The government is proceeding correctly by seeing how to help householders and firms who had their residence or commercial equipment unexpectedly damaged and destroyed by the storm Harry. Meanwhile however, questions have arisen: Who will really benefit from compensations given? Or rather - who will benefit most?
Presumably there is general agreement that where valid insurance contracts exist, it should be the insurance companies who must compensate those who were hit hard by the bad weather - whether private citizens or firms.
Naturally, this will give rise to other questions and doubts - for there will be citizens and firms who have insured themselves, and others who have not. So, will the government help only those who have not been "sufficiently" prudent by taking out insurance?
On the whole, the strongest comment made was by some who claimed that the government, with its array of valid subsidies, should not give support to firms which broke the law by illegally setting up commercial facilities and who will now come to request compensation for their loss. Such arguments make sense and deserve being listened to.
What generates trust in others, socially and politically? Is it what they and their political party say and do? Is it some common ideological commitment? Ethnic, religious, professional commonalities? Family ties?
One grows accustomed to listening to warnings and to getting advice regarding how not to trust this or that... by way of political  party or on a personal basis... to trust nobody actually...  for indeed...
But then the outcome has consistently been that despite all that's said, a huge majority of people accepts, and trusts in, what it gets told. The problem... or the challenge... is how to identify criteria which would be acceptable to all, about what is necessary for the establishment of trust. It's a challenge which exists across all aspects of a community's social life, including family and personal relationships.
The government is right to argue that the country must be prudent - without contradicting its neutrality - in how it positions itself when the current US administration presents its proposals. These are considered by many states as extravagant, in such sectors as international economic relations, diplomacy and human rights. Still it does not make sense for Malta to project itself as a holy protagonist in faraway conflicts in which it has no direct or valid voice or share. It would be doing so while affecting negatively the national interest regarding the establishment of worthwhile projects between Malta and the US.
They are also correct those who argue that as a small neutral country, Malta needs to insist on the need for relations between states to remain respectful of international law applied to all states in the same way, the huge as well as the tiny - Russia as well as the US - Israel as well as Iran. They argue correctly that the US is no longer accepting this doctrine and Malta cannot ignore such a development.
To me it seems that the apparent divergence between these two perspectives can be bridged by a clear and honest prudence regarding how in its diplomatic initiatives, the Maltese government engages with others and navigates to affirm and implement coherently our foreign policy aims.Â
Presumably there is general agreement that where valid insurance contracts exist, it should be the insurance companies who must compensate those who were hit hard by the bad weather - whether private citizens or firms.
Naturally, this will give rise to other questions and doubts - for there will be citizens and firms who have insured themselves, and others who have not. So, will the government help only those who have not been "sufficiently" prudent by taking out insurance?
On the whole, the strongest comment made was by some who claimed that the government, with its array of valid subsidies, should not give support to firms which broke the law by illegally setting up commercial facilities and who will now come to request compensation for their loss. Such arguments make sense and deserve being listened to.
What generates trust in others, socially and politically? Is it what they and their political party say and do? Is it some common ideological commitment? Ethnic, religious, professional commonalities? Family ties?
One grows accustomed to listening to warnings and to getting advice regarding how not to trust this or that... by way of political  party or on a personal basis... to trust nobody actually...  for indeed...
But then the outcome has consistently been that despite all that's said, a huge majority of people accepts, and trusts in, what it gets told. The problem... or the challenge... is how to identify criteria which would be acceptable to all, about what is necessary for the establishment of trust. It's a challenge which exists across all aspects of a community's social life, including family and personal relationships.
The government is right to argue that the country must be prudent - without contradicting its neutrality - in how it positions itself when the current US administration presents its proposals. These are considered by many states as extravagant, in such sectors as international economic relations, diplomacy and human rights. Still it does not make sense for Malta to project itself as a holy protagonist in faraway conflicts in which it has no direct or valid voice or share. It would be doing so while affecting negatively the national interest regarding the establishment of worthwhile projects between Malta and the US.
They are also correct those who argue that as a small neutral country, Malta needs to insist on the need for relations between states to remain respectful of international law applied to all states in the same way, the huge as well as the tiny - Russia as well as the US - Israel as well as Iran. They argue correctly that the US is no longer accepting this doctrine and Malta cannot ignore such a development.
To me it seems that the apparent divergence between these two perspectives can be bridged by a clear and honest prudence regarding how in its diplomatic initiatives, the Maltese government engages with others and navigates to affirm and implement coherently our foreign policy aims.Â