How big a pinch in government spending is €175,000 per annum? That is the figure that Education Minister Evarist Bartolo claims to be saving the public purse by removing the smart card system and transforming that portion of money into a grant going directly into the students’ purses.
There seem to be murmurs of new controls (checks and balances) on how such money is spent by students – such controls seem to have the nihil obstat of the KSU president who suggested a system of providing receipts for purchases. Sadly no one has yet mentioned how much said systems of checks and balances would cost, consequently we do not even know whether the new cost will be cheaper than the above mentioned administrative expenses that are needed to keep the smart card system in place.
Beyond the petty accounting from a government that increased the annual emoluments to its appointees by €25,000,000 last year (had to put the zeroes to give you a sense of perspective), the move to remove the smart card may have been packaged in the attractive (but deceptive) wrapping of a money saving exercise but it belies a hapless approach to the very reason of the existence of stipends (and maintenance grants, and ring-fenced expenses).
As was argued a good 16 years ago by KSU (and yes, I did form part of that KSU) every time you discuss stipends you have to be aware of why they exist. 16 years ago it was convincingly argued by the KSU before the Galdes Commission that stipends were still a necessary incentive to keep thousands of students out of the work market and in the tertiary level of education. The report we produced in 1998 is too long to summarise here but you can get a read on this link.
Now this government does not seem to be questioning the need for maintaining a system of stipends and grants. The changes were simply cosmetic based on spurious economic justifications. It is rather ironic that the KSU should be in favour of the switch away from smart cards while the GRTU expresses its disappointment. Well, not so ironic given that the main flaw of the outgoing system seems to have been the abuses by retailers who were never intended to be part of such a scheme. The idea behind smart cards was to ensure that the expenses strictly related to educational requirements of the students could be controlled. Money intended for books and stationery would not end up spent on vodka and Easter weekends in Gozo.
Nanny state? Maybe. But this was intrinsically linked with the basic policy of why stipends existed. It is easy to take the Daily Mail approach to stipends and start off your average newspaper column with a whinge about how students have it so easy and that it is about time that stipends are removed. Thatt does not mean that you have the bigger picture in mind. it just means that you are willing to ride the wave of public sentiment that is always so popular in Malta.
The truth is that stipends should form part of a wider set of targets and policies that not only effect the educational levels of our nation but also employment and development policy. Bartolo’s lame excuse of saving the equivalent of one-third of the spending on a Joseph Calleja concert is ridiculous when seen from this wider perspective. As things stand, a specific measure designed to ensure that a substantial part of the monies allocated to subsidising student autonomy in tertiary education is used for the purpose for which it was intended has been shot down with no effective replacement in sight.
Sure, the system was being abused – but rather than create a better check and punish abusers the government has chosen an easy way out that utterly compromises the whole idea of ring-fencing the student subsidy system. By saving €176,000 on an imperfect system of checks and balances, the government has now opted for no checks and balances – at least until we are told whether any new system is in place and what it entails (and how much that one will cost).
As for the KSU, they might be applauding this move enthusiastically but policy wise they should be seeing this as a heavy burden to carry next time a new debate comes up as to the necessity of stipends in this day and age. By discarding any possibility of restricting the spending to educational purposes they have also discarded one of the most convincing elements in favour of Malta’s very specific approach to tertiary education subsistence.
The Education Minister added that students were already spending their grant in non-related educational expenses and, in this way, student would learn how to be responsible with their money.
KSU President Gayle Lynn Callus welcomed the reform but called on government to ensure checks and balances are in place on how the students spend their grant.
Thanks to an Evarist Bartolo link on facebook I came across this article on Maltastar that compares the wages between Malta and Luxembourg taking data from a recent survey based on “average wages” and the Purchasing Power Parity. While it is interesting to look at figures consisting solely of wages as averaged out in relation to how they could be spent in the US it is obvious that a peek at the utility of that same wage in the country where it is earned would give a less skewed picture.
So while Maltastar is busy comparing Malta’s average wage of 1,808 dollars per month to Luxembourg’s whopping 4,089 dollars (top of the world) per month it would do well to look out for other stuff such as the actual cost of living in those countries.
