 |
| Marie Louise Coleiro Preca |
If you ask the PL to tell you what its concrete policies on the economy, finances, social and foreign affairs, investment and employment - the bread and butter of politics - you will be very hard pressed to get an answer.
Joseph Muscat himself admitted on Xarabank that he will not tell us where he stands till the electoral campaign kicks.
But lo and behold, the PL has departed from this odd road to the nation's stewardship to declare what they will do about ... wait for it, suicides. They say nothing about Gaddafi while the historic civil war is still in motion but have taken time out to address suicides.
But wait a second. Have they or not? Let us take a closer look. Marie Louise Coleiro Preco, the PL spokesperson on the subject, starts off by raising the alarm that suicide rates increased from 6 to 7.9 per 100,000 between 2000 and 2009.
Ah, the pleasures of statistical incompetence. Does she know whether the increase is significant or not, that is whether it is caused by some factor(s) or simply accidental? She does not tell us. Secondly, citing foreign statistic she hints that it could be caused by "unemployment, poverty, oppression, social exclusion, and racism". Is she acquainted with the sad but realistic sociological theories which point to the increase in social affluence as the cause of the increase in suicide rates?
Now let us get to Marie Louise Coleiro Preca's policy on suicide. Unlike me, she is not a sociologist but a politician. Her job is not to analyse but to propose. Here is what she came up with. My comments are in english:
Il-Partit Laburista
(a)
jrid
juri s-solidarjeta’ u s-simpatija ma’ dawk il-familji li kienu
sfortunati u garrbu din it-tip ta’ tragedja; how nice
(b)
min-naha
l-ohra japprezza li l-mezzi tax-xandir juru sens ta’
responsabilita’ u maturita’ meta jahdmu fuq dawn it-tip ta’
rejaltajiet umani; how nice
(c)
jheggeg
lil membri kollha tas-socjeta’ Maltija, biex kulhadd jaghraf li
jista’ jghin biex jigu evitati s-suwicidji; how nice
(d)
jemfasizza li l-awtoritajiet ghandhom id-dmir li mhux biss ikollu strategija nazzjonali ghal
prevenzjoni, izda jkollu r-rieda politika li jimplimenta dak kollu li huwa
possibli biex kulhadd ihossu li qed jghix f’ambjent dinjituz u li jaghtih
kwalita’ ta’ hajja xierqa, biex ikunu evitati sitwazzjonijiet
iddisprati, li jistghu joholqu r-riskju ghal dawn it-tragedji umani. Fine, but where is the PL's proposal for such a strategy? Nowhere.
So alas, even if you wanted to elect Labour solely and exclusively on the strength of their position on suicide, they are not telling you what it is. Sorry.
8 comments:
If you ask the PL to tell you what it's concrete policies on the economy,
May I point out the misspelling of 'it's' in this sentence. It should read 'its'.
No it shouldn't
Re 'it's' and 'its": your anonymous correspondent is right. The possessive pronoun is 'its'. Do you mean to say I wrote a 1000 word-article about the matter to no avail?
On a more substantive note: it is the prerogative of Oppositions to criticise government performance without entering into detail about alternatives.Come election time, however, they have to come up with the beef and propose policies which they have to defend from the dissecting scrutiny of questioning voters. This does not, of course refer to truly major policy positions ( e.g. EU membership, VAT etc) but holds good for most other policy areas. The PL's position is quite legitimate - but in 12 mont's time, it will have to put its well-thought out programme where its mouth is.
Anonymous &n Manuel, I apologise. The Marsalforn air got the better of me.
I'm afraid Anonymous is right, Mr. Bondi. It's "its" and not "it's".
Also, I think you ought to finish off the subordinate clause with "are," after " ... politics -"
For a moment, I thought I mistakenly went to MaltaStar. :P
... and on a more substantive note, I cannot disagree more about what the role of an opposition is. An opposition critises from the same roots and principles which should inspire its proposals. So what is the problem with naming them? Is democracy just a sordid a cat and mouse game? Also, quite often, if the opposition criticises something - say closing down the Drydocks - it is in effect proposing something by default, keeping the docks open.
Social affluence? Interesting. Yet, it is just one theory, and it does NOT necessarily explain what happens in Malta.
Some guys back in the 1960s attributed increased suicide rates (amongst rats) to increased populations. Somehow this was generalised to the human population. Alan Westin in the book "Privacy and Freedom" has somehow linked it to privacy.
Linking this to Malta: Well, Malta is one of the densest countries on earth. On the one hand, arguably, to control suicides we need to control the population (just like the rest of the world should). Education is key to this (refer to UN documentation). The more years spent at University, the less children you'll have. The more expensive it is to raise children (due to Uni costs), the less children you'll have. On the other hand, people need a reason to go for further education, and they need to afford it. But I don't see sufficient demand in Malta. Do you? Of course, a decrease in population, per se, is not a solution to everything. The world is not as simple as 'reduce the population or not', or as 'close the docks or not'. That would be too simplistic.
Now, I believe that PL and PN are both in favour of decreasing suicides. They're just using different techniques. And both techniques are necessary!
I think that PL is doing a great job at discouraging people from going down the easy route. So your 'how nice' comments seem to be positive. Could you imagine what thousands of families in Malta would do, had PL not been doing what it does? i.e. providing hope?
On whether PL has a duty to propose solutions: Well, it definitely has a duty to do its best to provide to a BIG section of the Maltese population some form of comfort. However, as you said any political party's suggestions will be rooted in that party's ideological position. It wouldn't make sense for PN to adopt PL's suggestions, because PL's suggestions cannot conform with PN's ideology. So, and here it comes, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO EXPECT PL's SUGGESTIONS.
Furthermore, the Government has way more resources to get any expert advice it requires from independent consultants. So again: IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO EXPECT PL's SUGGESTIONS.
Now, I do believe that you journalists should do the same. Be compassionate, and be moderate in attacking people! And be moderate in attacking groups of people.
I must say that this article's title shocked me. It is common knowledge that one of the earliest stages of the process that could eventually lead to suicide is 'suicide ideation'. I'd say, change that title!
Last question (or point): Why the hell would statistical significance necessary???????
Manuel, if Lou Bondi were sharp enough with his apostrophes, he would have rebutted by telling you that you, too, are quite mistaken - above - when you write "twelve month's time". One would correctly write "one month's time" BUT "twelve months' time".
Post a Comment