Prime Minister Joseph Muscat yesterday apologised for his statement during the first leaders’ debate of the 2019 MEP and local council elections. While an apology was definitely necessary, he should not have made the statement in the first place.

Both he and Opposition Leader Adrian Delia have been slammed for certain anti-foreigner remarks, with both claiming that they were misunderstood, or that their statements were taken out of context.

During the debate Muscat said: “I want the Maltese youths to take the skilled jobs. When I have a choice, my choice is that the Maltese become doctors, teachers and managers, and then I would bring in foreigners to go to work in the sun all day. If possible I don’t want Maltese people to go and pick up rubbish outside. All work is dignified, but I don’t want a situation where foreigners are comfortable and the Maltese break their backs.”

Muscat yesterday said that he understands that the comment he made was insensitive and he apologised for it. What he had wanted to say in the debate, he said yesterday, is that he would like all Maltese workers to be skilled.

The fact is that any person living and working in Malta, be they Maltese or foreign, should have equal treatment and equal opportunities. No, Malta cannot limit access to people coming from the EU - even thinking about such a move would be catastrophic for Malta’s reputation abroad, for business, and for Malta’s future generations.

Limiting third country nationals coming to Malta for work is a possibility, however it is also a fact that many employers struggle to find employees for lower paying jobs and, as such, more workers are needed. If people coming to Malta are afforded asylum status, then it is Malta’s duty to offer them such protection. The only kind of migration Malta can limit are third-country economic migrants, but Malta currently needs more workers.

Delia has also used questionable rhetoric in his speeches, and should change the way he is trying to get his message across. He has already been accused of scaremongering on several occasions.

Delia is making one good point however, regarding Malta’s carrying capacity. How many people can Malta hold? This is something that needs to be studied, but the way he has made these arguments makes him sound anti-foreigner.  He makes it sound as though it is the foreigner’s fault that the housing market is in its current state, for example. It is not - the amount of foreign workers in Malta is simply not enough for the economy, thus it is the economic model’s fault.

If Malta does not have the room for the number of people required to keep its economy growing, then a change in Malta’s economic model is needed, perhaps by focusing on less labour-intensive industries would be a start, or perhaps by slowing down slightly until wages and other aspects of Maltese society catch up. Malta’s current rate of development sees high rises popping up around the island. Malta needs to look after its fast-fading natural beauty, which is instead turning into a very ugly hotchpotch cityscape littered with small apartments. If Malta becomes ugly, tourists will simply not come. Why would a tourist come to Malta if not for its island feel? Tourists can easily go to other much more metropolitan cities if they want to, such as London or Berlin. Why would they choose to come to Malta for a city feel?

Muscat, through his statement in the debate, made it sound as though he looks down on hands-on jobs, and that his end game is for Maltese to have one type of job and foreigners another. He apologised and said that his comment was insensitive, admitting that the way he said it was not exactly what he meant. Adrian Delia should follow his example.

Both leaders need to be more careful in the kind of rhetoric they employ. There are ways in which one can make an argument without creating an anti-foreigner sentiment in a country that heavily relies on foreign workers and on tourists. Such rhetoric is dangerous and wrong and could have dangerous consequences in the future.