In order to dispel any notion that Valerie Borg, being a woman, is discriminatory by invoking her gender privilege and having the last word, I decided to reply to her letter (TMID, 24 November).

What Dom Mintoff did is a fact and I never said that he did not introduce social benefits. Then why has he been called, in more recent times, a “traitor”? Things change in time and maybe my dear Val is not noticing the constant evolution the world experiences.

I repeat that making begging illegal did in no way reduce poverty. The beggars disappeared and were made to depend on other means of collecting alms. If Ms Borg keeps boasting of Dom’s social benefits, does that not give me the right to mention his regime’s dark years of the 1970s and 1980s?

Ms Borg seems to be living in a bubble, completely isolated to what is happening the world over vis-a-vis health care systems. Many countries have found it necessary to implement a two-tier system. The basic system is what most are accustomed to today. Basic, good, but one which like it or not creates waiting lists of months and sometimes years long, depending on each case’s urgency. The services from any health system have multiplied a hundred fold and “guessing what is wrong” is no longer an option. This is verified by the number of tests one goes through before a proper diagnosis is made. The “higher” tier system allows anyone with enough resources to “jump the line” and by paying above what the basic system allows, (s)he can look towards private care and be served sooner.

The switching from St Luke’s Hospital to Mater Dei does not imply that new fees will be introduced but, maybe, some specialised services will be delivered at some cost as some are at the present time in private hospitals. In the end, what John Dalli stated is not necessarily what Cabinet will eventually decide. Preaching doom and gloom too soon may backfire. Valerie should know.

I cannot understand Valerie’s naivety when it comes to justifying the 50 cents fee “for medicine which you could find anytime”. Valerie knows very well that the temporary “shortage” of brand medicines was due to new EU registry regulations complicated by the refusal of some to use generic brands rather than those brands prescribed. And water and electricity bills were much lower than today! Eureka! Oil prices were also a fifth of what they are today. Does it take a (good) economist to figure that one out?

Ms Borg wants to have it both ways. Poor at math, she cannot calculate the fact that by delivering higher and better services which people seem to want, results in higher costs, therefore higher taxes. Controlling the deficit is not what “the Nationalists” want, it is what is needed, Nationalist government or not.

The difference is that the Nationalist government sees the need to control the deficit while the Labour party wants to spend the problems away. They keep studying, making promises which appear to be sugar coated but offer no solutions because they do not have a vision. They do not have a short-term plan and they will stumble even if power is handed to them on a silver platter. And how can Valerie accuse the government of actually introducing more and more taxes when indeed the 2007 budget allows for overall tax reduction and has been favourably accepted by the absolute majority of constituted bodies and individuals? See various polls and surveys taken right after the budget was introduced.

I am pretty sure that pensioners who are around 80, reading Valerie’s contribution, take little solace in “not having kicked the bucket”. Quite an insensitive way of addressing the elderly. Ms Borg is implying that anyone around 60 will probably wait 20 years to have an operation at St Luke’s. Rubbish, pure rubbish. Mater Dei will be in operation in less than a year and St Luke’s will be history. Malta’s health system would not have been ranked fifth if Valerie’s fears were anywhere where the truth lies. If Ms Borg is so concerned about the pensioners’ plight, why does she not urge Dr Sant to help with pension reform rather than bury his head in the sand and think about it in a few years time? Action is needed now not a few years down the road, but again by his calculation there simply is enough time to “think” about it!

The local councils were instituted in 1993. That was an experiment which, may I remind Valerie, was only met with lukewarm acceptance by the MLP. Does that mean that things should not evolve? Should we get stuck with what was fashioned in 1993? Do we need some 50 odd councils in Malta and Gozo? Can we not look at “regional councils”? I am a firm believer that at present we have too much duplication and waste. One council per electoral district is good enough for Malta. And, yes, breaking party lines will be helpful. At least each council will be able to focus better on what is needed for the district rather than having the councillors seek their respective party’s position on every issue.

Joe Martinelli

London, Ontario

Canada

Editor’s note: This subject is now closed.