This week I would like to share my views on the recent appointments of parliamentary assistants and what was written and said about them in various media, including a programme I watched on a political station, where learned gentlemen and the presenter ‘cruelly tore’ into the decision taken by the Prime Minister. Curiously enough, no parliamentary assistant was invited to explain the present situation, and balance out the said programme, leaving the viewer to arrive at an informed decision.

This new idea was shot at birth. It was like having a newly born child, and this child was already criticised and labelled as a failure in life, without knowing if this child is going to be a healthy, bright or normal child.

God forbid we humans start passing judgment on a newly born children, and condemn them as easily as these gentlemen condemned such an idea.

It may be realised too that the same exponents were at it again, years ago, when the same Nationalist Party launched the local councils. It was, they had said, doomed to failure, and the Labour Party did not even participate in the first elections, as they thought the experiment was bound to fail.

A brainchild and an election promise by the Nationalist government of that time turned out to be a success. So much so that now the elections are backed by the parties and a great contest ensues to obtain the majority and mayorship of that or the other locality. A true democracy in place.

It reminds me that the Labour government was the first to install parliamentary secretaries and even ministers without a portfolio, and so-called special envoys. So why ridicule this new system? Probably, I thought to myself, because it can become a success? Probably so, because, from what I have seen in these past few days, there is a total commitment from the new appointees, as well as the ministers, that this system works. The welcome afforded to us was with open arms. The staff that welcomed us was most forthcoming, and some business has already been taken care of.

The programme continued by criticising, and politely ridiculing, the role. The role as laid out is that of assisting, not on a full-time basis, a minister in his vast responsibilities, whether on an ad hoc business, or on a continued situation on a special field.

There’s nothing wrong in that. This is in addition to the duties normally performed by the MP, on a constituency level or in parliament. There are no staff attached to him, but he has the support of the present team in the ministry. There are no perks to it, such as mobile phones, or petrol expenses.

The allowance forwarded is probably going to be something like a 10 to 15 per cent increase on the present MP’s salary. Hardly anything to write home about, and nothing near to cover anybody’s costs, or even the hours dedicated to such a work. This is the commitment of each MP that accepted the post.

It shows, loud and clear, that there are neither ambitions nor any pocketing of any large sums of money. As all MPs are professionals in their own right, and successful, a third of this allowance goes back into the government coffers as tax.

So why ridicule it? Again if the assistant contributes in any way to the government being more efficient, less costly, or gets in an investment, or a project, Malta would have gained big time from this small investment.

So why say the taxpayer is going to be burdened by the new appointments when, in reality, the government and Malta can reap more from it?

Another point they raised was the appointment means a muzzle around our mouths.

The code of ethics does not forbid anything of the sort, except within your own attached ministry. This is a code of logic, if anything.

My mind boggles. Time will tell, and, hopefully it will prove the persons canvassing harshly against this idea, wrong.

Robert Arrigo is a Nationalist MP