Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/591015
14 MALTA is by any yardstick a fast-changing place. I will soon be invited to consider just how much it has changed since the 1960s – around a decade be- yond my memory's reach – by a man who will (paradoxically) also argue that it hasn't changed enough. But before getting there, one small aspect in which times have certainly a-changed concerns the annual presentation of the Budg- et in Parliament. In years gone by, this other- wise unremarkable event had the power to mesmerise the entire country. Apart from the obvious interest regarding how individ- ual measures might (sometimes drastically) affect one's liveli- hood, there was also something almost ritualistic about the po- litical paranoia surrounding the event… which, as a rule, was broadcast live on national TV. The mystery of the black suit- case, tightly held by the finance minister as he treads slowly, omi- nously, down the corridor in be- tween medieval suits of armour, with cameras and media in full pursuit… there was something contrived, yet compelling about the whole spectacle. Today? Budgets are a good deal less… well… emotional. But it doesn't mean there is any less to discuss, or indeed to worry about. At least, not according to Charles Miceli, who had reason to follow this year's Budget speeches more attentively than most. For years a social worker with Caritas, and a long-time cam- paigner for social justice in his own right, Miceli has often sounded the alarm over the rise of poverty in 21st century Malta. His frequent press contributions have for some time now urged governments of both hues to take a step back and look at the socio- demographic landscape for what it really is… not for what govern- ment statistics say it is. Seated at the kitchen table at his Naxxar home, Charles Miceli repeats that entreaty with a curi- ous mixture of urgency and good humour. It is, in fact, his first answer to the question: so what did you think about Budget 2016, anyway? He takes a sip of piping hot tea before answering. "As [Finance Minister] Scicluna himself said, the government first wants to consolidate the economy, and then begin to distribute benefits. At the same time, he also told us that the economy is going well." He shrugs, as if to underscore the contradiction. "But this is the sort of rhetoric we're used to. The first thing to look at is what was on government's mind when drawing up the Budget. Govern- ment is bound by two factors: it is bound by EU targets to reduce poverty by 2020, and also by its own electoral manifesto. It's not just me who argues that the main goal should be to eliminate pov- erty. It's the government's own electoral promise, written in black on white." These two electoral pledges, he adds, are not abstract commit- ments, but are circumscribed by targets that have to be met. "I for- get the exact details, but the EU's target is to reduce the number of poor people by 20,000 by 2020. That's for Malta; for each coun- try the figure will be different." This brings us to the first of many pitfalls regarding these targets. How does one calculate the number of people in poverty so precisely? What sort of yard- sticks are we using to decide who among us is 'poor' or not? Miceli breaks into a character- istic laugh: almost (but not quite) a chuckle. "It's more complicated than that. The term used for the EU targets is 'relative poverty', as opposed to 'absolute poverty'. But relative to what?" Both labels, he adds, are in themselves problematic. Abso- lute poverty is generally defined as a life materially destitute of even the most fundamental ne- cessities: food, water and so on. "In Malta we never really had 'absolute poverty' in that sense… you have to go back to the very early part of the 20th century. My own memories are from 1960s onwards. In those days, everyone had at least a piece of bread to eat. And as time wore on, more and more people managed to overcome the sort of absolute poverty that existed before. But this doesn't mean that poverty has been eradicated. We now talk of 'relative pov- erty' instead, he goes on. As the standard of living rose in the dec- ades after Independence, so too did the benchmark against which poverty is measured. "Before, our measure of poverty might have been: can a man af- ford a loaf of bread? Now, the government's calculation is: how many people earn less than 60% of the median salary? That's around €7,500 a year. People in this category are labelled 'at risk of poverty'…" Miceli does not disguise his dis- taste for such terminology. "The problem is that the yardstick be- ing used to measure poverty is flawed ('fazulla'). Anyone who earns less than 7,500 a year – especially if he or she pays rent, what with the prices as they are today – is not 'at risk of pov- erty'. He is poor. Simple as that. To call them 'at risk of poverty' is practically an insult… at least, to someone who worries about these things, like me." That laugh again. "For