The claim has been made recently that not enough attention is being given to the need for greater government expenditure on defence and security. The claim is justified. The subject of defence expenditures rarely excites much interest among people. Naturally they prefer discussion about government financial outlays to focus on subsidies and social welfare transfers, pensions and tax cuts.
Yet a major responsibility of a government is to organise the best possible defence and security system for the state, in the interests of all citizens. Such a duty cannot be ignored. Otherwise when there is an urgent need to activate such a system, too late it would be found wanting.
The argument that we do not need to invest in defence and security because the island is neutral is totally mistaken. Even more misguided is the other claim that is sometimes made that we should simply rely on the EU to defend and protect us.
It still remains true that debates on this topic will not win votes for either the government or the opposition. Everybody prefers to keep matters pending... as long as no unexpected emergency arises.
***
BANK DISRUPTION
It was good to learn that in half a day, the Bank of Valletta succeeded to contain and reverse the disruptions in the systems of its online services. The interruption of services however lasted for hours and caused problems to many consumers and enterprises.
The Bank's communication to explain to the public what had happened was too "dry". Was it enough to just say that a "technical" problem had arisen? And leave it at that, as if nothing much had happened? The need to provide some basic information about the type of problem that had to be cleared should have been obvious. Otherwise the risk could be that doubts will remain about whether the problem had been deeper than was "announced".
One assumes that the banking regulator was informed about the problems and has been updated about ongoing developments. The European DORA legislation lays down the measures a bank needs to undertake when similar disruptive events occur. Couldn't there have been a public confirmation this was being done? Clearly there would have been a need to ensure that what was being said and done would not give rise to some banking panic. This should not mean that matters are simply carried out on the basis that "it's now all over" and "excessive" public accountability is no longer necessary. After all, DORA was premised quite openly, among other claims, on the point that problems similar to the one that occurred some years back at BOV would swiftly be brought under control.
***
DEATH PENALTY
The law passed by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, to introduce the death penalty for whoever undertakes a terroristic atack against the state is shameful. According to media reports, the law lays down that whoever intentionally or due to "indifference" causes the death of a citizen or resident of Israel, for racist reasons, or from a sense of hostility or with the aim of causing harm to the state of Israel and the revival of the Jewish nation, can be condemned to death.
A straight and plain explanation of the law is as follows: a Palestinian who kills an Israeli for "terrorist" reasons should be given a death sentence, but the same would not apply to an Israeli who for equivalent reasons (as has been happening in the West Bank) kills a Palestinian. The new law is coherent with the claim that has increasingly been made about Israel having degenerated into a state that practises apartheid.