I could not find Luxembourg or Malta on the famous Economist Big Mac Index that is based on the One Price comparison for good. I don’t frequent McD mainly because of my allergy to gluten so I would not know the prices myself. I did found this site called numbeo however that does a cool comparison thingy between states. Sure enough I confirmed what I was suspecting and here are the facts for your perusal.
Just for the sake of perspective look at the rental costs for a 1 bedroom apartment – Luxembourg average is 950€ per month while Malta is 350€. As for buying property in Luxembourg compare the 5500€ price per square metre to Malta’s 2500 €.
This is not to say that Malta’s salaries are great or that prices cannot be more competitive but rather to point out that sticking to comparing wages is deceptive and intentionally portrays a fraction of the picture. Just to give you an idea of how relative the issue is, some unions of the EU fonctionnaires based in Luxembourg have been complaining that the salaries for Luxembourg workers are equal to those based in Belgium even though the cost of living in Luxembourg is much higher.
As in the case of the gas price hike J’accuse’s point is that rather than selective charts to fuel the discontent of the voter what we really need to see is what the political parties gearing up for next election are offering on their programmes so that we may be able to assess if any part of it includes – oh hope – solutions or at least attempts at solutions.
And by the way Varist, the guys at Maltastar COULD make an effort rather than cut and paste Ruth Alexander’s article from the BBC site. Next time you decide to cut and paste you should not leave out this damning assessment on the reliability of the figures:
In truth, the economists at the ILO have had to rely on very patchy statistics. Data is missing for some countries – even a country as large as Nigeria, for example. And also, the economists at the ILO are only counting wage earners.
They exclude huge numbers of people who appear in the poverty statistics but not in the calculations for the average wage – pensioners, children and stay-at-home parents, for example, and even the self-employed.
The number of self-employed is huge. In developed countries about 90% of working people are paid employees, but that figure is lower in many developing countries. For example, in South Asia, where many people are self employed or independent farmers, just 25% of workers are salaried.
The conclusion drawn by Ruth Alexander in her article must not have made for comfortable reading at Maltastar because it defeats the very (loose) point they were trying to make. Maltastar’s selective reporting (cutting and pasting) centred on comparing Malta’s wages with the best in the world. In truth the report concludes that ” that the worldwide level of economic development is in fact still pretty low, in spite of the huge affluence that we see in some places.”
Essentially an uncomfortable truth that the economic pains that are being suffered in Malta are (unfortunately) a symptom of a “worldwide level of economic development”. Sadly for Maltastar and Varist, it’s not GonziPN who is to blame.
David Cameron is in trouble. He has admitted to hosting dinners for major Tory donors at his private flat at Downing Street – against payment. Tory Chief fundraiser Peter Cruddas has had to resign in the wake of a scandal after he was filmed by undercover Sunday Times reporters “claiming that he could secure them an audience with the Prime Minister or Chancellor”. Access on offer depended on the size of the donations and he implied that the wish lists by donors could end up being considered in the “policy committee at No 10”.
This morning’s Tory position is that the party will refuse to name any donors who have already taken advantage of this “scheme”. The excuse being put out is that if there were any such dinners they were hosted within the private area of the PM’s flat in Downing Street and therefore the details pertaining to such events would also be private. Which is a load of bollocks. Put simply, if a donor paid anything up to £250,000 it was not to ogle at David and Samantha’s dinner set or sample their culinary intrepidity but rather because of the more appetizing possibilities of influencing public policy. Also David and Samantha do not live in Downing Street because one day they found a good bargain on the property market. They live in Downing Street because the British Prime Minister lives in a flat next door to his office. A flat funded by taxpayer’s money. Private my backside.
The problem here lies not with the idea of parties going round begging for money to keep their circus alive but obviously with the manner with which such monetary collection is performed. Back home Labour politicians have gone all misty eyed at the generosity apparently demonstrated by the man in the street as the PL managed to get its supporters to cough up a little less than the price of a “private dinner” at Downing Street in the course of a one day fund raising event. Evarist Bartolo went on that most public of records (facebook) to declaim that “one euro from a family is better than a million euros obtained from a contractor found on the Yellow Pages”.
Franco Debono has brought the issue of party fundraising to the forefront of Maltese politics, much to the chagrin of both behemoths in parliament who had opiated the population into a reluctant acceptance of the modus operandi. How though will we ever regulate party donations? Will not some rulebook thrown at the very custodians of our political framework fail spectacularly as the PLPN will proceed with their regular charades of “fund raising” where the anonymous benefactor (and purchaser of influence) mingles with the happy one euro families?
