Minister Clayton Bartolo is not having a good week at the office. The tourism sector for which he is responsible is the playing ground for a huge dilemma that pits two different priorities of a nation against each other. On the one hand, the sector depends heavily on the free movement of persons into the island – an economic priority of the first order. No tourists means no money to go round. On the other hand, the current resurge of the pandemic menas that measures need to be taken to protect the citizens of Malta from another dangerous wave.
Health vs Economy should be a no-brainer. In his interviews the Minister repeatedly uses keywords such as “caution” and “responsibility”. Each time he is forced to toe the fine line between encouraging the tourist sector’s economy and reassuring the rest of the nation that all steps are taken in a way not to imperil the health of the residents of the island. As we watch the story unfold it is not always so straightforward. The rush to reopen the tourist sector, especialy the language schools, has had some negative results that may be even more painful in the long-term.
Take for example the case of the stranded and quarantined students. Malta’s language school sector has taken a definitive negative blow in Italy with the coverage of the quarantine conditions that the Italian students have been obliged to live in. Have a look at the title of this article on La Stampa which I am sure disgraced former PM Joseph Muscat would love to read:
Coronavirus, Dubai non è come Malta. Lo studente bloccato: “Assistiti da medici e infermieri. Per i miei 18 anni una torta dal ministero della Salute”
(La Stampa)
Lovely no? Malta is now the reference point on the negative end of the scale. Insofar as dealing with the pandemic is concerned, we have moved from top of the class in Europe to being the bad example that no one wishes to emulate. Incidentally, you would have thought that with all the talk the tourism sector has going about its importance they would have mobilized their resources better in order to avoid this kind of situation.
Labour’s rush to capitalise on the UK’s green-lighting of Malta was symptomatic on the eagerness to monetize as quickly as possible and make up for lost time. Disguised in terms of “assisting recovery” of affected sectors, such decisions are clearly a result of a twisted outlook that is not new in Labour’s vocabulary. This outlook is based on an unprincipled money-based approach to monetize on any disastrous situation.
Back in 2011 a Joseph Muscat in opposition would speak of the advantages that would accrue to Malta thanks to the instability in North Africa following the Arab Spring. At the time I had commented:
” … there is something wrong when a progressive politician suggests taking advantage of the Arab Spring to boost national tourism. It gets worse when the same politician lauds Italy’s heavy-handed nationalism on the matter of immigration.”
Pulse, J’accuse on the Malta Independent on Sunday
The Labour party approach to international disasters or events is as unprincipled as it is ruthless. Again back in 2011 George Vella (now President, then aspirant foreign minister) saw the troubles in Libya as a possible boon for Malta since they could end up solving the immigration problem once, as George Vella put it, Libya became a Dubai in the Mediterranean attracting investment (see Labour Loves Libya on J’accuse in August 2011). Now if you set aside the inconsistencies between Muscat’s hopes of attracting that investment rerouted away from a troubled North Africa and Vella’s hope that the investment (and the immigrants) goes to Libya instead you find the bottom line: Malta gaining economically on the back of other disasters.
The problem with the pandemic is that turning Malta into an economic hyena also risks damaging irreparably our reputation in particular sectors while also aggravating the health situation on the island. As the saying goes: Prosit Minestri.
