The balance that should have been kept in this country between industry and services has long been lost. In the beginning, the term “services” used to cover mainly tourism, and related activities. Towards the end of the 1980’s, the Fenech Adami administration began to promote financial services. First, we started with the concept of companies set up and registered in Malta while being practically regulated by nobody – offshore, as they used to be called.
Later, changes were made to the law covering these registered companies and to their status, so that they somehow began to be regulated by Maltese law. Before we joined the EU and since some years after we did join, this onshore sector grew hugely. It carried forward with it services related to the maritime register and internet gaming.
Services today carry a disproportionate weighting in the Maltese economy with consequences that we had better keep under review.
***
HAS RUSSIA BEEN TOO FAST?
In the race to provide people as soon as possible with a vaccine to protect them against the corona virus pandemic, Russia is claiming that its scientists have got there first. They have concocted an injection that solves the problem.
Instead of the explosion of joy that should have greeted this success, a litany of criticism and conter criticism arose. The Russians, we were told, had rushed too hard, did not observe international rules regarding how trials are done for new medicianls, they’re playing poker with people’s lives, and so on. This all came from “Western” governments, chief of which the US. Russia replied that its scientists had worked extremely hard with the greatest focus and dedication to quickly enable a response to the pandemic.
Personally, I disbelieve both sides. At stake are many thousands of billions of dollars in sales and profits as soon as the vaccine is marketed. All concerned would like this golden apple to fall between their jaws. The problem is that all of us in my situation do not have the means by which to verify which of the statements being made are valid.
***
NGOS AT SEA
As of now, I still fail to understand the strategy of European NGOs which come to the Mediterranean with the aim of “saving” irregular immigrants from a death by drowning, get them to reach the first harbour available, and then go back to repeat the routine. At the same time, the NGOs expect that the immigrants they have “saved”, or whom they declare are in danger of drowning, should be allowed to enter Europe without any hassle.
As far as I can tell, they still do not place their activities in the context of wider considerations about which they need to give replies. Do they understand that their activities encourage the operations of human traffickers? Do they agree that they are undermining the basis on which Europe could introduce a policy of legal migration? Do they envisage that there is a need for solidarity among member states of the EU regarding where and how arriving immigrants are to be repartitioned ? If yes, what contribution should they give to making this happen?
For as long as we remain without genuine replies to such queries, despite the aura of philantropic holiness in which they get packaged, one can only conclude that the action programmes of these NGOs are irresponsible.