So what solution? Should we look across the Atlantic where dinners are openly thrown on a regular basis in order to support candidates? It’s not tombola parties or seven church visits with your local MP – that not so subtle excuse to justify electoral expenses. It’s more like gala dinners with €1,000 tickets per guest where the creme de la creme of societies lobbyists mingle with politicians and openly flirt with their affiliation. Yes, capitalist money has votes as much as your emancipated self. It either operates in the back corridors as your latest Cruddas auctions off the nation’s public policy to the highest bidder or operates in the open – where you can see who backs who and eventually might even choose to vote for the polticians who are clear about the allegiances who have curried their favour.
The fine link between the lobbyist’s influence and the politician’s decision will never be broken. What could be done is lift the veil of anonymity thus making the pacts clear and the giving the voter a clearer picture of the wider frame of the political horse-trading going on.
Will it work? Hang on to your money. I’m not taking any bets. Or donations.
Labour (Inhobbkom’s Labour not Ed’s New New One) is busy conferencing this weekend. They’re huddled cosily in the university’s Aula Magna for a full day of talks in a conference entitled “Revisting Labour’s History” and I still cannot get over the fact that I was unable to make it there. Yes, you read that right, I would have loved to witness at first hand this conference of sorts that is part of the wider Labour strategy of “Re-”s. They’re re-visiting their history, re-inventing their logo, re-gurgitating old economic principles, re-moving their facial hair and (once again) re-cycling an image that has been a work in progress since is-Salvatur ta’ Malta went into re-tirement (never a minute too late).
There’s something manifestly wrong in the way Labour went about this whole “re-” business though, and this weekend’s conference contains some clear pointers to what that could be. Someone, somewhere is guilty of a gross miscalculation when choosing the title first of all: “Revisiting Labour’s History”. It’s the political equivalent of a Freudian slip combined with all the evident trappings of a modern day “Pimp my Party” in the making. The term “revisit” is a few letters away from becoming “revise” and I have a hunch that this is not a small coincidence.
In legal terms, when a court revisits an earlier decision it normally does so because of the necessity of reinterpreting the earlier position – there would be not other reason to revisit and reopen the case. In historical terms there is another “re-” word that is of relevance here. It’s the idea of revisionism. Revisionism need not always be extreme as in holocaust denial. Reading through the agenda of this weekend’s conference, I couldn’t help but think that Labour is sorely tempted to rewrite some chapters of history of its own. They’ve been at it for a while now and we have all become used to the polyphonic history of our islands – whether it is sung by Mary Spiteri to the tunes of Gensna or whether it is yelled from the pedestals of il-Fosos by the latest crowd-stirring nationalist orator – the messages are always excitingly dissonant and cacophonous: the result of two virtual realities and perceptions colliding.
Rapid eye movement
The political audience is already, as it is, doomed to the regular resurrection of revisited myths and legends in our political discourse. The narratives woven by opposing parties are now firmly ingrained in our collective minds and it is hard to reasonably detach from them completely. It is extremely significant that, bang in the middle of the process of change and reinvention, Labour chose to “revisit” its history and discuss, among other things: “The Worker Student Scheme: 1978-1987”. As I type (11.30am, Saturday, 2 October), Peter Mayo is about to launch into an explanation of how Great Leader Mintoff (May God Give Him Long Life and Order a Hail of Stones on All His Evil Wishers) sowed the seeds of the stipend system and how we must be eternally grateful for his insights that allowed us to progress to a university accepting 3,000+ freshers this year.
The irony will be lost on the listeners sitting in that cosy hall of the Aula Magna on the 2nd of October 2010 that 33 years and one day before this the atmosphere in that very same place would best have been described as tensely electric. I wonder whether Peter Mayo will stop for a moment to explain to the young listeners (I’d imagine a Nikita Alamango fawning in the audience – one who according to her latest Times “blog” post cannot stand the PN reminders of the past) that on the 3rd October 1977 the opening ceremony at university featured heavy protests by the medical students who had just been shut out of the course (and always risked brutal cancellation if the thugs decided that it was open day at Tal-Qroqq).