other people, maybe it's not an insult. But you tell me…" here he sud- denly gets serious… "If someone is living on €140 a week… sorry, but how can he live on that? There was an interview with the finance minister in [Sun- day newspaper] Illum recently, where he said that 'with two eu- ros from here or there, you can rise above poverty'. What is he saying, exactly? That if you get €140 a week, you're poor… but if you get €142, you're not?" He trails off into a look of be- wilderment. "What I can't under- stand is how they can just draw a line, and say, 'anyone who's be- low this is drowning, while any- one who's above… even if they're up to their nostrils… is fine'." Nor is that the extent of the problem with such official statis- tics. "It's already bad enough that these things are decided just by drawing a line. But even the line itself is flawed. Even people earn- ing more than 60% of the median pay would struggle." Miceli rejects as 'fazzul' another aspect of government's formula: its mechanisms to calculate cost of living increase. "The Opposition leader pointed out how, while the cost of living rose by one-point-something per cent, food prices actually went up by 3.5%. Ultimately, people at the bottom of the ladder do not measure poverty by whether they can afford the latest tablet or iPhone. They measure the cost of food." To use government's 'flawed' calculations and 'insulting' la- bels, the number of people cur- rently 'at risk of poverty' stands at around 102,000. This is the number that should, in theory, drop by 20,000 by 2020. Miceli acknowledges that progress has been achieved in the last Budget, but nowhere near enough to reach the target. "Until recently, that number grew steadily by around 5% a year. But the rate is going down... Government announced a de- cline of something like 0.2%. This doesn't mean that the number itself is going down. The impor- tant thing, however, is that the upward trend has been slowed, even if by a little. But still: the calculations on which all these figures are based was wrong to begin with. The real number of people in poverty is higher. The yardstick needs to be changed…" Miceli is perhaps more exposed to the naked realities of terms such as 'relative' and 'absolute' poverty. His experience with Caritas exposed him to 'thou- sands' of cases where people couldn't afford even the barest of essentials. Contrary to public perception, he argues that the situation faced by many among the 102,000 is actually closer to the more extreme of the two la- bels. "In the 1970s, a lot of people ei- ther availed of government hous- ing schemes, which meant cheap rent, or were helped financially to buy or build a house. There was a drive to make housing afford- able, with banks such as Lohom- bus offering low interest rates. Many of us are now pensioners. I'm one of the lucky ones: I man- aged to buy my own home at a time when prices were more af- fordable. But others might be on a pension of €500 a month, and have to pay €200 or €300 in rent. Many people are in that situation today. They might not be dying of hunger, but they are definitely living in almost absolute poverty. A life of bread and pasta. They can't afford to eat fish or meat every other day…" Yet by the 'official' yardstick, they would still be labelled 'at risk of poverty'. "In America, they talk about "the one percent and the 99%". It's applicable to parts of Europe, too. We are living at a time when wealth is concentrated among the very few, at the expense of the very many. In Malta, we're not at that level of disparity yet. It's certainly not 1% to 99%. But unless there is some kind of in- tervention by the State – and a forceful intervention – we will certainly head in that direction." What sort of intervention does he have in mind? "I have long argued that the minimum wage is too low, and should be increased. Govern- ment has ruled that out for now. What remains is the Cost of Living Adjustment, but Cari- tas recently conducted a study which showed that even here, the yardstick used is flawed. There was a big discrepancy between the mechanism used by Caritas to calculate the cost of living increase, and the mechanism agreed to between government and the MCESD." The discrepancy in itself did not surprise Miceli. "The way gov- ernment's calculations are made requires agreement with the so- cial employers. But how can they ever agree? How can an employer be expected to agree to a change in yardstick that will affect his business? From the outset, it was impossible." Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2015 'Work doesn't pay' In Malta, we're not at that level of disparity yet. It's certainly not 1% to 99%. But unless there is some kind of intervention by the State – and a forceful intervention – we will certainly head in that direction INTERVENTION Ultimately, people at the bottom of the ladder do not measure poverty by whether they can afford the latest tablet or iPhone. They measure the cost of food BASICS