In the US, betting on sports events has ballooned (as it has in Europe but more so). At first, the backlash was minimal.

Now a number of churches have "realised" what is happening and how an enormous number of American families have been blasted by the betting phenomenon. They went public with their criticism of the industry and how it has been allowed to become a basic feature of American life and society.

I could hardly keep back a sarcastic smile when reading about this. In our country, the boom in gaming occurred a long time ago. Deployed over the internet it has become one of Malta's leading economic sectors, to the extent that the island can be considered as the digital equivalent of Atlantic City in Europe. Meanwhile, during all the years that have passed since it took off, no words of warning or condemnation were ever heard, either from the Catholic Church and/or from the other religions and sects established here. Instead, there is universal acknowledgement of the contribution that this "industry" is giving to Maltese economic growth and development.

***

SUBSIDIES AND COMPETITIVENESS

            The (interesting) controversy about the subsidies in place to counter the effects of the rise in international prices being charged for fuel has featured valid arguments both for and against. Even as one who's sceptical about government's thesis in favour of broad-ranging subsidies without any social or economic "targeting", I get the point that by changing a limited piece of the subsidy structure in place, one risks negative multiplier effects across the economy. But if I understood correctly, it was also a government spekesperson who queried: Do we still need to subsidise the arrival of tourists in peak summer?

            Anyway, it does seem as if not so much attention is being given to another aspect of the current scenario. Could subsidies be creating a situation where the productive economy of the island becomes dependent on them to stay competitive? Meanwhile elsewhere, firms which have managed to survive in circumstances that are tougher than those prevailing in Malta because subsidies are lacking, would now be in a better situation to compete with success.

***

OFFICE IN VALLETTA

Frankly, I fail to understand why the Leader of the Opposition needed to "open" an office in Valletta. Noting how the Prime Minister also has an office in Valletta, in addition to one in Parliament, hardly makes sense. The PM is head of the executive in addition to his legislative/parliamentary role. The Opposition Leader has no executive role.

Moreover, any distinction that could be made between the functions of leader of the opposition and party leader seems tenuous. The two functions fit together like hand and glove. Everybody knows that the Leader of the Opposition is appointed as such because of his being the leader of his party. There's nothing out of this world if those who wish to meet him visit his office at party headquarters - indeed, such a visit would be considered normal in any democracy. If however, some would still wish to meet the Leader of the Opposition in this role only, not as head as well of his party (which is doubtful), they could still call at his office in the Parliament. That's from where the Leader of the Opposition carries out his legislative duties.

Given this frame, the suspicion cannot be ruled out that the whole issue amounts really to a casual gimmick.