two all-important resources: land and water); this latter aspect is likely to set Sant’s golf course proposal on a head-on collision course with the selfsame tourism industry which has for years been clamouring for golf courses; but whose chief exponents (the MHRA) have constantly argued that stand-alone golf courses do not make economic sense.
Sant’s answer to this line of questioning has so far been simple: with a better allocation and use of resources, government will find the means to make even stand-alone golf-courses viable.
At face value, there is something to be said for the argument. Few would deny that Sant has a point regarding the need to cut back on government spending, especially on wasteful and dubious initiatives such as (among others) the purchase of Dar Malta in Brussels. But it is debatable whether “good governance” alone can render profitable a commercial initiative deemed “unviable” by experts within the same private sector which will be expected to administer it.
Besides, there is another pitfall to the argument. In presenting his golf course proposals, Sant has also strongly hinted at some form of private/public partnership. But if a Labour government plans to make up the “unfeasibility” shortfall by pumping government money into the project… would this not constitute government subsidy to private enterprise? If so, does it not breach one of the fundamental principles of the European Union?
The above reasoning is by no means limited to golf alone. The “good governance” argument in fact continually crops up whenever Sant is quizzed about the economic dimensions of any his party’s proposals. Perhaps the best example is the Labour Party’s pledge to slash the utility bills surcharge by 50%. According to Labour’s own calculations, it would cost the exchequer between Lm12 and Lm13 million (over €25 million). Others place that figure much higher… with the highest estimate exceeding Lm100 million.
Whatever the cost, it will have to be recouped from somewhere. And again, Sant’s answer to this is the same: through a better and more judicious use of public funds.
Another issue which is of grave concern is healthcare, which Sant has rightly placed at the heart of his electoral programme. The Opposition has recently alleged that the present government plans to roll back the free public health service. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen; certainly, the Health Minister has over the years hinted strongly that the system in its present form is unsustainable. But the general public has a right to know how Dr Sant plans to guarantee that public healthcare remains free for all in future. Once again, we have been assured that a future Labour government will manage to square the circle only by virtue of better management of the country’s finances.
It is beginning to appear from Sant’s arguments that “good governance” is something of a magic wand that can be used to plug every hole in every argument: from golf to healthcare to infrastructure to University stipends to Mater Dei, and beyond.
If we are to vote for a party on the strength of its manifesto, then it is reasonable to expect concrete answers on all aspects of the manifesto’s proposals.
It must be said that these have not to date been forthcoming with many aspects of Labour’s Plan For a New Beginning.
One sincerely hopes that Alfred Sant has more than just faith in his own economic management skills to fall back on, if he is elected Prime Minister on 9 March.