A fellow blogger (Alex Grech) recently pointed me to the interesting study of critical discourse analysis and I serendipitously ended up finding this article by a certain Teun Van Dijk called Discourse and Manipulation {{1}}. Oftentimes whenever our politicians speak to us and communicate their ideas we fail to notice how much manipulation is involved. In some books it is called being economic with the truth, in others it is called being deliberately naive and in others it is simply called “acting stupid”.
Former education minister Evarist Bartolo has been frantically facebooking links to articles on Maltastar and l-orizzont reporting his and his colleague Owen Bonnici’s latest pronouncements regarding the reduction in expenditure that the government envisages within the education sector. Owen Bonnici has developed a clear style of the deliberatively naive that tends to stick out more often nowadays. This Labour bonhomme aspiring to ministerial greatness has used this tactic once too often for my liking. Here is the piece that is worrying me:
Labour spokesman for Higher Education Owen Bonnici said on Thursday afternoon that last November Gonzi’s administration presented its budget for 2012 boasting that while other countries were facing problems and taking austerity measures, it was forging ahead and investing more in education.
Bonnici said that now government has reviewed the budget and is cutting its expenditure on the University of Malta (€2 million or -5%), the Malta College for Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST) (€770,000 or -5%), the Junior College (€430,000 or -5%) and the Institute for Tourism Studies (-35%). The budget allocated to stipends for students will be reduced by €100,000.
No wonder Varist is ecstatic. He’d love to no longer be the only minister to have embarked on a drastic reform of the stipend system without any consultation whatsoever. The orizzont title goes one further than Maltastar: €100,000 Inqas fi stipendji. That’s 100k less in stipends. Varist and Bonnici went on a trip criticising the reduction in education spending when all the while they failed to highlight the most important issue: the reduction is in planned expenditure {{2}}. Which makes one hell of a difference. Neither is the government proposing to reduce your stipend dear student. The reduction is in what had been planned to be added to the budget for stipends.
Now there are two points I would like to make here. First of all this post should in no way imply that J’accuse is not in favour of a revised and reviewed stipend system. We believe that time has come for such a review but that the review should still take into consideration the incentive for higher education that stipends still are as well as the challenges faced since EU membership. Ireland, for example, has seen a spike in English students seeking cheaper education. I am still convinced that we could argue a special exception allowing stipends for Maltese residents with regards to a comprehensive policy of encouraging higher education in Malta but that discussion is for another day.
As for Owen and Varist. Well. What can I say. These two men are prattikament fil-gvern. I should hope that they are as aware as anyone else that the €40 million euro in cuts on what had been budgeted in November would be required whether the government was nationalist or labour. It is all well and good to criticise the nationalists for having trumpeted their education investment in November only to have been proved wrong by the Commission who has insisted on their cutbacks. That is legitimate.
What is not legitimate is the impression that Owen and Varist are clearly seeking to give that the 100,000€ cuts in the proposed expenditure on stipend will take the form of individual cuts – as in a reduction in the stipend. The current stipend is what it is and the 100k reduction will not affect it (see below in the technical addendum). Varist would love it to be stipendji sħaħ issue all over again. It is not. What I have not heard from the illustrious gentlemen from the opposition is what cuts they would propose to be made from the expenditure budget in order to fulfil EU requirements.
Every Labour spokesperson has shamed government for reducing spending in his particular department of (in)competence. Lovely. The naked truth of the matter is that there must be a €40 million reduction in expenditure. The planned budget MUST shrink. Are we to assume that once in government Labour will be the approximative budgeteer of the “more or less”?
Thanks. But no thanks Owen and Varist.
P.S. Yep. That’s j’accuse in the photo. Thanks to Mark Camilleri for unearthing this shocking reminder of the ageing process.
