|
Alfred Sant comes across as a man with a few words, in this interview explaining what keeps him in the driving seat and where he sees Malta under a Labour government 
I meet Alfred Sant a mere twenty minutes after the Prime Minister’s artillery swipe at the Leader of Opposition’s budget reaction. Gonzi has just smeared it with unprecedented deftness, armed with scores of statistical ammo and loquaciousness. Sant is hardly impressed of Gonzi’s riposte.
“I consider it to be rhetoric but what we need to hear is how to create jobs, new investments and reduce bureaucracy. And from my point of view, what is important is how cost-effective we are being in the education, environmental and health,” Sant says. “Can he attack what we are saying? All he did was to refer to the past.”
Maybe not, but I tell him the Prime Minister was referring to the fact that Sant was incorrect in his reference to statistics, pretty much giving Gonzi a field day in parliament with his smart deployment of statistics during Sant’s brief, two-year administration.
“Taxes and indirect taxes are increasing and he is attributing an increase in taxes to a growing economy,” Sant says, referring to the Lm11 million more collected from taxation. Expectedly, he says that just by saying more tax has been collected does not mean the economy is on the right track.
So what about solutions? “We have been talking for ages about solutions and the priorities. We need to give a breath of fresh air. There is no one to run tourism. See what we did in 1998, Bugibba, Xlendi, M’lokk and M’Scala. We need to improve the product.”
And he goes on to talk about casinos, golf courses within limit and yacht marinas. He is talking about management, I tell him. A no frills and thrills answer follows: “This is a management issue. Ideology comes after.”
His solutions have so far been grossly denigrated. When he raised the issue about the gaping financial hole in the country’s finances, he was ridiculed and pooh-poohed by the Nationalist opposition. Still, how could he reconcile the fact that killing off the deficit does not really go hand in hand with the social welfare system?
He replies with a brand new line of argumentation: “In 1996 the margin to increase taxes was significant but now they are no longer large. There is little room for manoeuvre. The increase in taxes did not reduce the deficit. The margins have disappeared.”
So is he proposing that there is no room for new taxes? He says that the real problem is that we are collecting money but the way it is being spent is problematic. “Take the way the health bill is being managed – I believe that the future health scenario will still have to retain St Luke’s and Boffa hospital.”
Sant says the middle class has lots its ranking, and that the working class and those on relief are “close to poverty”. I ask him if he believes that tax compliance and tax evasion are a priority for him.
He argues that those who are in a difficult position cannot be targeted in this way. He is obviously referring to the Tax Compliance Unit’s investigations into backdated cases. “One must attack those who are in a powerful position,” Sant says, emphasising that “if you are strong you are given respite – if you are weak you are attacked.”
The government accuses him of being a destabilising force and bad omen. Without pausing he says that if there was ever a destructive opposition it was the Nationalist opposition. “Whenever we make proposals we are denigrated. Name them – the cost of living, on hedging, on tourism, on the European Union… they always attempt to ridicule the opposition.”
I ask him whether Labour really have a good enough team to govern, every time he says that Labour are in a position to govern. “Experience shows us this – but as you know the media and the so-called independent media attempted to break us. We made mistakes when we were in government, because we tried to do too many things at the same time.
“Let us face it: in the case of water and electricity we made mistakes because we based our proposal on technical advice.”
Still, although surveys indicate that Labour could win an election, Sant still lags behind in the popularity stakes, with Gonzi proving to be ahead of the Labour leader. “I do not comment on surveys but if the surveys are showing that Labour is ahead, then I must be doing something right.”
I return to the deficit. Ironically his criticism is about the way the government handles the deficit. Why does he go on repeating this? “The government is not managing well. Period. It is a question of using resources in the best way. I repeat that in our 1996 government, the possibility of controlling the deficit was possible but now the weight of taxes makes it impossible to increase revenues. We must work to make this country competitive.”
I fielded the next question and turned to Austin Gatt. Like him or hate him, Gatt is trying to change things.
“Let me refer to Gatt’s style – his arrogance is intolerable but beyond that his neo-liberal beliefs are nowhere acceptable.”
He even disagrees about whether Austin Gatt could be a better asset to the Labour party than he is for the Nationalists. “To neither: he is a problem to the country.”
I remind him that he has been accused of only being interested in power. “It is infantile to say this: in a democracy we have a role to play and we are simply doing our job.”
I ask him whether the people he says are supporting the Labour party are doing so because they like his policies, or because they are tired of the Nationalist government. Or both?
“Experience has proven that what we had said is true and time is proving us right,” Sant says.
Jokingly, as I ask him about the demonisation of persona, Sant says: “Please give me a second, I have to raise my tail on the table.” And to that he answers that this is politics and he can live with the pressure. What eggs him on in this job? Passion, idealism, power?
“I think that my project is the Labour party project and our dream is to make Malta a strong country with a good lifestyle, a good environment and a political climate that ensures that we take our own decisions.”
His answer reveals a patriotic and nationalistic streak. “It is my dream that we should be in a situation where we do not bow to pressure and we take decisions on our own.”
Today the Labour party accepts the EU, even having endorsed the European Constitution. But is wholeheartedly behind the European Union? Will he be enthusiastic about the EU if he gets to be Prime Minister?
“We are democratic and we have accepted the EU decision. But we believe we can participate in the EU forum and get the best out of the union.”
So how would Sant respond to the worries of Labourites if he gets to be Prime Minister? “We are going to be motivated by our interest in job creation, increasing the competitive edge…”
But is his government going to base its appointments on meritocracy? He is certainly unwilling to appear to be soft on remembering the pains and groans of angry Labourites. “It will be a government that will, I add work together, with all those we wish to work for the common good. There was a big fuss over what I had to say about the GWU. Is it not obvious that we and the GWU are on the same wavelength? If the UHM is willing to work together, then they are more than welcome.
“Let us look at substantive issues. They – the nationalist media – were shocked because I said that we should take the EU rules and use them to our advantage as other countries do. What is wrong with that?”
So is he optimist about winning the next general election? “I am always optimist but we must keep working until this date.”
|
