From Mr R. de Bono

There are 65 of them; some are hidden behind each other or their party. Do we really need all that many considering that half of them waste time and money (and pass on the wrong message) just to oppose, criticise, and ridicule whatever the other half says? Why waste their time hidden in Parliament when maybe 40 of them can be paired and given a problem to solve together. They will not be asked to solve a problem; they will be told to do so – by the taxpayer. We do not need to cut down on important expenditure; we need to make that expenditure produce better results.

Is it not a tragedy (which can be easily remedied) that the very people who work in the cradle of democracy – Parliament – cannot express themselves as freely as they wish? They are sometimes “allowed” a free vote; what a farce! How can one possibly have a free vote if it is not a secret vote? Do our self-imposed political union, and so on, pressures and polarisation (not to use heavier words) permit us to disagree openly? Yes? Try not voting as a common citizen and by 5 pm you will have people knocking at your door asking why you did not vote. Why not a real secret vote, even for parliamentarians? Why does our Parliament not try to introduce, for example 10 motions per month with a real secret vote? What are our parliamentarians afraid of? Would they not like the people to respect them more? Why are they even afraid of turning the 13 electoral districts into one district – on such a tiny piece of fragmented rock? Surely it is not because fragments give more power, or money! The Labour Party used to be heavily criticised for being too “centralised”; but between the North and South Pole there is an Equator – and that is a reality and not just a dream.

One huge problem that can have serious negative or positive long-term effects is the introduction of large, foreign low cost airlines (not like Britishjet). Why do we have to rely on the decision of a minister – who is repeatedly being asked to resign? Whether this minister has really messed up tourism or not is a matter of opinion. What is a fact is that it can be corrected if it was wrong, or improved on if it was right. What is definitely right is that we should have the courage to ask all the parliamentarians what they think will have the correct long-term effect – “should we use taxpayers” money to subsidise large, foreign low cost airlines (who are making huge profits), or not? Their reply should be given in a secret vote, in Parliament.

The Minister for Tourism is, rightly or wrongly, being accused of doing his utmost to protect Air Malta. This is extremely strange because 32 years ago this minister belonged to the political party (in opposition – what a senseless word!) which predicted that Air Malta would fail. The Labour government was not afraid of that ‘doom’ prediction and went ahead to establish a minuscule but great airline, which so far has not asked for taxpayers’ money for subsidies. Neither has (Malta) Britishjet.

This article may appear prejudiced in favour of Air Malta. Do not accept the prejudice. Ask all the parliamentarians for their honest vote in this important long-term effect issue. Can they be honest? Yes they can! They need our encouragement or even our heavy pressure to do so. They know very well that they cannot expect us to be responsible if they cannot show us how with practical examples.

Doom and gloom is only for negative people. Progress is positive. Parliamentarians can

be very positive – but they need one hell of a push; and that is within our power. Unfortunate as it may appear, we are

freer to say what we wish, than they are. Fortunately, we can change that. Ask them.

Reggie de Bono