Junk television, and worse (INT)

Category: Interest/Opinion
Subject: Media/Immigration
Original Author: Mark-Anthony Falzon

I am reproducing in full an interesting article by Mark Falzon an old colleague of mine at the Office for Fair Trading before he moved on to lecture at University and continue his studies in anthropology. I would enjoy discussing various issues with Mark at the old office particularly because his way of thinking was always unique and surprisingly informative. I think I can say that Mark was another of those individuals who encouraged the “think different” philosophy beyond difference for difference’s sake. Here is the Times article today. I cannot find anything in the article to disagree with….

Xarabank does not normally concern me. So long as the rebel without a clue and his guests discuss Verdala’s ghosts or Chiara’s misfortunes, I put it down as a harmless circus and make sure I’m miles away from a telly.

Last Friday, however, I had to make an exception, not least because of a professional interest in the subject of migration. It turned out to be a disturbing evening.

Three thrusts in particular held sway over the discussion, and all three missed the point. First, the “Africa is poor” argument made by members of the audience and taken up with self-righteous gusto by Peppi Azzopardi. No one in their right mind would seriously deny that many African populations face problems, but that is really quite a separate issue and not the one the programme claimed to discuss. Poverty and migration are related of course – in very complex ways – but this does not mean that they can be dealt with simultaneously.

Predictably, a second point of departure was Christianity – Bibles were brandished, déjà vu songs about St Paul being an immigrant sung, and I’m sure I heard someone screaming that Christ was crucified “ghax kien stramb” (because he was weird). Totally pointless. The Bible is a source of spiritual sustenance to millions but as far as I know it does not contain detailed plans for an immigration policy in a 21st century secular state.

A good chunk of the programme was spent harping on a matter which in the civilised world is obvious. I was very struck by the frequent use of the word “umani”. The argument was, apparently, that immigrants are “human beings like us”. A medical student in the audience sounded genuinely baffled that immigrants are “like the Maltese” and that they had offered her tea, and a member of the panel actually said that her main point was that “we are all human”. At one point Mr Azzopardi, with the straightest of faces, posed that most difficult of moral dilemmas: What would we do if we came across a drowning boatload of immigrants? I had to pinch myself. But seriously, is this debatable? Do we honestly need to convince ourselves that Africans are humans? Is this mainstream television in contemporary Malta or a Klan debate?

Responsibility for this intellectual mayhem must rest squarely on Xarabank’s shoulders. The main problem was the choice of panel, which included a priest hell-bent on martyrdom, a TV chef who halfway through the programme apparently rushed home (draped in a Maltese flag!) to turn off the oven, a singer of sorts, and a man who divulged that he had paid for his son’s iPod himself. The only two people who deserved to be there were Martin Degiorgio and Adrian Grima. The first, not because his group’s agenda is anything to be proud of, but simply because he stuck doggedly to the point and tried, quite unsuccessfully, to get Mr Azzopardi to discuss immigration. I’m sure Mr Grima had much to contribute but when he tried to start an intelligent discussion on multiculturalism he was immediately cut off by “Carabott” and his usual round of adolescent jokes. (In fact the real joke of the night was the sight of a Dominican priest screaming for a liberal agenda.)

And is it possible that the Xarabank team could not find a single articulate immigrant to air his/her views? The side panel consisted of the deafeningly silent Brigadier, the Police Commissioner who seemed understandably bewildered amid the chaos, and Parliamentary Secretary Tony Abela, who from time to time produced little sermons on the fairness of the world while he is in power (no prizes for guessing the implication).

We were also treated to a short film of a rescue operation, complete with heroic voice-over and military music reminiscent of the trailer for Rambo. Mr Azzopardi directed this embarrassing operetta with a typical string of threats of “naqtaghlek il-micraphone” (sic – and Freud please note) and cheap adverts. The gem was possibly the televoting question: “Int thossok razzist?” (do you feel you are a racist). Oh dear.

My argument is not that Xarabank is, in the words of Malta’s sharpest media analyst, “junk television”. It is that and much worse. Whether we like it or not Xarabank sets the agenda for much public discussion, as my Saturday morning visits to the grocer regularly remind me. When serious subjects like immigration are discussed we simply cannot afford to get it wrong. As it is, the Maltese are being forced to choose between the clueless sanctimony of the Peppis and the rabid banality of the Normans. Friday’s programme was a disservice to the Maltese public and to the precarious lives of thousands of immigrants.

