Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1547581
10 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 NOVEMBER 2026 OPINION Indispensable yesterday, disposable today Mark M. Scerri Academic with a doctorate in applied geosciences THERE was something viscer- ally reprehensible about the budget speech on 26 October. The spectacle of a man sporting a red tie, perhaps as a token of his professed "socialist" convic- tions, announcing measures that would place additional burdens on some of the most vulnerable workers in our society—third country nationals, conveniently reduced to the bureaucratic ac- ronym TCNs. Let us be clear about what has happened. For years, Mal- ta has pursued an economic model increasingly dependent on importing labour to sustain growth. More workers, more economic activity, more GDP. And, of course, more opportuni- ties for the government to cele- brate its economic achievements and sustain that all-important feel-good factor. But economic growth is not necessarily eco- nomic progress. An economy that grows prin- cipally by increasing the num- ber of people working, rather than by increasing productivity, is an economy whose appar- ent success can conceal serious structural weaknesses. And who encouraged this model? Who presided over its expansion? Who celebrated its results? Who had the responsibility to antici- pate its consequences for hous- ing, infrastructure, healthcare, education and the bargaining power of workers? The govern- ment. Not the delivery driver. Not the hotel cleaner. Not the construction worker. Not the carer looking after our elderly. Yet, now that the consequences of this model have become in- creasingly difficult to ignore, it is precisely these workers who are being asked to shoulder ad- ditional burdens. Let me be absolutely clear about something; public trans- port is not a luxury and neither is childcare. The ability to get to work, to raise a family with a modicum of dignity is not a privilege to be bestowed or with- drawn according to one's na- tionality. Consider that the median, monthly employment income is €1,517 before deductions, according to Central Bank of Malta figures for 2024. At that level of income, an additional €33 a month for public trans- port is no trivial inconvenience. Add to this the possible loss of childcare support, additional permit-related costs and the al- ready considerable burden of housing, food and other neces- sities. For workers and families already struggling to make ends meet, these measures risk push- ing them closer to poverty, or driving them deeper into it. And what, precisely, is the eco- nomic logic behind charging these workers for public trans- port? Did it ever occur to Clyde Caruana that this measure might prove counterproductive? Consider the arithmetic. With a difference of just €50 a month between the proposed pub- lic transport charge and the monthly driving-licence charge, private transport could become a more attractive alternative for workers obliged to travel at ir- regular hours, move between different workplaces or take on additional jobs simply to survive. Admittedly, owning and operat- ing a vehicle involves addition- al costs. But for workers whose livelihoods depend on mobility and flexibility, the calculation is not simply about the price of a bus ticket. It is about time, ac- cessibility and the ability to earn a living. And the consequences? Po- tentially fewer passengers on public transport, more vehi- cles clogging already congested roads, more air pollution and yet greater pressure on the very infrastructure the government claims to be protecting. What an extraordinary contradiction! A government that laments the pressures of population growth introduces a measure that could discourage the use of public transport and aggravate those very pressures. Where is the coherence? Where is the plan- ning? Where is the assessment of the social and economic con- sequences? Or has the govern- ment become so preoccupied with maintaining its precious feel-good factor that the con- sequences of its decisions have become a secondary considera- tion? Every measure has consequences A budget is not merely an exer- cise in extracting revenue from one section of society to distrib- ute it to another in pursuit of electoral approval. Nor is it sim- ply an exercise in balancing fig- ures. It is an expression of polit- ical priorities, economic choices and, ultimately, moral values. Every measure has conse- quences. And those conse- quences must be examined be- fore the burden is imposed, not discovered afterwards by the people least able to bear it. That is what responsible government demands. Not the cynical arith- metic of political convenience, but the courage to govern ac- cording to principles, even when those principles carry an elec- toral cost. I see another extraordinary moral contradiction. For years, these people were indispensa- ble. We needed them to build our apartments, staff our hotels, serve our restaurants, deliver our food, clean our streets and care for our elderly. Their labour contributed to the economic ex- pansion from which businesses profited and successive govern- ments derived political capital. They were invited in, when the economy needed them. Now, apparently, they are a problem. And what makes them such a convenient target? One politi- cally significant characteristic is that they cannot vote in Malta's national elections. They con- tribute to the economy. They pay taxes. They work. But they cannot hold the government ac- countable at the ballot box. This raises a deeply troubling ques- tion. Is the government allocat- ing the costs of its economic pol- icies according to responsibility and capacity to pay, or according to the political vulnerability of those expected to bear them? An alternative There is an alternative. If the expansion of Malta's workforce has generated additional infra- structure costs, employers who benefited from that expansion could be required to contribute according to their size and prof- itability. Small businesses should not necessarily be treated in the same way as large, highly profit- able enterprises. But there must be one absolute condition—not a single cent of these contributions should be recovered from workers through wage deductions, recruit- ment charges, reduced benefits or any other disguised mechanism. That protection must be written into law, enforced and backed by meaningful penalties. Those who benefited from the economic model must share responsibility for its consequences. Those who designed and promoted it must answer for their decisions. And those who came here to work must not become its convenient scapegoats. There is something particular- ly disturbing about this specta- cle coming from a party that still calls itself Labour. A party whose supporters proudly sing "sew ħil- itna kemm saħħitna b'ħila nagħtu għall-fqajrin"—professing solidar- ity with those who have the least. Where is that solidarity now? What meaning does the word La- bour retain if the rights and digni- ty of workers become negotiable according to their nationality? What remains of socialism when the politically powerless are ex- pected to bear costs generated by decisions over which they had no control? Today TCNs, tomorrow who? And there is a still more disturb- ing question. If political conven- ience becomes the principle by which a government determines who should pay for its mistakes, who will be next? Today it is the TCNs. Tomorrow it could be pensioners, young workers, small businesses or any other group whose interests can be sacrificed without unacceptable electoral consequences. That is the danger of governing by expediency rather than principle. Once the political vulnerability of a group becomes a consideration in allocating public burdens, no group can be entirely confident that it will not eventual- ly find itself in the same position. Public policy is not supposed to be an exercise in identifying those least able to resist. It is supposed to be an exercise in justice, evidence, accountability and long-term re- sponsibility. Workers cannot be indispensable when their labour generates economic growth and disposable when their presence becomes politically inconvenient. Perhaps the next time the fi- nance minister delivers a budget of this kind, he should reconsider the colour of his tie. Red may be the colour of the socialist princi- ples supposedly professed by his party, but when political expedi- ency and clinging to the seat of power take precedence over sol- idarity and the more vulnerable are made to pay for government policy, perhaps a red-brown tie would be a more fitting reflection of the politics of the narrator. Socialism is not something one wears around one's neck. It is something one demonstrates in taking the side of the least pow- erful, particularly those who have no vote, no powerful lobby and little means of defending them- selves. This article can also be found on nebuchadnezzartheneb.substack. com