Should we not have at long last a clear account of where the Smart City project has gotten to?

Over the years, we were told so much about it. Beautiful promises and prospects were flashed at us from all quarters. It was meant to usher in this country a new era of endeavour in the most modern technologies of electronics, computers and informatics The in-word, apart from “smart” was “hub” (still in use today) to denote a centre of incredible activity.

If one dared to criticise what was going on, it felt like an attack on the Holy Grail, around which King Arthur and his kinghts of the Round Table congregated. I know. I was one of those who dared criticise, though looking back now, I believe I should have been much more critical.

The proper thing is for the people to be informed fully about what happened to all those promises. Not only because the state had a significant say in the implementation (?) of the project. But perhaps also to turn the mistakes made into a learning experience. And once this is being done, perhaps the process could be extended to other projects, like say. Chambrai in Gozo.  

***

A Canadian problem

Ratification by the European Union of the agreement on trade and investment between it and Canada is likely to be delayed. The agreement includes a provision describing how disputes between foreign investors and EU member states should be resolved by special tribunals of a private nature. A similiar provision for inclusion in an agreement like Canada’s that is still being negotiated with the US, has given rise to huge controversies.

Not without reason, the claim is being made that the provision will give foreign companies the leeway to restrict sovereign states when changing their legislation, if such changes alter the premises on which companies have based their investments in the countries concerned.

It is being argued that if the Canadian agreement is implemented in its present form, the road will have been opened to drive the US agreement in the same direction.

***

Abortion

In the flurry of statements that all say the same thing, and which in Malta counts for a debate on abortion, one point still escapes me. Is it being asserted that abortion should be prohibited and criminalised in all cases, including when it is carried out to save the mother’s life?

I am one of those who believe that in such cases, abortion should be allowed. The decision is between death for a still unformed baby, or death for the mother. The decision seems clear to me, unless the mother herself, freely and without being imposed upon, decides otherwise.

The argument that such an option would open the door for a wider acceptance of abortion is unconvincing. If we are really attaching deep value to human life, we should not allow vital decisions about it to be influenced by tactical calculations regarding how such decisions would affect our stand in favour or against any aspect of social policy.