editorial

The woman, the speech and the direction

Observing the Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami on May Day was more than just captivating.

He was in our view on target. Yes, he may have been hard, but then people need tough talk.
Driving the message home, is what leadership is all about.

It was more than obvious that Ms Micallef Leyson had not only upset the Prime Minister but had lit his earthly fuse.

And though Ms Micallef Leyson had some compelling daggers in her wardrobe she failed to pinpoint or purposefully concealed the real culprits in her essay. Revealing more would have undoubtedly doubly excited Mr Manwel Cuschieri.

Ms Micallef Leyson is a novice to politics, having spent a sizeable part of her adult life in the grey depths of rainy London.

When she returned she discovered more in common with the PN than the MLP, though she has said that she was at the time (in the UK) more than sympathetic to British Labour.

Ms Micallef Leyson who is Chairman of the Housing Authority has now evidently ignited the Prime Minister’s wrath and catalysed a debate. And political appointees are not detailed with ‘embarassing’ their masters.

In her article which appeared with some prominence in The Times, she argued among other things that the PN needed to promote some parliamentary secretaries.

Let us list them. We have Jesmond Mugliett, George Pullicino, George Hyzler, Antoine Mifsud Bonnici and Edwin Vassallo.

Now a pertinent question must be this; which of these should we promote to minister?

And then she talks of old faces and ancient mistakes. And once again we list the ministers: Lawrence Gonzi, John Dalli, Joe Borg, Francis Zammit Dimech, Louis Galea, Louis Deguara, Tonio Borg, Josef Bonnici, Ninu Zammit, Michael Refalo and Giovanna Debono. Obviously a more pertinent question is to ask which of these should the government decapitate.

The answers are not to be found in Leyson’s essay, for the woman did not propose any names when push came to shove.

She then moves on to give her outlook on policy.

Is it about government tactics or is it about inertia?

And here again ‘we’ focus on the issues which are giving government so much bad press.

The first is undoubtedly the government’s attempt to bring in revenue by solving rampant or irregular tax evasion.

The second is the attempt to liberalise the economy.

The third is to bring Malta in line with its commitments to join the European Union.

Now which of these targets is intrinsically wrong? And is there another more subtle way of delivering the goods to the Maltese public?

Leyson gives us no clear indication that she has any answers or alternatives.

In our view the government must move ahead with its reforms. It should also move rapidly to bring Malta’s culture of tax evasion to a partial halt, it should open up to liberalisation and it has to be frank about Europe. It has to convey the message that Europe is a do or die option for Malta.

When all this is up and running, the government will be in a position to deliver and sit back and focus on other long-term issues.

Furthermore the battle for Europe will be won by placing this economy in the right direction and for this to reach fruition the rails have to be placed and constructed on very solid ground.
One word of sound advice would be to explain the policies, and get the message across.

And this is where the problem lies: communication. And to blame, are the control freaks, the yes men and the boys at Pieta’.

But to bow down now to the complaints and cocktail gossip within Nationalist circles will only contribute to derailing the whole process. And no this is not 1996, the year of the election, this is mid-term.

And as for Ms Leyson; well, as always in politics, one can either shoot to stardom or disappear to oblivion. Ms Leyson may have committed hara kiri.

But then to be fair, Ms Leyson did ring a chord in people’s hearts and her comments should not be completely ignored or erased.