Public opinion is still trying to recover from the impact of the four-day blitzkrieg triggered by the Transport Federation over the issue of liberalisation of the public transport sector

The four-day strike was precipitated by a government decision to issue new permits for motor hearses, effectively breaking a monopoly in the sector. This decision was a red alert for the rest of the public transport sector operators – namely bus and minibus owners, and the operators of tourist coaches, and taxi services. It took the Federation a brief time to issue an ultimatum and, in no time, arterial roads were clogged, and all public transport services came to a standstill.

Some of the strikers had decidedly short tempers. There were scuffles with the police. Some private minibuses and coaches carrying tourists were attacked. No injuries were reported, but the situation was such that government plans to provide an emergency bus service were called off.

The disruption hassled incoming and outgoing tourists, as well as cruise-liner passengers arriving in Grand Harbour.

The “strike” ended as abruptly as it started. The Motor Hearse Association suddenly opted out of the Transport Federation after behind-the-scenes dealings, in the course of which it accepted the liberalisation of its sector. The pill was sweetened by a payment of €230,000 to assist the 10 members of the association, who ran all the way to the bank.

Once the news was made public, the Transport Federation called off industrial action

Minister for Transport Austin Gatt took the view that the strike pushed the issue of liberalisation higher on the country’s agenda, and consultations are planned for the summer months with the interested parties. A spokesman for the Ministry is reported to have forecast “an intense process of discussion which would lead to the award of new taxi and mini-bus licences”, a market the government wanted to enlarge substantially.

Now that the dust has settled, at least for the time being, relevant questions are being asked. In the light of the massive inconvenience and disruption, experienced by one and all during the four-day strike, and the very substantial financial losses sustained by economic operators across the board, was it wise to raise the issue of liberalisation (that was of direct concern only to 10 motor hearse operators) at the start of the tourist season? If the Ministry was less precipitous, the losses sustained, and the bigger losses, which are outstanding, could all have been avoided.

At political level, talk comes cheap. At social, economic and civil levels, the currency with the highest yield is restraint, reciprocal trust and respect, as well as a spirit of give and take.

In this particular context, the concept of “liberalisation” calls for patient and calm negotiations, considering that the roots of monopoly in the Maltese public transport sector grew strong with the government’s connivance.

The situation being what it is, the term “liberalisation” is emotive. Public opinion has come to abhor monopoly because it has had a raw deal at the hands of unscrupulous operators.

By itself, liberalisation is no guaranteed panacea. A free market needs to be regulated.

It needs the firm hand of a fair regulator who will keep an eye firmly fixed on discipline and on safeguarding the citizens” interests against the greed of operators. It needs the intervention of regulators who will set, and see to the implementation of, efficiency standards. Above all, regulators are necessary to safeguard the dignity of users and workers in the sector, in conformity with the exigencies of progress.

The devil is in the detail.

In other words, Malta urgently needs a regulatory framework in the transport sector, which, for decades, no government ever undertook to provide.

It takes much more than political will to meet this bill. It calls for an efficient administrative set-up, suitably trained and empowered, and insulated from corrupt or party political interests.

Why is it that no government has ever seen to it that all taxis operate a standard taximeter service? Has the VAT department ever assessed the scale of mass evasion in this respect?

Why is it that pre-World War II buses are still on the road, and why do we still have to cope with the spectacle of so many buses polluting the air so profusely with obnoxious smoke?

Why can’t all buses be obliged to have decent ventilation systems particularly in the torrid summer months, and why are not all buses inspected for cleanliness each morning, before they start operations?

Why aren’t there decent rest facilities for the workforce at every terminus, particularly in view of the exceedingly long working hours involved?

Official indifference and inertia are the offspring of administrative and political incompetence that gripped the public transport sector of these islands for so many years.

This has nurtured a mentality, which has, so very often, shown disdain for the rights and the dignity of the users of public transport. It has shamed and demeaned us in the eyes of thousands of tourists and arrested progress in this sector.

It will take time to recoup what has been lost through years of inertia.

The need of a spirit of compromise and good will is paramount in all future negotiations.

Confucius (6th c BC) held that “desire to have things done quickly prevents them from being done thoroughly”.

Publius Syrus (1st c BC) shared the same opinion, and had this to say in his Moral Sayings. “Nothing can be done at once hastily and prudently”.

Many centuries later, Shakespeare stubbornly subscribed to this wisdom. In Romeo and Juliet, he summarised his belief that “Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast” and “Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow”.

Why is it that some people are impervious to common sense?

[email protected]