Today, parliament will continue the debate the motion put forward by Opposition whip Joe Mizzi, on the issue of honoraria and salaries awarded to MPs and members of the cabinet.

The outcome is most likely to be that the motion will be defeated. Most of the PN MPs and especially its backbenchers have pledged their support to the Prime Minister. But there are still pitfalls.

Although assurances have been given of support, it is clear that there is still a lot of disgruntlement on the PN benches for the way the increases were awarded. The quote: “Where are their consciences now?” is one that rings sound and true. It is a pertinent question to ask.

The PL, while putting emphasis on the fact that the leader of the opposition’s increase would go to a charity fund, was perhaps wrong to base two of the points in the motion on the fact that Joseph Muscat would not be receiving the money.

It has led dissenting MPs on the government side to say that they feel they cannot give support to the motion as it places a ‘political’ slant on the issue. They are right. But equally right is the Labour Party when it says that the increases were made in an insensitive manner that was kept quiet for over two years.

We will use plain-speak. Things in Malta are not as bad as they are in the UK, Spain, Portugal and Greece. But there is no way, no how, that the government can deny that times are still tough. Salaries are not going as far as they used to. Electricity prices have skyrocketed, and many are already dreading the inevitable increase in water prices further down the line. Bills and ever increasing costs of living are putting huge strains on families and the move to introduce the increases (backdated to 2008 and kept quiet), was a grave mistake.

The decision was mistimed, mishandled, shrouded in secrecy and quite simply, in bad taste given the current state of affairs. Try as it might to paint a different picture, those who have been given the increased remuneration have come across as MPs who are simply lining their pockets while the vast majority of the population engages in preventive austerity.

The government will argue that salaries of MPs were not proportionate to the positions or professions they gave up to become members of parliament. Granted, this we accept. But we reiterate that the timing of the measure, and the way in which it was done smacks of self indulgence. Another very interesting argument that is being put forward by the public on blogs, internet boards and more, is that people expect what they pay for.

In saying as much, the general public is putting pressure on MPs to adopt the ‘private sector’ approach – a very rudimentary comparison to productivity bonuses. If one were to be completely blunt, the public seems to be saying that they do not object to higher salaries and remuneration for good performers, but are averse to paying taxes to cover the increases given to other MPs who they believe are simply not quite worth the

money.

As previously mentioned, the motion will most likely be defeated. But it is a wake-up call for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. It was unpopular with MPs on both sides of the house, but more than anything, the way in which it was handled did not go down well at all with the general public – the very people who pay those salaries, honoraria and allowances.