Last Wednesday’s debate involving the three political leaders on the University campus disappointed me on two counts.

First of all, the presence of outsiders went totally against the idea of having such an activity. The event was supposed to have been organised by the University students for the University students, giving them the opportunity to come face to face with today’s political leaders.

But many seats were occupied by people who were not students, do not attend courses at university, and were planted there to give a distorted picture of what the actual students think and say. That the students were provided with flags and provoked into chanting political slogans was a kind of manipulation typical of communist countries – and it happened again two days later, on Friday, when Labour leader Joseph Muscat visited the Giovanni Curmi Higher Secondary School in Naxxar.

The fact that, at the University, one of the students then ended up asking a question which had not been approved beforehand also exposed a bad intention. I do not know whose idea it was for her to do this, but it backfired because the Prime Minister came out with flying colours in his answer, once again showing that, the slimier the question, the better he knows the answer.

That this same student then was shown on television footage very reluctantly shaking Dr Gonzi’s hand after the debate – after it was the PM himself who approached her – was shameful behaviour on her part, to say the least.

This student – and many others who do not know what happened in the past – should thank their lucky stars that they have all these opportunities in life. I’ve been saying this for 30 years and I’ll keep on saying it until I die: in my time, University was open to the few, one needed a sponsor to get a place, and the number of courses was limited to a handful – which were not even available every year. Today, the whole world is open to students – there are as many courses as there were students in the 1980s: 700 – and if you have the qualifications you get in, irrespective of your financial situation and irrespective of your political colour.

The presence of outsiders last Wednesday deprived many students of the opportunity to attend the much-anticipated discussion. They had been looking forward to it, but ended up having to follow it on the newspaper online versions via internet, which was not the real thing.

It is a great pity that this was allowed to happen. To avoid such a repetition in the future, my suggestion is that there should be a controlled entrance, with students needing to show some kind of proof that they are following a course at university to be allowed entry into the hall. The number of political party representatives who accompany their leader should be restricted to a handful.  Maybe an alternative, bigger venue could be identified too.

The second issue I would like to bring up is more important than the first. During the debate I paid more attention to the questions that were asked, rather than the answers given, which were more or less all that we’ve been hearing since the start of the campaign, if not before.

But the questions were an indication of what the young of today are thinking, what is worrying them, how they look at society and in what way they are planning for a better future.

And I was extremely disappointed.

The activity exposed a young generation which, as I said before, has all doors open to them for a better future, but whose main concern is selfish – the questions that were asked showed that the students are mostly interested in what they will get, rather than what they will give.

From what they asked it is evident that all the students are interested in is themselves – the stipends, parking on campus and the right to private lives, including smoking marijuana. They also expressed concern that the pension system could collapse by the time they arrive at the age of 65.

The only subject that they brought up which I can understand is the availability of jobs once they finish university. It is still a subject that can be described as selfish, because it refers to them directly. But I can accept that they need to know what political parties are planning to generate employment in the short-term.

But there was a total absence of questions about many other issues that are of major concern to the whole country, and not just to them. Nobody mentioned the economy, and how important it should be for the country to have a sound base on which to build its future. Nobody asked about financial matters. Nobody brought up health, education, the environment, institutions and how they are run, democracy, corruption, energy, the European Union, the accountability of people in power, justice, private investment and the sustainability of free services; and many other topics of general interest.

The young generation has no interest at all in what goes on around them except in matters that are relevant to their way of life, and this is largely because they are living comfortably with little or no worries. They have everything they want and more than they need. They spare little thought to sacrifice, because they do not know what it means.

Perhaps it’s not entirely their fault. The fact that they have stipends to finance their cars, entertainment and computer gadgets – whereas foreign university students have to live away from home, pay for their studies and work part-time to meet their bills – has made it easy for them.

It is the stipend mentality that has made our students egoistic and insensitive to others. What is worse is that this unfortunate attitude is set to spread to younger students with the tablet proposals being suggested by both parties.

Universities the world over are said to be the cradle of present and future thinkers; what we have in Malta is a cradle of people who know they have it all but still want more.

[email protected]