One criticism that is being levelled against this budget from within the Labour structures is the lack of social vision. To borrow an expression used by late Prime Minister Dom Mintoff against Alfred Sant, this is another budgetwhich is lacking a social conscience. This government has lost its social compass, an expression immortalized by Mintoff, in the phrase Gvern li tilef il-boxxla socjali.
No doubt that a number of certain social measures, implemented in this budget to control abuse, are in themselves inspired by Garrett Hardin and his now famous - or infamous - essay about the Tragedy of the Commons. In this essay, Harding speaks about that section of society, whom he defined as free riders.
This theory follows what is known as the Neo-Malthusian thought and had been behind the development of successful theory (unfortunately) of neo-Liberalism. I have no doubt that there are sections of the population who agree with the tough stand that this Government is taking on the presumed socially excluded. However, Labour has to tread with care here for this is one of the big contradictions in this budget. While the Finance Minister sought to address particular needs of individuals or sections of our highmiddle classes, when it came to the social needs, the most pressing concerns are those arising from individual cases. I am sure that there are individuals who are abusing. One needs only to view the Facebook profile of a number of individuals on social benefits to discover that they are enjoying a better economic life, well above average.
The urge to address abuse in the social services is a continuation in the footsteps of the previous administration. But at the same time, there are genuine cases of individuals, in particular single parents, who cannot go to work for specific reasons, including a basic one, as they genuinely want to raise their offspring and do not wish to leave them at a childcare centre. Unfortunately, these stories rarely hit the news as those in real need, more often than not, shy off from publicity.
What worries me is that there is a serious risk, that this budget increases the margin of poverty in Malta. The proposal of a living wage was again not mentioned and instead, a praxis is affirming itself where wage increase is given in the form of a grant and therefore, such an increase cannot be reflected in the pension.
I hope that this is not the first step to change the welfare state into the neo-liberal model of welfare society. Definitely, this is not on. I hope that in the privatization of our Policlinics, we do not have the first step towards the privatization of our Health Care systems. This is the most ironic, as these neo-liberal policies are being pushed by a Socialist Government.
I admired Dr Simon Busuttil for speaking out his preoccupation that our Maltese state is losing its sense of social justice. In these thoughts, Dr Busuttil is following a long political tradition that owes its origins to a number of social positions, taken by the PN party when it was then known as the Unione Politica Maltese, and continued with subsequent PN administrations. Due to its social positions, the UPM was the largest political party in Malta during the 1920s. Its political success was its opposition to colonial rule and its social vision, which in those days was inspired by Rerum Novarum, the first social encyclical of the Catholic Church. Dr Busuttil will be on the right track if he stands up in defence of our welfare state.
There is no doubt that this is a budget aimed to serve particular sections of Maltese society. While some of the measures are important, the problem that I see here is that this budget lacks the other pillar, which normally services as a counter balance to those deserving individuals or sectorial needs, that of a holistic approach to our economy. For example, this budget lacks scientific content. There is no concrete plan for scientific development in Malta. There is nothing about energy development, except for the programme of solar panels. Instead, our energy production is being based on a company, which has serious financial problems. No timeframes were given for the completion of the new power station. With all the criticism made against the BWSC plant, the price of electricity and water and the closing down of the Marsa power station were only possible thanks to the existence of this power station. I am sure that this was not the best option. Perhaps, a floating powerstation would have been ideal. But none of our main parties is taking this into consideration, and the only plan Labourhas in mind is that of continuing to ruin the picturesque bay of Marsaxlokk.
What can be said about public transport? Even here there was a lack of clear references. The situation is even more confusing than it was with Arriva. But complaints now are non-existent.
In this budget, there is no concrete measure that will create new jobs. On my part, I was thinking on different terms regarding the private-public partnership. The measures announced in this area give the impression that they are intended for some 'bazuzlu', as the people of the South of Malta refer to the parties' protégés. The indicated areas for a private-public partnership leave the impression that they were chosen to accommodate particular individuals rather than meant to create new jobs.
What had been said in this budget about the citizenship scheme? Till now, we heard only talk and talk about the successful implementation of this scheme and how good Henleyand Partners are in attracting the crème de la crème of the entrepreneurial world. Excuse my ignorance. But if this is a successful scheme, why is this whole activity being covertly undertaken? Is all this secretiveness due to the fact that this scheme is again accommodating particular individuals? I sincerely hope that our system will not fall foul as happened to the one in Portugal, which was similar to ours. It failed and the Portuguese one was, incidentally, even less aggressive than that of ours.
Furthermore, there was nothing new about how this Government is going to increase our industrial production, a sector that is taking a nose dive. There is no indication measure about the creation of a new infrastructure. At least the previous government created the controversial SMART city. What type of infrastructure is this government planning, except for the building of a breakwater at Marsaxlokk? And what is the real reason behind this breakwater, that is, which interests does this project serve,those of the fishermen or the owners of the gas tankers?
The same holds for the funds deriving from the European Union. There was no clear indication how these are going to be used so that common wealth is created and not (as had been the case) only some individuals or particular entities enjoy the benefits of these funds.