 |
8 AUGUST 2001 |
 |
|
          |
|
|
 |
|
Souring the pensions debate The Pensions debate, as expected, has been blown out of proportion and led to unwarranted speculation and wrong reactions from the unions. First we had a Pensions commission that could have featured in a turtle race and now we have edgy unions who are more willing to debate the issue. Acting in unison the unions have channelled their energies to talking of the negative parts of the pension commission report. The unions, one would imagine, would like to see a report that states that the pensions should be increased … and refusing to ask the question, who will raise the funds for pensions? The millions forked out yearly for pensions and social services are unsustainable. It is very simple, the amount of income the government rakes in from national insurance contributions can’t cover the expenditure in pensions. Such a scenario can only be offset in two steps: a re-dimension in our national insurance contributions and the reduction of state pensions together with the introduction of private pension schemes. There should be a basic pension for all, but beyond that there must be a framework to encourage the utilisation of private pensions. The procedures involved and the change in culture for such a reform are not small, but the least the General Workers’ Union, the Union Haddiema Maghqudin and the Confederation of Trade Unions can do is to come out with concrete proposals. There is no way we will be able to sustain pensions in ten years’ time. Something must be done. The time bomb is ticking. If the government fails to act they will be extending a disservice to the younger generation who will have no alternative but to fend for themselves. The demographic trends will be so severe in the years to come that one can see a bankrupt social welfare system. We must act now and avoid politicising the whole debate. Alfred Mifsud and the Voodoo doctors When Super chief and MLP heir apparent, Alfred Mifsud wrote in The Malta Independent the Nationalist media turned to feast mode. Mr Mifsud was interpreted as saying that if the need arises the Labourites would resort to violence. Mr Mifsud wrote and we quote: "Unless ‘they’ want to force Labour to resort to the threat or use of violence with which Mintoff used to control the power network, the network must dismantle and give Labour a chance to govern in accordance with the electoral mandate." Mr Mifsud was stating that if Labour was not allowed to govern when elected then violence the Mintoffian style would be an alternative. Why the fuss? If a democratic process is at stake, can violence be ruled out? Surely many nationalists have an opinion about this. But why this storm? If there is a feather in Dr Alfred Sant’s hat, it was his handling of the violent elements within the Labour party in his two years of government. Everyone remembers the smooth change of power in 1996. The hysteria over Alfred Mifsud’s article is a feeble attempt to add unnecessary fuel to a fire and to deflect attention. In the present economic and political climate such senseless spin doctoring can only cause harm and unnecessary alarm. Let us focus on this country’s ailments and put aside this poisonous voodoo magic. The Nationalist party and its machinery should focus on the issues and stop crying wolf. By acting in such a manner it is proving that it has no issue to tackle and no agenda to discuss. Violence is a thing of the past and to worry over the threat of violence in 2001 is taking the thing too far.
|
||||||
|
|||||||||
The Business Times, Network House, Vjal ir-Rihan San Gwann SGN 07
Tel: (356) 382741-3, 382745-6 | Fax: (356) 385075 | e-mail: [email protected]