Without realising, and probably without wanting, David Agius and Chris Said have taken us back to the 1980s.

The former’s intervention on television rights and the latter’s involvement in the lowering of medicine prices are reminiscent of the Labour years when the State wanted to control whatever we did, what we saw on TV and what products we bought.

Since its election to government in 1987, the Nationalist Party has worked incessantly to open the market to competition, the aim being to bring about a better deal for consumers, both in terms of choices available as well as price range. It removed the practice of the government determining the price of tuna and corned beef. It eliminated bulk buying and gave consumers the choice to choose between one product and another, one service and another. We no longer needed to go to Sicily for a Mars bar and Colgate.

But here we are, in 2010, with politicians once again interfering in commercial affairs when they should be concentrating on other, more important matters than the football games we see on TV and the price of erection enhancer pills.

David Agius’ idea to have the two television service providers exchange sports activities they have fought to obtain for their clients – and paid through their nose to do so – goes directly against the free market, one in which companies do their best to outsmart the other in a bid to attract more users or buyers.

The first question that came to mind, when I heard of his crusade to “watch football”, is why is he doing it now? Until the last football season, one TV provider, Melita, had the rights to transmit all football matches played in Italy, England, Spain and Germany, as well as those of the Champions League and Europa League.

David Agius was nowhere to be seen when Melita had the rights to transmit both European and national football. But once it became known that Go had signed a deal to broadcast the Serie A and English Premier League, while Melita held on to the European football games, he came up with this idea of sharing the services. His argument was that people cannot afford to have the services of both operators to be able to watch both national and European football, and so an agreement needed to be found for the service providers to exchange rights.

But, I ask, isn’t this what free market is all about? Didn’t David Agius realise that his populist idea went against the concept of having a competitive market? Does he really believe that Melita and Go should team up and offer the same product?

If, as David Agius is saying, people cannot afford to have the services of both Melita and Go, they will have to make a choice, as I did. So what if I have to miss a few Champions League games? It’s not the end of the world. And, as a consumer, I prefer to have a choice of service providers rather than have just one enjoying a monopoly.

David Agius also complained that PBS should have screened the World Cup match between Germany and England – knowing that a pre-World Cup agreement specified that this was a match that was to be broadcast solely by Melita. How could he come up with such an argument?

My hope is that he was just trying to give a voice to complaints by people who do not understand anything when it comes to TV rules and believe they have some sacrosanct right to watch whatever they want.

I am sure David knows better and that he was simply carried away. No, David, people do not have a right to watch football. You’re completely wrong about that. Involving Parliament’s Social Affairs Committee on such an issue was also silly. Aren’t there more serious problems than stamping one’s feet because one is unable to watch a football game?

Lowering the price of 62 medicine products is another farce that takes us back in time when, in each and every budget, the Labour government used to announce that the price of corned beef and tuna went up or down by a few mils or cents (while wages remained frozen).

Again, the direct involvement of the government, through Chris Said, in negotiations with importers of medicines goes against the philosophy that successive Nationalist governments have followed in the past two decades.

I guess the government fell into the trap laid by the Opposition, which has repeatedly claimed – true to its ingrained Labour beliefs – that the price of medicines is too high. So, if Labour complains that the price of tuna is high, will Chris Said call the importers to lower it by a few cents?

By intervening directly in the issue, the government has opened a can of worms.

First of all, 62 products is just a drop in the ocean considering the thousands that exist. Questions have already been raised as to why these 62 were chosen and whether others will follow.

Secondly, the type of medicines whose price was cut – including contraception and erection enhancer pills – have already led to a series of jokes which cannot be repeated in a newspaper. You see, nowadays people are no longer impressed if they are going to save a few euros here and there. Just as much as it was ridiculous 25 years ago to wait for an announcement on the price of tuna in the budget, it is ridiculous today to triumphantly claim victory if the price of erection enhancer pills has been reduced.

Thirdly – and this is the most important factor, because it is a matter of policy and philosophy – I do not believe that any government should involve itself in controlling prices. We were in this predicament in the pre-1987 Labour days and we do not want to go back there. We live in a free market society and no minister or parliamentary secretary should play the role of an entrepreneur.

Like David Agius, Chris Said took a populist stand from which the Nationalist government will gain nothing.

What is worse is that in the long-term, the Nationalist Party stands to lose if it continues to promote ideas that go against all that it has fought for since it won the 1987 election.

Evarist and the MUT

I do not think that Evarist Bartolo is a stupid man. I believe that he understands plain English and Maltese.

He is therefore pretending not to comprehend the repeated explanations, given by the Education Ministry, that there will be no fees for tuition for BTEC qualification courses in vocational studies. The fees only cover final examinations, with the only difference being that they are charged at the beginning of the course, rather than at the end.

Or else he is trying to deceive. Which is worse.

Mr Bartolo continues to argue that it is not right for State education to be provided at a cost to the student. Throwing doubts or saying the opposite of what the reality is has become a Labour trademark. The government has said, over and over again, that no fees will be charged for education provided by the State.

Perhaps Mr Bartolo wants us to forget that when he was education minister between 1996 and 1998, university students had a part of their stipend given to them as a loan, rather than a grant. The difference between then and now is that what Mr Bartolo did in those two years really did happen; but what he’s saying today is a figment of his imagination.

Predictably, the Malta Union of Teachers has jumped on the PL bandwagon. It was bound to happen after the MUT joined the PL’s largest ally, the General Workers Union, last February.

The more time passes, the more the MUT, under John Bencini, is taking on the role of a political party and losing that of a trade union. Its interests should be teachers’ conditions, but it has involved itself in issues that go beyond its remit, and this without the consent of its members.

I wonder what teachers think of this transformation. Like Mr Bartolo, they are not stupid people.

[email protected]