Sure, it was not yet 1978 so it might (just) be beyond Peter Mayo’s remit. He will be forgiven therefore for not reminding those present that only two days later, on 5 October 1977, the man dubbed as is-Salvatur tal-Maltin would walk past a group of students chained to the railings in Castille oblivious to the fact that his government’s decisions in the educational sector (the much lauded Worker Student Scheme) were about to deny thousands of young people the path to tertiary education and send them abroad in droves.
Remember, remember the 5th of October
To be fair to Peter Mayo he probably couldn’t dare criticise the workings of the Great Leader. Not after a wonderful morning discussing his battles with the church in the sixties and his “electrifying” speeches to the proletariat. The electric effect Mintoff and his handymen had on some parts of the population would best be described as “shocking” actually. Whatever you may think of Labour’s dim-witted purposive ignorance of the past and bulldozering of historic relevance, don’t you for one moment run away with the idea that it is only the party of Joseph, Evarist (Bartolo – of removed stipends fame) and Alfred (Sant – of interview boards at university) who is in the business of revising historical facts.
You see, I sympathise with such Young Turks as Nikita Alamango who are frustrated at having to carry the burden of Labour’s past every time they squeak a new idea or criticise the current regime (sorry – did I say regime? – it’s the “Re” word fixation). Hell, this week even the German Republic paid the final instalment in World War I Reparations (started paying in 1919 and was suspended as long as Germany was split). Ninety-two years on and the German conscience is slightly freer – so why not Labour? Most times they are right. PN lackeys all too often emerge from the primordial slew of infertile political ground and rely on historical mudslinging for want of a better argument.
The problem I have with Labour is twofold – disputing the relevance of past actions is one thing. Revising (sorry, revisiting) them is another. Revisiting them on the anniversary of events that marked the watershed of Old Labour’s hopeless politics of the late 70s is insulting – insulting not just to the PN hardliners but also to neutral observers like myself who can see through the charade. Labour cannot expect this to go unnoticed. It is strategically stupid and politically insensitive. It does not stop at conferences: Recently, someone from Labour’s “think-tank” (IDEAT) was busy on Facebook quoting a party press release which stated that the current government’s agreements with China are a confirmation of the Labour vision of the seventies. Sit down and weep.
Virtually real
Mine is not simply an angry case of indignation though. Labour’s Revisionist Conference is part of a wider mentality that is the inner workings and thinking of the two major parties in this country. In this day and age of multimedia and mass communication, the modes of communication might be evolving at such a rapid pace that we will soon be tweeting in our sleep, but there is one basic constant whether it’s TV, radio, newspaper or Internet and that constant is the word. In principio stat verbum (in the beginning was the word) and it’s going to be with us for a long time yet.
Words and their meaning are at the basis of whatever construction of reality we choose to live in. Einstein once stated that reality is an illusion but a very good illusion at that. The PLPN (un)wittingly engage in a constant battleground of establishing the reality in which we live (and that is why they NEED the media influence). Whether we are considering the “cost of living”, the “minimum wage” or the “living wage”, we sometimes fail to notice that a large number of constants that we take for granted in these arguments are the fruit of elaborate definitions of perception suited to whatever party is making its claim. We are not that dopey really – there is a general acceptance that “parties colour the world as best they see it”, and although as a nation we struggle to come to terms with irony and sarcasm we still manage to joke about the PL-PN chiaroscuro worlds.
I am not sure however about how much the electorate is in control of the button that switches us between perception and reality. How capable are we of switching off the virtual reality and putting our foot down when we believe that things have been taken too far? Can we decide when we want to open our eyes? Are we, like the character in Almodovar’s Abre Los Ojos (open your eyes – spoiler warning) still able to opt out of the programme that creates a “lucid and lifelike virtual reality of dreams” and yell that enough is enough? Worse still – have the very parties that are responsible for the manufactured realities that we inhabit become so embroiled and enmeshed in them that they are unable to find the switch themselves?
Denial
Take the Nationalist Party. They are an incredible subject for this sort of test. This week they engaged in a mind-boggling collective exercise of denial of truths. We had Minister Tonio Fenech and his cataclysmic Tax-Free Maid slip. Watching The Times interview that gave Tonio a chance to right his previous wrongs was like watching an exercise in verbal prestidigitation featuring a ministerial equivalent of the Mad Hatter. Quizzed on VAT he replied on Stamp Duty and vice-versa, and then went on a trip about not having to answer about private affairs that he himself had brought up as a public example. You could only squirm in your seat as you watched Tonio attempt to make his statements vanish into thin air. Apologists tried other tactics – the cream of the crop coming from the Runs claiming that since the law is inadequate then Tonio and his maid are right in not following it to the letter. Perception? Forget the doors… they’ve swallowed the key.
