Library

Legatus non violatur

The big three credit ratings agencies were threatened yesterday with fines and the creation of a new state-backed competitor, only weeks after European leaders attacked them for exacerbating Greece’s problems with downgrades. – The Times (UK)

Readers will be familiar with reactions by the Maltese administration to certain reports from particular institutions. “Audit” is the byword for a scrutiny or check that was originally applied to matters accounting but is now extended to such realms as “democratic accountability” and “freedom of press” to give but non-economic examples. The auditor is supposed to be as impartial as possible and his job is simply to report on the state of affairs – the idea being that it is up to managers, politicians and lobby groups to make do with the report as best they deem fit.

Recently we have seen an increased tendency to debate the validity of the auditor rather than the message itself. In other words, in these times of economic woes that might even effect the clear thinking of (non-economic) democratic institutions, there is a growing tendency to shoot the messenger.  A concerted effort by (Commission President) Barroso and (German Chancellor and French President) Merkel & Sarkozy has recently been stepped up with the intention to undermine the credibility of a very important set of “auditors” in this day and age.

credti rating marks.jpg

Credit Rating Chart

Europe’s continental leaders have targeted the three credit ratings agencies – responsible for the rating of governments and of their ability to pay their debts. The three: Standard & Poor‘s, Moody’s and Fitch (no relation to Abercrombie’s other half) have been busy downgrading Greece, Spain and Portugal’s ratings recently and were also on the verge of giving the same treatment to France. While Merkel and Sarkozy argued that the agencies need more scrutiny – a form of supervision and regulation – Barroso criticised the three for failing to alert investors on the imminent demise of Lehmann Brothers in 2008.

Barroso asks three questions:

  • Is it normal to have only three relevant actors in such a sensitive issue where there is a great probability of conflict of interest?
  • Is it normal that all of them come from the same country?
  • Is it normal that such important entities are escaping fundamental regulation?

Now the eagerness with which the “EU that counts” shoots down the three agencies is inevitably tied to the large amount of control that they hold on the mood of the market. their ratings are not simply an auditing assessment but any move of theirs tends to have heavy repercussions on the financial and economic sectors. Shooting the messenger is only half the story.

The EU does not only intend to regulate the auditors but seems intent on creating an auditor of its own – an in-house competitor. Questions will surely be raised about the independence of such a new monster. If the current three are not above suspicion because of the possibility of conflicts of interests what then of the new monster that will be financed by the very set of sovereign nations it is supposed to vet?

Barroso’s questions begin to sound more and more like Muscat’s quickly assembled 15 point plan to battle corruption. Loads of rhetoric and flimsy legal justification. In both cases they provide little solution and comfort. Back to the drawing board José (and Joseph)

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

There's no such thing as a free (Wi-Fi) lunch

“69  main squares and public gardens around Malta and Gozo will offer free wi-fi in the coming weeks, bringing the number of open spaces offering the service to 88.” That’s wonderful news and all those involved in this project should be lauded with more than a pat on the back. But is free Wi-Fi sustainable in the long term? Does this project fit in within a wider plan or is it just a play by ear routine?

MCA CEO Philip Micallef, PS Chris Said and Minister Gatt have all expressed their enthusiasm about this project “bridging the digital divide” and this is definitely the kind of idea that makes something like Vision 2015 less words and more action. We do not intend to be the wet blankets and killjoys here at J’accuse but it is important not to lose a sense of perspective. While it is true that this kind of service is “similar to what is offered in other countries” there is one missing bit of info in all of this.

Take Luxembourg. We had free Wi-Fi “Hot Spots” a couple of years back. The city center included well signed areas where you could access the public service. After a while though the public service became a paid service. You could  register and buy credit to access the wifi system. Free-riders could go to restaurants such as McDonald’s, Books and Beans (Pierre Meilak’s old haunt) and Urban for example. Like most European cities though the trend was more for paying for credit for public WiFi than for free availability.

Wi-Fi Alliance logo
Image via Wikipedia

When travelling in Europe you can buy credit with Wi-Fi providers like Orange, T-Mobile and others and use their many hotspots around the main towns. Sadly (for Europe) even most hotels require extra payment for the wi-fi service. Few (such as the Campanile chain) offer free wi-fi. The “free” element is excellent to get people used to the benefits of browsing when out but it costs money. My honest question is will the Maltese service be sustainable in the long run?

Lest you batter me with the anti-government critic baton I am genuinely asking whether there is a long term plan. It is all well and good to set up wi-fi hotspots and encourage their use but what will happen in a year or two when the accounts department starts to creak and austerity measures hit the service? I would strongly advise clear, up-front information – that the service will probably cost money in the future is highly probable (unless sponsors are found). Even in the case of wi-fi there is a cost… and government NEVER gives you anything for free.

Answers please.

Times Report

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Programmes People Watch (II)

Friday on Xarabank. Where’s Everybody discusses Where’s Everybody. Fresh from their appearance at PN’s Vision 2015+ (a conference for non-politicians – whatever that may mean) Peppi and Lou debate Lou. With a little help from their friends. Here’s the “synopsis” sent round by Xarabank:

Freedom of Expression: Where to draw the line? Where is the limit? Should television programmes give space to ideas such as those of Norman Lowell or should these be censored or even banned? Xarabank discusses. Amongst others in the panel, journalist Lou Bondi, media expert Fr Joe Borg, Chief Justice Emeritus Prof Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici and National Commission Persons with Disability chairman Joseph M Camilleri.

