|
There is an interesting statistic which contests big time whether the tourism industry really contributes to the economy as greatly as somany make it out to be. Despite all the assertions, no one has dared contradict those who have raised the issue.
No studies at all have been carried out to confirm the hubbub uttered by politicians of all hue and their peers is indeed true or not. Worse still, to continue subsidising big hoteliers as if they were the pillars of our economy is draining our pockets and coffers. Karm Farrugia, the veteran economist, and Edward Fenech, the AD finance spokesperson, question all the figures dished out about our tourism industry but no one seems to notice.
The issue here is very simple: should we fork out more money to this industry when their contribution to the state coffers is not as significant as hoteliers make it to be? No we should not.
And should we continue turning this country into a concrete junkyard? No, we should not. All these tears from the tourism sector that they need more money and attention is absolute hogwash. Worse still, there’s the budget afforded to MTA: why subsidise MTA and not the IT industry or export-oriented small industry? And can we sustain more tourism with our infrastructure falling apart? And why is it imperative to subsidise low cost airlines? Please don’t tell me that low cost are going to be salvation of this country: the salvation of this country is to have profitable businesses that leave profits, employ people, pay taxes and add value.
Bending over backwards for hoteliers by giving a few of them – not all – public land at ridiculous prices is one way of missing the wood for the trees. If the government is so serious about being serious, it would best reconsider its free for all policy at Ricasoli.
I just love it when the Nationalists get slapped in the face with their boomerangs. The appointment of John Camilleri as chairman of the PBS editorial board owes as much to John’s own reputation of pushing himself into cosy positions, as to the ease with which nepotism rules in our political landscape.
Before John it was Fr Joe, not exactly someone you’d call middle of the road, but then again who is? The system of nepotism has been perfected by the Nationalist party after the coarse nepotism meted out in the
Labour years, and yet no one dares question the system.But no matter how much they deny it, the thing that catalysed the Gonzi government to appoint a political commissar of the highest order at PBS was the decision taken by editorial board member Dominic Fenech.
Some time back, Mr Fenech, a historian but more significantly a former Labour party secretary general and a former pro-rector of the University, dismissed from the schedule a TV documentary by historian and university professor Henry Frendo on il-Perit.
He was probably right about why the documentary was not valid for broadcasting, but then it is very well known that he is also not on the best of terms with Henry Frendo. If Dominic had any sense he would have washed his hands off this one.
But then PBS is in such a mess that a little conflict of interest is no big deal. More importantly, and this was communicated to me by some Nationalist bigwigs, the decision not to air the Mintoff documentarywent against the PN’s grand design to remind the younger TV audience of big bad Dom.
Now for one to understand how Dominic Fenech landed himself in the editorial board, one must find out how he fell out with New Labour after having had his fun with Old Labour (at which point, you may find yourself confused on what old and new Labour may well be, but a simple aid would be to differentiate between the time Labour thug il-Fusellu would point a gun at your temple, and the time Alfred Sant as Prime
Minister would opt for a ham and cheese sarnie over the humble counter at Gambrinus).
Well Dominic Fenech, who served as Mintoff’s secretary general when Labour was at its worst and university pro-rector at its darkest ofrigid socialist and utilitarian reforms, was a very good friend of Lino Spiteri.
Spiteri, as many will remember, also fell out with Alfred Sant; and hence Dominic Fenech turned out to be persona non grata for the Labourparty, but not for the Nationalists – who appointed him to the editorial board which for the last years captained the PBS newsroom, churning the most mediocre of news programmes north of Casablance Dominic Fenech must be very proud for having left such a legacy.
Now for my sins. I have tried very hard not to refer to my former pet hates. But watching Last Tuesday’s interview with Alfred Sant I simply could not help it. With his interview Mr Bondì knows that he has struck the wrong chord with many of his Nationalist acquaintances for having allowed Alfred Sant to get away with some hard questions.
Mr Bondì will of course argue, quite strangely, that he owes it to no one but his audience. But some of his audience will think the opposite. There are aspects to his line of questioning that cannot go unanswered. Dr Sant was well trimmed and prepared, but his interviewer was not. One of the important questions Sant wasn’t asked as a follow-up to his suggestion to reduce the surcharge by 50%, was how he would possibly make up for the loss in revenue. My workings, which I believe are correct, show the annual cost of reducing the surcharge (at current rates) by 50% would be in the region of Lm24.5 million.
Under the current surcharge model, government today provides Lm9 million in direct mitigation of the surcharge cost. Without this subsidy, the current fuel surcharge rate would stand at 83.1% (rounded at 83% under the present model). Now the obvious question is where do you get an additional Lm24.5 million a year? My hunch is that someone will have to pay for it, so unless Alfred Sant has enough bottle to pull off the great train robbery it is inevitable that making good for the shortfall will come from our pockets, dear taxpayer.
Why politicians insist on hijacking cultural events with their drivel and mealy mouths beats me. Who came up with the grand idea of having speeches at Notte Bianca? By the time this newspaper gets printed, there would have been speeches by Gonzi, Zammit Dimech, Tonio Fenech (a parliamentary secretary for finances!) and Valletta mayor Paul Borg Olivier – how uplifting it is to hear their voices.
The response to the planned launch of a Maltese-language Sunday newspaper on the 5 November has been overwhelming. Many of those who look forward to buying Illum have asked me if this will be a replica of MaltaToday. The answer to that is no.
Will it have different stories? The answer is yes. Will it tackle a new audience? Yes. Will it be independent? Yes. Will it convince the advertising agencies to advertise? Yes. Will it succeed? You bet!
The police memo sent out for the police not to enforce the hunting regulations has led George Pullicino the environment minister to do exactly the following: nothing. Nothing is in fact one of the better things that some ministers are good at doing. But since Georgie is also at his best when trying to mitigate media damage, one must commend him for finally allowing Ta’
Cenc to be added to the list of European Union protected sites. It is refreshing to see that he has found the courage to add Ta’ Cenc even though his technical experts added Ta’ Cenc to the list in 2003 and he chose not to add it for reasons that I know, but I’d rather not say.
One final patriotic note. Are we sucking up to the Americans by offering bountiful space at Ta’ Qali and stripping containers apart for their sakes when they remain adamantly opposed to reaching an agreement on double taxation and visas? It is all about reciprocity. Just see how all the ambassadors from Italy, France, Germany and Britain apply unnecessary pressure on our government to open the doors for companies from their respective countries. Perhaps our foreign minister and his ambassadors should take some lessons in Mintoffian diplomacy and start pretending to be rottweilers instead of Persian pussycats.
|
