Opinion: I do not like ‘Malta for the Maltese’

The title of the opinion piece ‘Malta for the Maltese’ (June 11, John Vassallo) is an old political adage that cannot be left unanswered. Some of the preoccupations aired in the article are correct, but the proposed remedy is false.

In a globalised world such as ours, people move from one country to another for various reasons. I do not think that young Maltese people are leaving Malta to run away from foreigners while, at the same time, they are pleased to settle among foreigners in another country. There are several other reasons that account for outward flow and we know very little about them because we have not bothered to understand them.

As an EU member state Malta cannot just tell EU citizens to go back to their countries on the pretext that ‘Malta is for the Maltese’. This is one of the basic freedoms all EU citizens enjoy. We surely do not wish to ghettoise our society. I do not understand why ‘low-paid foreign’ workers should be singled out for sending remittances back home.

All emigrants do that and the Maltese did it in the past and are likely doing it now.

It is not only Caucasian Europeans who have the right to do what they want with their money. Foreign languages in our midst might not hurt our identity as much as native Maltese who pretend that their strange strain of English is our language.

Foreign religions do not bother me as long as citizens are law-abiding and do not employ religion to identify ‘us against them’.

Catholicism has long been reduced to pageantry as shown by the way the prevalent majority behaves towards its neighbour. You cannot lose something which you have already lost.

The main problem lies with the defunct economic model launched a decade ago, which led to economic growth with some positive redistributive effects but clearly ignored several realities such as our minuscule territorial size, competing uses of this limited resource, the negative impacts of growth on the environment, waste generation, traffic congestion and air pollution, to mention a few.

These impose a human and monetary cost on the population, and future generations, which accrues as profit to a small section of society.

That is where we need to focus on.

The model has led to downward pressures on some incomes and upward pressure on the prices of housing stock, particularly for our young people.

This rapid blitz has dramatically altered our urban environment with the minimalist care for open spaces and conservation. In a word, it has created another social time bomb that has started ticking. Mountains of construction waste have sprung up in places where they never existed before.

The saddest aspect of the story is that a clear, alternative model has not emerged. A modern growth model needs to be based on sustainable development, carbon neutrality and, above, all the welfare of all people living on the island.

It requires the strengthening of education and training and our much-lauded but deeply troubled health system. This is where our statistical data that reports output but ignores the costs of its externalities really fails us: it blinds us to the underlying drawbacks.

In the circumstances, I would hazard to suggest (but it will never happen) that our politicians would, for once, strive for a national consensus on a plan for the future of Malta.

We must, however, never give up hope on our country. I admire those brave individuals, many coming from the tourist sector, who have suggested that we should take a hard look at tourism and discuss the limits of its growth. This is a sector which, in 2021, directly and indirectly employed 51,000. It would be great if the other social partners could pitch in and enrich this exercise. Isn’t it time for a structured national dialogue?

Sadly, it is unthinkable that the mess that has been created can be quickly undone or to forget that it had its opportunity cost. Much of the resources that have gone into concrete and the accumulation of waste could have been employed more advantageously in alternative sectors with higher value added, respecting our environment and resources.

The young and future generations are left with the huge task of clearing the mess, which is epitomised magnified by a dysfunctional transport system, the disfigurement of rural areas and the once quaint and urban skyline.

Immigration will always be a part of our existence from here on. Our population structure, characterised by low fertility rates among the Maltese and ageing, will still impose on us the need to address gaps in our skills and labour supply. But an economy that shifts gear to more appropriate, less labour-intensive activities can help us to achieve a more reasonable equilibrium.

When all is said, foreign nationals who are working here, whatever they do, even the exploited ones, are servicing our economy in its present shape, in many ways. Their abrupt departure (which no one is suggesting) would lead to chaos.

They should not be insulted, after all, and, in the majority of cases, it is we who have requested their effort. But if we want to stop or change the trends in the growth of the resident population – or, possibly, reverse them – this country needs a long-term plan and not to pick on foreigners.

Roderick Pace is a member of staff at the Institute for European Studies, University of Malta. The views expressed in this article are not attributable to the institute.