This newspaper has always encouraged its readers to analyse the respective electoral programmes of all four political parties with a particular eye on the manifestos of the two major parties; since when the cookie crumbles, it will only be one of the two party leaders who will assume the office of Prime Minister.
We have also had occasion to point out our disappointment that little attention has been given by the parties to their own electoral programmes; instead, they seem to prefer getting lost in endless scaremongering campaigns.
This is a pity, as there is much to discuss in both the larger parties’ electoral programmes. We have no difficulty in welcoming proposals made which are in keeping with our editorial policy, such as green proposals on sustainable development and the strengthening of all mechanisms to fight corruption effectively. But we equally feel the need to make our voice heard in opposing certain measures, which find a prominent place in the manifestos. Let’s take them one by one.
The Malta Labour Party’s proposal to reduce the surcharge by half is unwise. It is wrong not just because it will further encourage people to waste electricity: an expensive resource, especially in view of the escalating price of oil. But the mechanics of the reduction is also open to criticism, mainly because it favours most the people who least need to benefit from savings in their electricity bills.
On another level, it has been calculated that in its immediacy, the measure will cost the Exchequer some Lm12 million. Asked how he plans to recoup this cost, Dr Sant has repeatedly assured the press that better management of the country’s economy will make good for the shortfall. The argument would make sense, if it was limited to the surcharge proposal alone. But it seems that Dr Sant intends to use the “good governance” argument to finance all his party’s proposals. One can only wonder how “good” Sant’s governance will be, to make affordable all this largesse.
We are equally sceptical of the MLP’s proposed reduction of tax on overtime. For one thing, this measure is likely to open a Pandora’s Box of abuse – a misgiving shared by many economists. It also excludes employees working on commissions or on fixed salaries, which exclude all overtime payments. Besides, while measures to ease financial pressures on families are to be welcomed, we feel that this proposal will pave the way to a situation whereby Maltese workers on the lowest rungs of the career ladder may find themselves expected to work for excessively long periods, creating new avenues of worker exploitation.
We also feel strongly that a number of issues which are of concern to people have been excluded from the programmes. With public transport becoming a daily chore for many people, we are somewhat surprised that the issue has been completely excluded from discussion, as have concrete proposals on how to better the service... with the possible exception of Labour’s somewhat fanciful connections project for the Grand Harbour.
Equally disappointing is the way rent law reform has been dealt with in the Nationalist programme. It is all rather wishy washy leaving the feeling that there is no real political will to make a root and branch reform of rental property or vacant property: two of the reasons why uncontrolled development takes place in our country. The PN’s programme also excludes any reference to co-habitating couples that are growing in number on a yearly basis and find themselves legally unprotected. It is now clear that an electoral promise made in 1998 has been forgotten.
During this election campaign there has also been a tendency for both parties to promise the earth with costings based on presumed future economic growth which may or may not materialise, and targets that may not be achieved in the increasingly difficult global economic climate. The economy is doing well, but outside pressures could destroy all the good work done to control the economic deficit. Accordingly prudence and caution are called for. It is fine for both parties to commit themselves to a totally free health service, but is this really sustainable, considering the fact that costs in this sector have multiplied exponentially in recent years? And should not a bi-partisan approach to this matter have been initiated away from the emotional environment generated during election campaign periods? The culture of “everything free for everyone, forever” can run a coach and horses through our public finances in years to come; which would be a pity, after such success in controlling the deficit and entering the euro zone this year.
We cannot but note also certain noteworthy ambitious proposals such as the PN’s promise to turn Gozo into an eco-island which draws 100% of its energy from renewable sources. This proposal is excellent, but considering that as of last year, the Malta’s total alternative energy generation amounted to only 0.22%, how truly achievable is this target? And what about timeframes? Surely the proposal would have been easier to take seriously if we were given a concrete plan of action.
Once again, we caution our readers to pay attention to these electoral programmes, and to judge for themselves what they entail before deciding how to cast their vote on Saturday.
Election time is all about choices made. Essentially the forthcoming election will be decided on the policies of the two big parties and the trust factor of the two party leaders.