Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/176463
17 Interview maltatoday, SUNDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2013 The global economic climate will be kinder to Labour than it was to the last Nationalist administration, but former finance minister Tonio Fenech still predicts financial trouble ahead my, stupid evaluate such companies. Enemalta had liabilities, yes, but it also had assets which were never factored into its evaluation. In the last legislature we created a special purpose vehicle which took over €350 million of that debt… as a result that figure no longer appeared on Enemalta's balance sheet. We also invested in things like the intreconnector… the BWSC power plant… the distribution network… these are all assets belonging to the corporation, and their value has to also be taken into account. On top of that Enemalta still owns substantial properties which are also among its assets. Now that the Marsa power station has been decommissioned, that enormous stretch real estate – owned by Enemalta – can be redeveloped. The company owns properties in Birzebbugia, near the Qajjenza plant, and elsewhere…" Fenech openly questions whether any of these assets were even factored into the price (as yet unknown) for which the stake (another unknown quantity) in Enemalta will be sold to the Chinese firm. He also questions the wisdom of limiting the offer only to one interested party. "It's always good to seek foreign investment, don't get me wrong. But why limit yourself to one buyer? Why did it necessarily have to be China? Why not Norway? Or Germany? If government were serious it could have announced a call for expression of interest, and then chosen the best offer…" But this, he adds, is only one questionable aspect of the issue. The other concerns jobs, and Fenech here reminds me that Chinese investments secured by past Labour governments had been very successful in creating jobs, yes… only for Chinese, not Maltese workers. "We have not been told how many jobs are going to be created through this deal for Maltese workers. If you look at past investments such as the China Dock, you will find that China moved in with its own workforce. I can understand this from China's viewpoint: as an economy with a population of around 1.4 billion, it is obviously keen on creating jobs for its own people. What I don't understand is why Malta should be so keen to create jobs for other countries, and not for itself." At this point I interrupt with an admittedly awkward (some would say rude) question. Without entering the merits of his actual objections: some people out there might find it odd that a Nationalist exponent should be talking about the energy sector at all, when his own government arguably fell apart at the seams over revelations of corruption in precisely the same sector. Also, it sounds strange that a former Nationalist finance minister should be so critical of the government's economic policy, at a time when the PN's own financial situation is itself entirely comparable to Enron's. "I was never involved in the financial management of the PN," Fenech butts in before I even have time to frame the question. I know, I reply (and neither, it seems, was anyone else in the party). But my point is quite another: why should anyone take the Nationalist Party's arguments on economic matters seriously, given that its own internal financial management proved so disastrous? Fenech replies by arguing that the same financial situation proves other things, too. "It proves we weren't corrupt," he begins. "Remember the spin before the election? How we were supposed to be in the pockets of big business? If that were true, we would hardly be in that financial situation…" Well, that depends. Normally when politicians are corrupt, the money they hive off tends to go into hidden bank accounts in other countries. It is not, as a rule, re-invested into the party. And besides, that doesn't really answer the question… Fenech counters this by pointing towards the black hole concerning Labour's finances: "We recently published our campaign budget. We spent €2.2 million on our campaign. Labour officially admits to having spent considerably less than us. How is that possible, when they put up three times as many billboards, and you couldn't access practically any website without a Labour ad popping up on your screen?" Meanwhile he deflects any comparison between management of the PN – which he freely concedes "could have been better handled" – and his own economic management of the country. "In the 10 years I've been involved with government there were things we could have done better. But that's only part of the story. We also joined the eurozone, built a new hospital… we were faced with an unprecedented economic crisis halfway through. We had to withstand the perfect storm. And we withstood it…" Fenech here adds that Labour, unlike PN, has the luxury of inheriting the reins of government at a time of relative economic stability. "The Labour government will not face the same challenges we faced a few years ago. They will have a better economic climate to work in. But that doesn't mean there won't be problems. Already there are indications of trouble ahead: Unemployment is up. Imports and exports are down. So are retail and consumption. Clearly, the economy is sending out warning signals which cannot be ignored. I would like to think the government has a plan to counter all this. But so far I have seen no sign of it."