Meanwhile El Supremo del Govermento was busy wearing the party hat, having been asked to pass summary judgement on the PBO-VAT saga. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi found absolutely nothing incongruous with the fact that his very exacting sec-gen failed to apply his own standards of political propriety when faced with a legal crisis of his own. Same same but different – just like in the alleyways in Thailand when they sell fake brands. Fake – it’s just an illusion of reality but not exactly so.
As if PBO and Tonio were not enough, we also had the DimechGate spin-off in the form of the uncomfortable presence of Robert Arrigo – the last of the disgruntled backbenchers. PN councillor Yves Cali was the latest to slip in a frank interview with The Times in which he more than just alleged that Arrigo was in the business of throwing his weight around the council to get what he wants. Yves (or Bobby) tried to retract his statement so an irritated Times published a transcript of the interview in which the allegations were made. A transcript – that’s a word for word proof that the statements were made. Quizzed about this, Paul Borg Olivier (fresh from his own reality check) came up with the quote of the week by insisting that the transcript published by The Times was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Yves Cali”.
Open your eyes
Take your time and read that short, Orwellian PBO phrase. If ever there was an example of the convoluted logic somersaults performed by parties to twist your perception of reality, here it was.
The transcript (a text bearing witness to reality at its crudest) was not faithful to the statement of clarification (an attempt at revising/reinterpreting that reality). And which reality does PBO want you to believe? No prizes for guessing.
We need to open your eyes. This is a political generation that one week expresses its love for the environment on car free day while parading in front of journalists using alternative modes of transportation and then, in the following week, the collective parliamentary group (PLPN) self-allocates a huge chunk of (previously pedestrian) Merchants Street for reserved MP parking in connivance with the Valletta Local Council (remember Cali? “We serve our MPs and Labour serve theirs”). The excuse? It will free up more parking for residents and visitors. Park and Ride anyone?
It’s time we opened our eyes – and remember, sometimes actions speak louder than words.
I may be tired and packing for a ten day trip along the Rhine that kicks off tomorrow does not augur well for deciphering Evarist Bartolo’s version of the Lost Symbol but if I am not mistaken he is insinuating that huge companies in Tokyo and Copenhagen had more than a hand in the assignation of the BWSC contract (remember that hot potatoe). The name dropping is not on the scale of ENRON style scandal but by Maltese standards it is big. There is an alleged web of intertwined interests that lead to linking the tenderor and the tenderee on the energy contract. There’s more. Bartolo does not shy back from implying that KPMG auditor to many of the parties involved served as a bridge between all the parties and government. And all this to lead to where? it’s not clear Who, What, When, Why or How but the conclusion is that:
“The PN has a system of fundraising where companies win government contracts and donate money to the PN. They are all part of the PN’s JS list,” Bartolo said, referring to the so called list named after former PN treasurer Joe Stellini.
Which is one hell of a whopper. From DimechGate to JS-Gate. Only, as I have been lamenting all the while, we need more tangible proof. We need cases before the Public Services Commission. It’s not a problem that the allegations surface on a newspaper – the newspaper is only attempting to perform its duty as part of the fourth estate – but there must be a follow up using the full strength of our democratic institutions. In a way there was never a shadow of doubt that contractors in various markets benefited from their contacts with the PN and that they performed services or investments in return. We just needed someone to get talking about them as a first step to something more direct being done about it. We do not have a magistratura in Malta as they do in Italy so do not expect a flurry of avvisi di garanzia very soon.
The “mani pulite” that began with Dimech Gate might (and I stress the might) be about to widen up to something big. The biggest problem remains the prevailing culture that will probably read to a shrug of the shoulders and a “no shit sherlock” approach. In the land of the blind the parties supported by major contractors are Kings.
How big a pinch in government spending is €175,000 per annum? That is the figure that Education Minister Evarist Bartolo claims to be saving the public purse by removing the smart card system and transforming that portion of money into a grant going directly into the students’ purses.