Dr Falzon is an anthropologist and university lecturer.

Source Article

Stipends: Show me the money? (INT/OPN)

Category: Interest/Opinion

Subject: Education/Stipends/Economy

Source: J’Accuse

Today’s Times Editorial discusses the whirlwind reform of the University Stipends system currently being conducted by Louis Galea, Minister of Education in the “Stipendji Shah” government. As a former President of KSU I have been criticised on the blogosphere for having kept my mouth shut on this issue. Until now. My qualms on discussing Stipends is that most people seem to have already decided what I think about them before I even open my mouth. This has always been the case even in that tiring year of 1999 when I shuttled between the most detailed survey on student needs in University (and government history) and my final thesis while striving to obtain as just a system as possible even though I would not partake of any of its returns.It could be that the reason I could approach this objectively was the fact that I had no vested interest in the matter. The problem of course was that we were stuck with the many labels carried by one-track minded political observers and journalists. Here is a little historical introduction for those who did not follow so closely.

Stipends: The (Not so definitive) History

The Executive I was to preside was elected in May just before the elections that brought about the change of government from MLP to PN. We were elected under the usual cloud of controversy regarding the matter of representation – a discussion that has never abated simply because the controversialists failed to peep closely at the KSU Statute. The Executive in a properly working statute is in fact just that, an executive. For any political decisions (classified under Social Policy and Education) it had to obtain the approval of two Commissions made up of interested parties. This was never understood by most of the nay-sayers who preferred the leftist conspiracy theories to engaging themselves in positive action.The first task of the new Executive was to try to shed off the image of bias to the PN that it had unavoidably inherited by the questionable Delia Executive. Most people confuse the two executives (and I cannot blame them). The Delia executive is the one that led the students to the streets to protest (and I backed this decision 100%) and subsequently hijacked the whole issue for partisan reasons with disgusting partisan speeches at the end of every March. Delia was on a high at the time and enjoyed the media focus to the extent that he took every chance possible to suck up to the future powers to be and assist the Nationalist cause.

Unfortunately few people realise that Delia and his Executive are not the be all and end all of KSU. Our Executive re-established relations with emarginated associations like Graffitti and Pulse and immediately involved all societies in a Memorandum to Political Parties outlining what students would expect from a newly elected government. As an Executive that was our mandate when the nationalist government of ‘stipendji shah’ fame came to government. We were responsible to the student organs and the students themselves and could not give two hoots about what each of the parties promised… we knew what we had told them about what we would expect. That was our agenda.Our agenda was to review the stipend system (taking opportunity of the mess Labour had left with its headless tactics) on the basis of research and need. We came up with two documents: a detailed survey of the needs of every student and a document outlining our vision for Higher Education. Needless to say for the press this was all gobbledegook. All they could see was students asking for money and Nationalist promises and Labour rants and an SDM executive that was supposedly pacifying a PN government. How far from the truth! By the start of the negotiations we knew from reliable sources that John “Money” Dalli wanted to just add a token ten liri on what Labour had given us and thus fulfil the ‘Stipendji Shah’ promise. It was our work with the survey, our principled approach demonstrating the need of investment and temporary need of incentives to attract more people to HE that won the day. I think we deserve to blow our trumpet when we say that government conceded a stipend system that was much more beneficial than the one it had hoped to impose.Stipends: The Future

We always knew that the stipend solution of 1999 would be temporary. Stipends are a social tool that need to be adapted to the signs of the times. In 1999 KSU concluded that incentives were still needed to increase the University population. Malta was still lagging far behind developed countries in the students/nation ratio. In 1999 the economic problems for investment in University were not clear. What was clear was that the government would try to play the two against each other: more stipends, less university budget. This was more headless reasoning. Investment in education was an investment in the future. The two went together. So long as there was a need to invest and incentivise the two had to grow together. There would be other areas where we could save.

The wool thrown before the voter’s eyes is based on some kind of priority list. At one point the government tried to balance stipends with dockyard pay. One or the other. Like a Pontius Pilate in distress the government would try to play its decision making before the people: Who do you giving money to most? The Students? The Dockyard Workers? Who shall we dispense with today? There was no general planning. No grand design in which investment in R&D, investment in the future of the country was planned and balanced out.

I wonder whether today’s reforms are really placed in a grand design. Louis Galea thinks he can get away with saying that some courses will be given priority. On what basis? Is there a continuing structure that will be set up to monitor the job market, the country’s needs and the University’s performance? This is the same government that applied for the European Union in 1990 and still had not thought of having a course for translators and interpreters by 2005.

