Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/811845
24 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 16 APRIL 2017 Opinion W hat on earth happened to Malta's good old- fashioned sense of entrepreneurial opportunism, I wonder? We used to have a reputation for that sort of thing; and proud we were of it, too. Maltese businessmen were always regarded as being a cut above the competition, when it came to mercenary exploitation of any opportunity to make a killing. But it looks to me like we're losing our touch. Our entrepreneurs are going all soft on us all of a sudden. Consider Sandro Chetcuti, for instance, the chairman of the Malta Developers' Association. Just yesterday, he claimed that both the Labour and Nationalist Parties approached him to contest the next election on their ticket. And – wait for it – he said no. Can you believe it? Sandro Chetcuti – the man who recently told us all to 'make hay while the sun shines', and who described the two parties as 'supermarkets' for the benefit of the construction lobby – has just turned down an opportunity to make more 'hay' than Arthur Fonzarelli managed to make in 200 episodes of 'Happy Days'. I mean, hey! That's just nuts, if you ask me. Think of all the 'happy days' Chetcuti has just denied himself with that single (well, double) 'no' of his. He said 'no' to automatically becoming part of government, no matter who actually wins the election. He said 'no' to a virtual guarantee that – come what may next November – by December, he would himself be part of the entire machinery which dishes out building permits in this country. And he's one of Malta's leading developers, too. I mean, it wouldn't be the same if the offer was made to someone like me. The only thing I've managed to develop in recent years is permanent neck-pain, on account of sitting at a computer too long. But for people like Sandro Chetcuti, it's a different story. That sort of opportunity doesn't exactly grow on trees... which is probably just as well, as 'trees' here have a habit of being uprooted to make way for luxury apartments, casinos, garages, shopping centres, and at least one boutique hotel. (Oh, and office space for gaming companies. Can't have enough of that, now can we?) Honestly, it is hard to even conceive of a more classic case of 'heads I win, tails everyone else loses'. So why on earth did he turn both offers down? Ah but wait; I know what you're all thinking. But how do we know it really happened? So far, all we have is Sandro Chetcuti's word for it. He could be lying, for all we know... Hmm, yes, indeed he could. Even though he does tend to be somewhat brutally honest in his general way of going about things (as attested by both his 'hay' and 'supermarket' comments, quoted above). But isn't it interesting that this reaction has so far only come from one side of the political divide? Nobody in the Labour camp seems to have any trouble believing that their party would approach someone like Sandro Chetcuti with a candidacy offer. And while everybody in the media immediately rounded on Simon Busuttil to demand a clarification... nobody even bothered to do the same for Joseph Muscat. Why is that, I wonder? Is it such a foregone conclusion that Labour is already deep in the pockets of the construction lobby? And what could have cemented such a pervasive impression, I wonder? Could it be simply because the Labour government has managed to capitulate even more to the construction lobby in four measly years, than the PN did in quarter of a century? Whatever the case: it is only the Nationalist pundits who (just in time for Easter, too) are suddenly behaving like so many Doubting Thomases. This becomes even more interesting when you remember that many of these same pundits were recently willing to accept without question a perfectly unsubstantiated bit of gossip, simply because it was passed Go on, Sandro: make hay while the sun shines! Raphael Vassallo Nobody in the Labour camp seems to have any trouble believing their party would approach someone like Sandro Chetcuti with a candidacy offer T he past four years have been positive on many fronts: the economy is doing brilliantly, and so is the job market. Start-ups are finding great support, social services have improved considerably and health services are undoubtedly better. In education, we have made inroads to achieve a more human and diverse education system which serves all types and backgrounds of people. Nonetheless it is important we look at things which we, as a government, are accused of not doing well and try to get a factual perspective on these. The Labour Party's 2013 mantra, Malta Taghna Lkoll, was about inclusion yet the Opposition accuses us of not following it up post-election. I can speak directly from experience when I say that I have worked with people from different political backgrounds all my life: the past four years have been no exception. If you analyse important appointments and their (supposed) political affiliations there is quite a diverse mix. I relate to the Prime Minister when he says you're damned if you do and damned if you don't – one of the criticisms the Labour Party gets from some sections of its supporters is about this. Especially in education and employment – such important sectors which should certainly be no home to partisan politics – we've worked with the best people and balance has been achieved. Past Nationalist administrations were non- partisan in some appointments but mostly not overall. There has been undoubted improvement on this issue in the past four years. The Opposition have also made complaints about corruption and transparency. Let's start with corruption by looking at it factually. I am not here to say corruption does not exist – it does, and it certainly doesn't exist exclusively in the public sector. My worry is not when cases of corruption come to light, but the attitude of the public towards corruption. Not enough people stand up to it. Not enough people are repulsed by it. Many see it as a malevolent force which has always been with us and there's no point in fighting – this is very wrong. However, when discussing political responsibility, it is important to keep things factual. If you listen to Simon Busuttil, you'd think Malta pre-2013 had no corruption, and it exploded in the past four years. This is absolutely not true, and there are plenty of facts to back this up. In the last Eurobarometer survey about the subject, which took place in February/March 2013, 83% of the Maltese said that corruption was widespread. In 2011, 88% said corruption was a major problem. In 2009 the figure was 95%, in 2007 it was 84% and in 2005 it was 89%. So, between 2005 and 2013, the glorious years of the puritan PN administrations, between 83% and 95% of Maltese people thought the country was completely absorbed by corruption. Another study, Transparency International's Corruption Index, shows Malta scoring between 55-57 between 2012 and 2016, which further dampens the partisan rhetoric that there were sharp changes in corruption during the Labour years. It was the Labour government that introduced legislation to fight corruption and increase transparency. The Whistleblower's Act and the party financing measures are among the most important. A bill for the removal of prescription on acts of political corruption was introduced in the first months of this legislature, removing once and for all the notion that Ministers can get away with it if things come to light years later. Media is much freer today – censorship has been removed and the recent proposals, such as the removal of criminal libel and the removal of the obligation to register media houses, will continue to strengthen a free media in our democracy. The Freedom of Information Act was also crucial in terms of transparency, with public institutions obliged to provide information when requested. These are measures that, for 25 years, were talked about but never acted upon. I remember the days not so long ago when censorship was rife, questions to public institutions were never answered and party financing was in the dark. This government introduced most of these laws in its early days and lots of good will come from them. The problem Simon Busuttil has on his hands is that he has campaigned on rhetoric only, blasting the Government about corruption instead of cleaning up his own house, and forming some proper policies. The rug was pulled from under his feet a month ago when we found out about illegalities on an industrial scale, involving false invoices which had the sole aim of circumventing the same law his party failed to implement. Have mistakes been made by this government? Yes, nobody in this government says everything is perfect. There's a lot that we can do better. Fighting corruption is included in that list. The rhetoric will get louder between now and election day, but it is worth collecting our thoughts and analysing things from a factual point of view. Undeniably, things have improved for the better. Evarist Bartolo is minister for education and employment Facts not frenzy Evarist Bartolo