Hearing what is on the cards of one who wishes to soon lead our people gives the impression that, in order to attract the popular vote, he is advocating upright people to shirk the short straw, be it in marriage or in shouldering their share of expenses. This all the more cancels out the pluses that his ‘modern’ approach seemed to have earned him, all the more so considering that he stepped in and secured a seat he had not contested and for which he was not chosen by popular vote!

But then, Shylocks and European socialist Shultz share more than an initial. Is it not food for thought that those advocating reducing utility costs on consumption might be determined to shield those who consume a lot but under-declare their true income while pretending to be in favour of transparency and the shield of the low earners?

C. Debono

GHAJNSIELEM