The Technical Addendum
The 2012 budget presentation can be found here: Budget 2012. It mentions an investment of €58.2 million in University and Junior college. In the Minister’s Budget Speech we find that government had allocated €22.3 million for stipends. Compare that figure to the €0.1 million reduction that leads Owen and Varist to conclude that your stipend is under threat. I have looked through the PQs featuring Varist and Owen directed at Dolores Cristina with regards to the budget changes. There are only two as far as I can see: PQs number 32681 and 32678. Here is the full Q&A for PQ 32681:
L-Onorevoli EVARIST BARTOLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli DOLORES CRISTINA (Ministru tal-Edukazzjoni u x-Xogħol):
B’referenza għall-Budget 2012 approvat minn din il-Kamra, tista’ l-Ministru tgħid kemm tnaqqsu flus min-nefqa fil-qasam edukattiv bħala parti mit-tnaqqis tal-€40 miljun mnaqqsa mill-gvern u liema line items tnaqqsu? Tista’ tagħti r-risposta line item line item?Tweġiba:
Ngħarraf lill-Onor. Interpellant illi l-Gvern ħa deċiżjoni konxja u responsabbli li jnaqqas €40 miljun min-nefqa tiegħu fid-dawl taċ-ċirkostanzi ekonomiċi internazzjonali li komplew jiddeterjoraw fl-aħħar xhur tal-2011. Il-Gvern ried ipoġġi lilu nnifsu f’pożizzjoni li, jekk il-kriżi ekonomika internazzjonali, jerġa’ jkollha impatt fuq pajjiżna kif ġara fl-2009, il-gvern ikollu r-riżorsi neċessarji biex jerġa’ jintervjeni fl-ekonomija u jħares il-postijiet tax-xogħol.Il-Ministeru tal-Edukazzjoni u x-Xogħol ukoll qed jagħmel l-isforz tiegħu biex inaqqas l-ispejjeż tal-istess Ministeru, kif ukoll id-dipartimenti u l-entitajiet li jaqgħu taħtu. Dan qed nagħmluh billi nirrestrinġu r-reklutaġġ ta’ ħaddiema ġodda fejn dan possibli, nillimitaw fejn possibbli l-overtime u nsaħħu aktar l-effiċjenza fl-operat. Dan mhux qed isir bi tnaqqis f’investiment kapitali, ta’ servizzi essenzjali bħal professuri, lecturers, għalliema, learning support assistants, kindergarten assistants u professjonijiet oħra li jħarrġu u jagħtu sapport lill-istudenti jew ta’ għajnuniet differenti. Ir-restrizzjonijiet fir-reklutaġġ b’ebda mod m’hu se jimpattaw professjonijiet kruċjali fosthom ta’ professuri, lecturers, għalliema, learning support assistants, kindergarten assistants u professjonijiet oħra li jħarrġu u jagħtu sapport lill-istudenti.
Incidentally after consulting Fausto the expert researcher I also got a confirmation that if one were to look at the Ministerial budget (item 5364) the estimate for stipends had already been reduced once between 2010 and 2011 – also by €100,000.
Between the 2011 and 2012 estimates there was an increase of €0.5 million (500k). Now that the estimates have been revised (as per EU requirement and as Owen and Varist are complaining) for a reduction of 100k that still leaves a NET INCREASE in projected expenditure of €400k (€400,000) for 2012. Where that increase will go, if it goes anywhere, is anybody’s guess and if anything suspicions should focus on creative budgeting but insofar as the original allegation regarding some vanishing stipends is concerned. Take it for what it is: hogwash. Or as we could politely call it… manipulative discourse.
Also. In case you were wondering. The Ministry of Finance also published a press release denying any decrease in stipends.
[[1]] Discursively, manipulation generally involves the usual forms and formats of ideological discourse, such as emphasizing Our good things, and emphasizing Their bad things. At all these levels of analysis it is shown how manipulation is different from legitimate mind control, for instance in persuasion and providing information, for instance by stipulating that manipulation is in the best interest of the dominated group and against the best interests of dominated groups.[[1]]
[[2]]Here’s how it works Owen and Varist. You had one apple. The government promised you two more apples last budget. The EU thought that the government was promising too much and should pipe down on its generosity. So now the government is giving you one more apple instead of two. You had one apple. You could have ended up with three apples. Instead you end up with two. That’s a 100% increase for you in apples but a 50% decrease in government generosity. Of course you choose to highlight the decrease. See? Easy peasy.[[2]]
