The Malta Chamber of Commerce hosted a debate on Wednesday between the PL and PN leaders, largely revolving around business issues. Who gave the better showing?
No mention of Ukraine surreal
Steve Mallia, former Times of Malta editor-in-chief and Media Insiders PR strategist
I found it bizarre that a debate between the leaders of Malta’s two main political parties was conducted by an institution that promotes businessmen’s interests rather than by a media organisation. This would be fine at any time during the course of a legislature but not at the height of an electoral campaign. It also meant subject matter was aimed primarily at its members’ audience.
Stranger still was that this debate took place in a surreal vacuum. The only mention made of the global crisis caused by Russia’s massacre of Ukraine – as if Malta somehow is immune – was a condemnation of “the war” by Robert Abela. No condemnation of Vladimir Putin from the prime minister and virtually no acknowledgement from Bernard Grech.
That aside, neither Abela nor Grech slipped on any banana skins. Abela was at his strongest when pointing to his management of the economy throughout the course of the COVID pandemic – pointing tangibly to his “track record” – though he was clearly unable to justify the politically expedient move to issue cheques to virtually every adult in Malta on the eve of an election.
Grech’s best moment was to mention that the PN would invest €1 billion in 10 new economic sectors but he fell short by backing this up with any detail.
Verdict: Though the PN leader presented himself well and scored some positive points – such as saying Abela refuses to admit mistakes – I found a lack of specifics lost him a few marks and for that reason perhaps Abela edged it.
A gentleman versus a charlatan
Salvu Mallia, television presenter and artist
Abela had an annoying attitude and, despite trying to speak in an authoritative tone, he simply looked fake and childish. He spoke to an audience of entrepreneurs and CEOs like they were his diehard supporters and tried to score points by saying he worked closely with some of them but, to me, that only made the insult worse.
He was also unconvincing on how he would generate income. Labour has largely made money off only two sectors – construction and passport sales.
Both are badly backfiring now and, to top that off, Abela’s failure to suggest new economic sectors convinces me that he will keep going down the environmental destruction road if he is re-elected. Moreover, most of his sensible promises were merely solutions to problems created by his own government – greylisting, open spaces and the reclaimed AUM land are just a few examples. First, Labour takes away the AUM land from us and now he expects us to thank him for claiming it back.
Same with the tax refund cheques. Abela is not giving us money. He is only returning extra cash that he had previously charged us in taxes, but he speaks about it like we should be grateful to the king for giving us the fish.
I prefer Grech’s vision of giving us the fishing rod. It’s less appealing than the fish, of course, but yields greater long-term results.
Verdict: Bernard Grech won hands down. Abela may seem like a great leader to the Ġaħan and ignorant part of the population but he is a terrible prime minister whereas Grech spoke with confidence and vision.
Talk of electoral reform refreshing
Desiree Attard, Legal advisor and activist
I was struck by the stark contrast in the leaders’ tone and attitude between this debate and the one at the university. Bar some isolated cheap digs that they threw at each other, the debate was a breath of fresh air.
They would do well to treat us with that respect in all scenarios, not just when they’re speaking to an audience of CEOs.
Abela remained more focused, prepared and convincing, whereas Grech seemed to stumble more often. He could be seen reading from his papers, albeit his manifesto, and played the European Union card again. When, in 2022, he still boasts about the good things his party did in 2004, he confirms Labour’s claims that the PN is still stuck in the past.
It was refreshing to hear the leaders speak about electoral reform. Its benefits go beyond their arguments about clientelism because it paves the way for third parties and women to be elected to parliament organically. I was glad to hear Abela speak about this so openly.
However, it’s very telling that not one question from the floor focused on low-income workers. Employers like to speak of workers as being at the top of their priorities but it’s very telling to observe that, when they actually had to chance to ask the future prime minister about them, no boss did.
Verdict: Robert Abela was more convincing.
Feeble tax talk
Christopher Scicluna, Times of Malta Deputy Editor
What struck me most in the debate was not what was said but what wasn’t. In January, the finance minister made a strong speech in parliament where he insisted that businesses cannot continue getting away with not paying taxes. While the leaders were busy insisting that they would not raise taxes, no one asked whether something was in store to enforce the tax laws.
Abela came across as being mostly concerned with dealing with the COVID crisis and the invasion of Ukraine, promising to keep energy prices stable and continuing to help businesses. Grech went further, however, by stressing his plans to create new areas of economic activity.
Alas for Abela, in giving examples of how his government works, he kept coming up with examples of how it is solving problems it created. This included ‘listening to the people’ by dumping the marina project in the same locality. Grech was right to retort that one listened to the people before, not after taking decisions.
Grech came across well by repeatedly admitting PN mistakes and being ready to partner business “rather than competing with you for workers”.
Verdict: Bernard Grech emerged the stronger.
Boring and uninspiring
Wayne Flask, author and activist
It was a boring, uninspiring debate. Both leaders knew they are in a showpiece for business and almost behaved at their best. The trade of barbs about each other’s villas is a reminder to the audience of how distant our leaders are from everyday realities.
We’ve heard most of these proposals already but what are they not talking about and why?
I lost count of the number of times the words “incentives”, “tax cuts” and “level-playing field” were mentioned; unlike the words “low-income workers” and their exploitation, which also leads to a distortion of the playing field. Similarly, nobody spoke about the living wage.
I would have liked a question about Clyde Caruana’s statements, prior to the campaign, that everyone should pay their taxes. All we got was ways how not to pay tax.
Both proudly admitted to dining with business. Later, “clientelism” was criticised by both leaders but only in the context of the electorate, as if businesses don’t lobby for favours. The hypocrisy is clear.
Verdict: Abela was better on presentation but I’d rather not have to choose between him and Grech. Because the winner, as usual, is the business class, showered with promises of best behaviour and fiscal gifts. But at what cost to the quality of life of the electorate, from the environment to workers’ rights?