You’ve just got to love them. Can you imagine the dilemma at Xarabank’s production team? …

Do we get Lowell?

But would getting Lowell answer the question?

OK OK. So do we get Lou?

And if we have Lou we need a media expert.

Is there anyone we can think of?

I think I heard Lou mention a Fr Joe Borg.

Ok. So it’s Lou and Joe right?

Yes. But no. But but but but that would be a bit too much like the programme on Daphne’s Blog.

What programme on Daphne’s Blog?

You know the one where they talked about everything but the blog

… ah that one. So we’ll just get two more cameo appearances – is anyone else talking about it?

Hmm… not anyone worth inviting…

let’s just get JoJo and spomeone from the disabled community – sorry. persons with disability – and have them talk about how offensive Lowell is.

Should be a good programme – after all people love controversy and Lowell.

Lowell – programmes people watch.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Israel Exports Death in the Med

More than 10 people have been killed after Israeli commandos stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army says. (BBC)

The convoy of ships was carrying tonnes of humanitarian aid to Gaza from Cyprus following the Israeli embargo on the Hamas-led enclave. A number of Turkish humanitarian organisations were using three passenger ferries to transport cement, passengers and other aid to Gaza in defiance of the embargo. Israeli commandos boarded the largest of the vessels overnight and tackled the 500 people on board.

” Unfortunately this group were dead-set on confrontation. Live fire was used against our forces. They initiated the violence, that’s 100% clear” – Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev.

Right. A group of armed commandos boards a ship on international waters and considers their reaction “an initiation of violence”. Right. It gets ‘better0. Here is Danny Ayalon – Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister:

Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said his country “regrets any loss of life and did everything to avoid this outcome”. He accused the convoy of a “premeditated and outrageous provocation”, describing the flotilla as an “armada of hate”.

Old Testament stories are full of instances where the “element of surprise” included winning wars by attacking enemies still fast asleep in their tents. Gideon would be proud.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Say Cheese

The Spanish parliament has just made EUR 15b worth of budget cuts (by one vote) and Malta can afford to discuss communion to cohabitants, hypothetical coalitions, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Lou Bondi and whether secularism is a disease. Damned lucky country. – Fausto Majistral

Continue reading →

Sacred Rights

So cohabiting couples should strictly speaking not be allowed to take part in the sacrament of holy communion. We were reminded that recently and suddenly there is a furore, a raising of the metaphorical ruckus and more by an indignated part of the populace. What do our Bishops think they are doing? Don’t they know that there are people who traipse up the aisle and swallow the wafer who are much less deserving than the poor cohabiting couples whose only crime is to love each other?

Say what? I could not believe my eyes as more and more people jumped on the anti-church bandwagon once again. Suddenly people were pontificating on a virtual classification of “communion merit”. Soon enougha ritual of a specific denomination on the island was discussed in the same manner as one would a universal human right.

Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter by Pietro...

Image via Wikipedia

Have I got news for the pseudo-libertarians: there is no universal human right to communion. On a scale of human interpreted religious ritual – one that strongly believes that what the earthly representatives of a divinity say is truly inspired by the aforementioned divinity – whatever anyone else has to add is pure balderdash. Communion is a religious ritual that has quite possibly existed ever since the man from Nazareth chose to ask is apostles to break bread and eat it in his remembrance. True, at that point in time there were no postillae or qualifications as to who could partake of this commemorative meal whenever it happened (neither did Haysus mention anything about wheat intolerance – something the Catholic Church would only solve in early years of the 21st century) but we must perforce presume that he left such work to Peter “the Rock” and his followers.

That last presumption is also crucial since the Catholic Church is now the supreme authority of what is kosher in communion. Which is why the sudden jumping and yelling when it was made clear that cohabiting couples should stay put on their church seats while the purer folk go about their queuing and communing is all very out of order. And what is all this nonsense about the Church being picky and hypocritical when it spares the more obvious candidates from wafer deprivation? I do not recall the church or any pointy hatted representative say that liars, thieves etc CAN have communion while cohabiting couples CANNOT. The rules are quite clear for everybody and there is also a mechanism for the repentant and the contrite – it’s another ritual which involves a sort of skype with God via his earthly rep.

Do we really need to get into the ritualistic details of Roman Catholicity to understand the difference between a rite and a right? But, they protest, the Church also has a social role and is a social example. Bollocks. Let the church deal with its own contradictions in its own time. Let it explain to its flock how sex before marriage, cohabitation, adultery, theft and murder are all on the same level in the “Does Not Qualify for Communion” point system. What the church also does is something very sly. It does not police its aisles with lie detectors and identifiers of premarital fornicators – it simply and very calmly puts it on your own conscience. It does not need a reminder from Mario & Cremona for a good catholic to know that sins and contrition are all part of the mechanism of personal development. Religion and spiritual development is all about rites in this case – and about the relationship between you and God – should you believe in her of course.

It’s a rite, not a right so stop harassing the catholic flock and if you don’t like it just do not go in there.

The Times of Malta. Debate rages on communion to cohabiting couples.

Not Only in Malta. In Holland controversy over a priest who refused to give communion to a gay person.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]