The latest ministerial resignation has confirmed how wrong is the government's decision to discontinue the annual publication of the detailed returns by ministers and parliamentary secretaries about their income, assets and financial obligations - as used to be done up to some time ago. The explanation that what's needed is for annual returns all to be done, by ministers and "common" MPs alike, according to the same model, does not hold water. An MP - unless he/she has been appointed to a major state position - will surely not have the same influence on government decisions as a minister; even less so from the Opposition side.
It is true that in the Maltese jungle, there will be those (and they won't be few!) who will at all costs do their best to promote scandals about the income or assets of ministers - and they do so in line with the belief shared by many, even when without any justification, in the evil their neighbours do. But in my view, that is the price all those who enter politics need to pay.
In fact, consider what has been happening as a result of the "measure" that is being implemented. Suspicions and allegations, upfront or subterranean, always find swift backing and interest, as well as endorsement. As from when controversies first erupt, ministers under attack find less and less people willing to trust them and their version of the facts at issue. Politically, government members today are in a much more vulnerable position than when they published their detailed financial reports.
***
PRICE OF GOLD
The price of gold has continued to climb. From the forecasts that get published, it's probable the trend will coninue. The price increase is being fed by the global uncertainties regarding international trade triggered by President Trump and his ever changing tariff markers; and by the weakening of the value of the American dollar. Both developments feed into each other.
Acutally the so called Project 2025 of the Heritage Foundation which has served as the guiding policy backbone of the US administration's current programmes envisaged a fall the value of the dollar. On that basis, the US would acquire a new competitive advantage.
It is not clear that there is a general consensus economically in favour of what is going on in the US itself. Questions are arising. Where are the major stores of gold held? Who could yet seize and control them?
***
EXPENDITURE AND INVESTMENT
I still maintain we're referring to investment incorrectly when describing how public expenditures are developing. The matter goes beyond any formal academism. It touches upon the awareness we need to have about how the budgetary allocations of the country are being shaped.
Investments refer to those funds which are not being consumed directly but are earmarked to finance expenditures that will cover construction, equipment and the origination of new ideas or new proposals, etc., all on projects that will mature in the future. Expenditures that are also necessary and valid - like the grants given for social projects - are consumed in the here and how. They are not investments.The building of housing that will serve as social accomodation in the future is an investment. Rent subsidies are valid and worthwile recurrent expenditures but they are not investments.