I still do not feel competent to discuss Stipends in detail. A year in KSU thought me that the details of a scheme combined with the job market and country’s needs is a matter best left to experts. The country needs to ask itself simple questions: does it want to be competitive or will it choose redundancy? Will we labour under the illusion that we are saving money now only to find out we are unable to generate any later? Education costs money, but then so does ignorance. That was my favourite slogan at the time and still is.

Of course we need to reform stipends. It is time to begin to decide on issues like means testing and promoting certain courses. We need to do this intelligently though. This is definitely not an area for the MLPN game to prevail. In my time we started an annual Conference on Higher Education bringing together government, employees and the education sector. We were proud of having taken the initiative and of having created a platform for discussion. Unfortunately I do not see the conference advertised on the KSU site this year. I do hope that the decadence of the wrong side of SDM has not reached KSU once again. And by the wrong side of SDM I mean the long arm of PN which, fortunately, during my stay at SDM was conspicuously in its absence notwithstanding what conspiracy theorists had to say.

Sources:
A web page constructed hastily to provide information to students at the time still exists miraculously. See it here.

J’Accuse Link

AD Energy Policy 6-Point-Plan (DES)

Category: Design
Subject: Energy Policy/Environment/Economy
Proposer: Alternattiva Demokratika

Greens call for energy policy
by MATTHEW XUEREB

 

Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Harry Vassallo called on Investments Minister Austin Gatt yesterday to form a cross party coalition for the country to draw up a sensible energy policy with which Malta can face the energy crisis, both in the immediate future and the years to come.Speaking during a press conference outside the offices of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development in Floriana, Dr Vassallo said Malta needs a comprehensive energy strategy in order to tackle the crisis in oil prices. AD’s proposals were then presented to the MCESD.

While it is inevitable that fuel and electricity prices reflect the real cost of providing energy, at least in the short term, counter measures are needed. The proposals include measures for alternative methods of raising the required Lm50 million for the next three years, by which time a full energy strategy for the Maltese Islands will have been drawn up.

Dr Vassallo said the party is insisting that an energy plan, with substantial provisions for the exploitation of clean and alternative energy sources, is drawn up. “We continue to pledge our full commitment to such an initiative as well as the expertise of the European Greens. We are disappointed that the only alternatives presented by the government are a mix of increases in fuel prices and electricity prices. More creativity is needed,” he said.

AD spokesman on the economy Edward Fenech said the party is proposing six measures which would mitigate the increase in the price of oil without having to excessively burden the country’s citizens.

AD was proposing a one-time extraordinary increase in income tax on commercial banks and other financial institutions from 35 per cent to 45 per cent in 2006. Party calculations show that this measure will raise Lm5 million in one year.

Its second proposal is that the opening of the Mater Dei Hospital should be put back by another two years, opening in 2009 rather than in 2007. By taking this action, the party said, the remaining capital expenditure will be spread over four years rather than two.

Mr Fenech said the government, through the Enemalta Corporation, should make a concerted effort to clamp down on electricity and water theft with targets of “saving” Lm5 million in year one, Lm7.5 million in year two and Lm10 million in the third year. This has to be done along with an internal cost-saving campaign.

AD also proposed that the government should shoulder Lm5 million of the increased fuel bill every year for the next three years.

Moreover, Mr Fenech said, the party believes there should be an increase in the price of fuel of four cents per litre in 2006, rising to 5c5 in 2007 and 7c5 in 2008. An additional 1c per litre is being proposed in order to subsidise the fuel cost of the public bus service to avoid the necessity to increase the current fares.Mr Fenech said this measure is being proposed on the assumption that the government embarks on a full reform of public transport in order to offer a quality transport alternative to the public, other than private transportation. This measure is expected to raise Lm15 million in year one, Lm17.5 million in year two and Lm22 million in year three.

Finally, AD proposed an increase in the electricity surcharge from 17 per cent to 25 per cent in year one and two and with an eventual increase of 30 per cent in year three. This measure will raise Lm5 million in years one and two and Lm7.5 million in the third year. The existing measures to exempt the needy from electricity charges as well as to keep charges low for other low-income sectors are to be retained, said Mr Fenech.

Sources:
The Malta Independent
AD’s Proposals described in full

Related Blog Posts:
Wara z-Zejt (Maqluba)