WATCH | Alex Sciberras: ‘We were never arrogant with the people’

Labour will remain grounded and open to criticism even if it manages to secure a record fourth-straight election mandate, party president Alex Sciberras insists.  

With a week to go until Malta heads to the polls, Sciberras says Labour had many opportunities to become big-headed, but remained open to criticism and close to the people.  

“Our strength as a party lies with the people. The moment we distance ourselves is the moment we lose,” he says. “We were never arrogant with the people.” 

A former activist in his youth days, Sciberras also insists the party’s socialist roots are transmitted in their electoral pledges. He tells me that even Labour’s biggest pledges are rooted in social justice.  

“The super bonus has a double effect—it gives aide to people with lower income, but it also gives an injection to the economy. We saw this kind of fiscal policy work in the past and we seek to continue in that same way. For me it remains a major socialist pledge in the manifesto,” he says. 

Labour since 2013 have enacted progressive legislation on civil rights but in this year’s manifesto the only pledge of this kind is a referendum on assisted euthanasia. Asked why the party sought to go down this route, rather than seek an election mandate to pass legislation in parliament, Sciberras insists this is not Labour becoming less inclined to push such reforms but a recognition that the topic deserves wide debate.  

“To bury such legislation in a wider discussion that is a general election I think would be a disservice to the argument and we would be running away from responsibility,” he tells me.  

On former prime minister Joseph Muscat, Sciberras says he remains a respected individual within the party, and his following is testament to his standing within the party. 

But Sciberras tells me it is up to the people to decide when questioned whether Muscat is a liability for the party on a national scale. 

The following is an excerpt from the interview. 

The controversial planning bills dominated the tail-end of the past legislature and you had voiced your concerns publicly. Activists and residents are worried the same people who drew up the bills will be behind the changes to local plans. How do you respond to their concerns?  

I understand activists’ anxiety. I also recognise that more can be done in the sector. What I tell them is like on the planning bills, they will find a Labour Party which is ready to listen to them… 

But for a Labour government to listen to them they have to march to Castille Square like they did on the planning bills?  

No, not at all. I had spoken before any protest was held. The reality is that if we want to address this issue on how we look at the planning sector in the country, we have no other option but to address local plans. It is that conversation we should be having.  

The country has grown and people have matured. We have the economic strength to shield ourselves from outside shocks. As I said in many of my speeches, that places on us the responsibility of having wider conversations with people on mobility, development. This is not a red or blue debate, but a discussion which should be held at national level which will define what country we create for the future. 

You speak about the socialist credentials of the Labour Party, and I feel you bring that injection of socialist principles into the administration. The super bonus has been talked about a lot but a crucial point to this super bonus is that it will be given to everyone, regardless of how much they earn. Is this Labour moving away from the socialist principles it speaks about to secure another win?  

A strong socialist principle is a strong economy, because it is that strong economy which allows for the sustainment of social services and aide given to people. The super bonus has a double effect—it gives aide to people with lower income, but also it gives an injection to the economy. We saw this kind of fiscal policy work in the past and we seek to continue in that same way. For me it remains a major socialist pledge in the manifesto.  

You must also look at proposals as part of the wider plan. Together with the super bonus, you have specific targeted measures to help different groups in society. 

Another thing on the super bonus. Are you comfortable with Robert Abela boasting on how foreigners will not receive it? In the party’s general conference, you had spoken about how unfair it was for Omar Rababah to justify being Maltese; but doesn’t Abela’s rhetoric contribute to such mentality? 

I understand what you are saying, but there is another reality. Through all our good principles, you will find many who will abuse. If the super bonus was going to be given on your first day of employment, you will find agents who import workers and they end up abusing the system to get a chunk from that super bonus.  

This was a reality we saw in healthcare, with foreigners paying big sums to enter the workforce in order to use the healthcare system. These safeguards are not anything new and can be found across Europe and the world. 

But why didn’t Robert Abela explain it in this way, rather than emphasising rhetoric on foreigners?  

But are there not these anxieties in society? There is nothing wrong with the country’s leaders recognising and speaking about these anxieties. 

Joseph Muscat, especially in the past week, has been seen endorsing candidates. I understand his standing within the party and with Labourites, but are you comfortable with someone who is undergoing criminal proceedings to be endorsing your candidates? 

I don’t believe in cancel culture, and Joseph Muscat till now is still presumed innocent. He is undergoing proceedings, and I am assisting people who are also undergoing proceedings so I will limit my comments on the case.  

Joseph Muscat was leader of the Labour Party, and he was also prime minister of the country. Nothing will take away from that.  

When you put everything on the weighing scales, the Muscat years will be remembered as a period during which many advances were made. I will not be presumptuous in telling people where they should place their trust. The fact that everywhere he goes he attracts a large crowd is testament to how people view Muscat. 

But despite all this, in 2024 as the Vitals case was panning out, Muscat was a more central figure during that election campaign. In this campaign he has featured, but not as much. When you put everyone into consideration, like middle-of-the road voters and not just grassroots activists, is Muscat a liability for the Labour Party? 

I will let people make that decision. 

Another contentious issue is abortion. We’ve seen Prime Minister Robert Abela speak on how he believes woman should not go to prison. But why not even mention it in your manifesto? 

The worst thing we can do is give people a Hobson’s Choice. The worst thing that can happen for issues like abortion is that they become subject to political division. These are issues which require mature discussion and people should be given the opportunity to have their say on the issue. 

But how long are we going to wait? You led a very mature discussion on euthanasia, why can’t you do the same? 

It is an issue of belief. It is society which should be pushing forward these ideas for debate. The Labour Party has pronounced itself on the issue a number of times. Robert Abela has spoken out on not wanting to see woman go to prison, and back in 1989 a Labour general conference had taken that same position.  

We want to continue that debate. I think it would also be a disservice to activists if we turn them into a political pawn.