Alfred Sant made a very poor attempt to create the impression that the government can, in the short term, lower the energy surcharge by half. The target itself is too rough to have aroused any serious consideration. I couldn’t believe my ears when, in his response to the budget speech, he “explained” how he intended to achieve this. He based his assertion primarily on a strategy to cap taxation on fuels. His declaration was bizarre for more than one reason. The first reason is that a capping exercise on any form of taxation would result in lower tax revenue for government. Capping of taxes would result in a proportional increase in the fiscal deficit, unless other taxes were to be increased in order to make up for the shortfall. The second reason why his impromptu proposal is unworkable is that he claimed (and stubbornly still insists) that he would remove the VAT on water and electricity bills. What nonsense! That there is no VAT on domestic bills should have caused the man to blush the darkest shade of red. However, even if, hypothetically speaking, there was VAT, wouldn’t its removal result in lower revenue for the government? How would one make up for this shortfall? What taxes would have to increase? Would he allow the deficit to overrun? I suspect that the man cannot answer any of these questions; all he should do is hold his peace on this matter, lest he cause his party further embarrassment.

Sant committed a gaffe with his proposal to reduce the energy surcharge, not because the surcharge per se cannot be reduced, but because he foolishly exaggerated the extent of any possible reduction. Reducing the surcharge by half is simply impossible without plugging the hole in some other way. What is possible, however, is for government to work seriously to reduce the surcharge by a more reasonable and credible amount. The Greens can propose a three-way strategy. The first strategy is a concerted and well-targeted effort to reduce electricity theft. The extent of theft is very significant. Just one year ago, Austin Gatt quantified theft at some Lm7-8 million. If one were to target a reduction in theft of 50 per cent over three years, it could result in a reduction in the surcharge of seven to eight per cent. As Sant declared, the inefficiencies in electricity generation could also contribute to a lowering of the surcharge. However, the improvement in efficiency would involve investment that would have to be obtained by an increase in the price of energy – Enemalta must be in a position to make a return on investment. However, it is reasonable to assume that, with modest investment, an improvement in efficiency would result in the lowering of the surcharge by another five per cent. Finally, alternative energy could contribute towards a reduction in the surcharge. A short to medium-term target of another five per cent through alternative sources would be possible. A target reduction in the surcharge from 65 per cent to 50 per cent would have been far more credible and achievable. Too late, Dr Sant!

Those of you reading this who think that only Labour makes scary declarations like those quoted above are only seeing one half of the surrealism of Malta’s political status quo. During the same week that Dr Sant made the surcharge guesstimate, Prime Minister Gonzi (in a televised interview) made a declaration that should make all of us very worried indeed. When asked what the cost of operating the new hospital would be, Dr Gonzi stated that he had provided an amount of Lm4 million for the second half of 2007. When the journalist asked whether this amount was sufficient, Dr Gonzi replied that he was not sure. “Not sure? What do you mean, Dr Gonzi?” the journalist asked incredulously. The answer made my jaw drop. Dr Gonzi replied that “we will only know the real cost when the hospital starts operating.” Now hold on one second. Is the Prime Minister declaring that he does not know how much Mater Dei is going to set us back – to the nearest million, for God’s sake!? Have we spent some Lm250 million to build this hospital without commissioning a report to tell us how much it is going to cost us as from next July? Has Dr Gonzi sealed the cost of completing the hospital with Skanska without discovering how much it will cost us to operate? Can government commission a study now, or is this going to be the big post-electoral surprise? How can anyone in government promise that public healthcare will continue to be provided “free of charge”?

It is truly sad to think that the electorate feels that the only choice available is either Gonzi or Sant. While polls may claim that the former is more likeable than the latter, none of them seem to be

able to inspire the population. An alternative does exist. It involves each of us making a decision to change Malta’s political reality once and

for all by putting the Greens in Parliament. This time

don’t waste your vote – on them!

Edward P. Fenech is spokesman on finance, the economy and tourism of Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party