The fact that, for the first time, we have an Opposition that has presented its counter proposals to the budget in the form of a detailed report is commendable. I sincerely hope that this unprecedented political move starts a new practice in Malta.

What I did not expect was the type of comments made by Professor Edward Scicluna. His comments do not reflect his status and position as a university professor. I am not contesting his criticism or questioning the report. This is normal in a democracy and professors at University are there to question the status quo. But as a university professor, I expected Prof. Scicluna to show more equanimity in his remarks. His remarks sound more appropriate for a Super One journalist than someone coming from the world of academia. The Government should stop behaving like it is still a party in Opposition when it comes to official rejoinder. The impression that such utterances give, is that government departments and ministers are still behaving like party activists.                  

While I agree with Prof. Scicluna that there could be inconsistencies or better still incomplete statistics in this report, this does not signify that it is bad report. Any shortcomings in this report do not make it “embarrassing”. However, I now expect Prof. Scicluna to list the “mistakes” which according to him this document is replete with. I am curious to know which are those areas that are embarrassing. It is part of our academic training, not only to criticize but also to correct mistakes.

I was not involved in drafting this report, but I can see the hands of a number of university academics behind it. If one takes Prof. Scicluna’s remarks ad litteram, they do not augur well for our University.  Should he fail to be specific and state which parts of the report are incorrect, it is not his image as a politician that is being tainted but that of the University of Malta.

But what does the report say? It states that our national debt is still growing. Is this a good sign? It also states that our exports depend on a handful of industries, which is also true. Is it not also true that exports have decreased in the past two years while importation has gone up? Is it not true that our biggest import is fuel?  

Perhaps, Prof. Scicluna is not happy with the statement that the increase in our GDP depends today on Government investment. Before, the report stated, this was based on investment from the private sector. 

May I ask whether the quoted statistics in this report are wrong? I don’t think so. Perhaps, one can comment that some are partial but I honestly think that one cannot speak in terms of incorrect statistics, unless, the Minister is prepared to declare that statistics were based on an incorrect premise. This can be easily checked as the pre-budget report gives the sources of the figures.

The manufacturing industry was studied separately. It speaks about the drop in production of electronic goods. Definitely, this is not a positive sign. Food production, on the other hand, was given as a manufacturing sector that is expanding fast in Malta. I am sure that the Finance Ministry agrees with the PN’s report on this matter as the same ministry was thinking of imposing a tax on sugar. But is it wise to tax a manufacturing sector, which is doing well?

This pre-budget report lists the positive aspects registered in our economy, in particular, the decrease in unemployment. Rightly so, it warns against the high number of employees that have joined the civil service in these past three years. I have no problem with an increase in civil service employees. The problem here is that in some cases, this increase is not in those areas that desperately need additional staff but in sectors, which are already over staffed. One strongly suspects that we have a return to a past system, where a department is left with a depleted staff deliberately so that government can turn that department into an agency or worse still, hand it over to the private sector.

The report makes reference to the enhancement of  green economy, which is explained as green business and green buildings. What is wrong to have concepts of ‘green’ transport for example? This goes beyond concepts of panels and appliances. 

What is wrong that in this document, the Nationalist Party had the courage to spell it out very clearly and state the need for the regularization of foreign workers, who are working without a permit? Is the Nationalist Party not taking the same position adopted by Evarist Bartolo, when the latter asked for the regularization of irregular migrants?

The PN has made a number of proposals, which go beyond party politics. The Party is asking for a number of bi-partisan positions. Where is the embarrassment in this?

Perhaps, the criticism that one can make here is that the P.N. is proposing a cross-party collaboration in those areas, which are of mutual benefit to our economy. This is good, but what about our foreign policy? Today, most Western European countries have a common position where foreign policy is concerned. I wish to see this idea introduced in Malta too. Instead, what is happening is the signing of secret agreements behind the back of the Maltese people, as the secret deals with Azerbaijan or with Chinese state agencies.

There are points on which I do not agree with the PN and which are perhaps contradictory. I will mention one. Why is the PN afraid of unemployed graduates? Is the PN becoming Mintoffian? Mintoff had closed the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the Seventies because he feared that unemployed graduates would turn into potential terrorists His forecast was wrong. Today, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences graduates have no problem in finding work.

Then, there are positive signs especially in the number of females who are joining the labour market. Malta’s past educational efforts are bearing fruit. The averages of females in the Labour market are increasing. What’s wrong with these estimates, may I ask? 

For these reasons I totally disagree with the stand taken by Government to try to ridicule this study. Ironically, Labour had criticized the Nationalist Party for always being negative towards Government initiatives. Now, the tables are turned and it is the Government that is negatively assessing the Opposition’s proposals and criticizing a report, which gives credit to a number of initiatives taken by this Administration.