MaltaToday previous editions

MT 3 November 2013

Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/204636

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 25 of 55

26 Letters maltatoday, SUNDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2013 Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. The right to be forgotten online Google, Facebook and other US tech giants have won an important victory against EU efforts to restrict the sharing of customer data after UK Prime Minister David Cameron persuaded the bloc to postpone the introduction of tougher privacy rules by at least a year. This is a blow to advocates of stricter data protection standards, especially as it comes amid an international scandal that has seen the US accused of snooping on EU leaders. Lawmakers in the European Parliament's civil liberties com- mittee recently voted to strengthen Europe's data protection laws. The vote in parliament's civil liberties committee opened the way for further negotiations with EU countries and the European Commission on the plans, the first revision to Europe's data laws since 1995. In its legislative proposal unveiled in early 2012, the Commission suggested sanctions of up to 2% of global turnover on companies that violate the rules, and said consumers should have the "right to be forgotten" – that they should be able to remove their entire digital traces from the internet. The parliament's civil liberties committee has come up with nearly 4,000 amendments to the original plan, including increasing the fine to 5% of annual worldwide turnover or €100 million, whichever is greater. The changes also mean the replacement of the "right to be forgotten" with "the right of erasure", seen as a lesser obligation as it would impossible to entirely remove one's traces from the internet. The regulation on data in the European Union will establish, when In a recent Reporter programme on the national TV station chaired by Saviour Balzan, the popular spokesperson defending our environmental heritage, Astrid Vella, spoke about Sliema and its house gardens, which used to provide fresh air to the residents there. In pushing her argument forward, Mrs Vella contrasted the excessive building in Sliema with empty spaces inside villages such as Siggiewi. Apparently, Mrs Vella is of the view that the destruction of the soil area in Sliema does not have its counterpart in places like Siggiewi. This is certainly not the case. Even the village of Siggiewi fell victim to the egotism of some of our property speculators. Precious spaces of gardens and fruit trees have been destroyed. Our village core is now devoid of green spaces, which are much needed to provide the air we breathe. Contrary to public perception, our Siggiewi local council did very little to prevent the destruction of back gardens in Dr Nicola Zammit, to mention just one example. It is hoped that the little soiled ground in this street becomes protected from now on. Please stop the senseless expansion of building to cover also the very space that our forefathers wisely planned to leave intact. Frans Camilleri Siggiewi We now have the BOV reporting record profits for last financial year of almost €116 million – up 5% on the previous year. This increase in profits is in line with most other banks operating in Malta (especially HSBC) also recording an ever-increasing profit margins. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and the MFSA (sad to say but all requests to such for information have been ignored) exactly how much do these banks contribute to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) maximum compensation amounts – currently €100,000 per individual account (although the BOV inexplicably do provide this current figure in their customer care literature)? As in the past the amount of this FSCS payment was for many years determined and established by a 'Committee' (as they were known) – containing members of the great and the good of our financial services (including bankers) – who met regularly at the MFSA HQ to 'review' this maximum compensation amount (they even claimed expenses, paid for out of the public purse, for this arduous task) under the stewardship of the MFSA's Customer Care Manager. Geoffrey Bezzina, who acted as the 'Committee's' secretary. However, despite the ever-increasing massive amounts of savings and deposits in banks (a recurring theme as I will later dem- onstrate) over the years since this FSCS was in force (designed to act as a form of reassurance – indeed insurance –for depositors/ savers) this very minimal amount (Approx €22,000) for many years was untroubled by an increase and remained unaccountably static and rigid. That is until the financial meltdown back in 2008 when the government stepped in, after realising how ineptly ineffective and slow to react this "committee" actually was in providing an appropriate amount as compensation payment insurance to depositors / savers, and – to prevent runs on the banks – literally overnight, increased this compensation amount to a maximum of €100K per individual account. However, this is where my concern lies! As it was the government who "guaranteed" this increased compensation payment – fuelled by fear -and not the banks or the bankers which raises a number of concerns that require clarification. As isn't this guarantee by the government to payout in the event of a bank going bellyup, whilst being a noble aim and objective, yet to be tested insomuch, as is there enough money to ensure that every saver/depositor will be compensated in full? Furthermore, whilst the government guarantees this FSCS payout what do the banks 'guarantee' with regard to their 'lifeblood', i.e., savings and deposits in their coffers without which they would not exist? The opportune moment EDITORIAL – 2 NOVEMBER 2003 address our political class and to beg them to stop wasting our time. Since time immemorial the dockyards have been the centre of our political battles and tugs of war. Our political masters have indulged in and regaled us with wars of finger pointing. They have addressed the problem by blaming the dock workers for their intransigence and their failure to accept the realities of the brave new world. They have used the workers as their punching bag and painted them as the ugly side of the Labour Party. In the seventeen years of Nationalist rule, we have been forcefed, day and night, reports of how the dockyards were draining the country and are to blame for much of our ills. The blame has not been apportioned between economic mismanagement, changing trends in ship repair, management incompetence or political interference. No, it has been directed in no unclear terms at the workers who have proven to the rest of the pop- EU-controlled gateway that might go some way to assuaging the profound concerns raised in Europe about US data spying activities recently revealed via the leaks from former US data analyst Edward Snowden. Unfortunately the proposed EU data protection law has been postponed for an indefinite time. This is a serious drawback to EU citizens rights on data privacy. Henrik Piski Alternattiva Demokratika Spokesperson for Digital Society Banks' contribution to FSCS Village core gardens in Siggiewi NOW is the opportune time to finalised, a single, pan-European law for data protection, replacing the currently inconsistent patchwork of national laws. Parliament, in line with the Commission's proposals, also wants to impose strict rules on how data is shared or transferred to non-EU countries. For example, if the United States wants access to information held by Google or Yahoo! about a European citizen based in Europe, the firm would have to seek authorisation from a European data authority first. That would establish an extra, ulation that they are a first class public relations disaster. In the eyes of many, the dockyard workers are best at one thing… and that is breaking into the Archbishop's Curia and creating mayhem. Few would be led to believe that the dockyard in Cottonera produced one of the best skilled workers in the whole Mediterranean. But after years of political patronage and interference and being led by union leaders concerned with their unique political existence, the dockyard is in a very sorry state. Now that the Nationalist administration has come to terms with the problem, it has reinvented a solution. Take 900 workers from this cauldron of debt and transfer the personnel from the dockyards to a new company, which is still government-owned and subsidised from tax-payers money. The drama, if one were to ask, confirms that the dockyard issue was nothing more than a political ping-pong. ]SUBHEAD[ An historic mo- ment An historic moment is how Lawrence Gonzi – Malta's deputy prime minister and the PN successor apparent to Fenech Adami – described the changes that will have a bearing on Malta Shipbuilding and Malta Drydocks. Gonzi was talking to The Times, which carried a report that the workers at the drydocks would be benefiting from a wage increase. Add to this the fact that the work force to be shed at the yards will walk peacefully into a government company and that all the debt owed by the yards will be erased and passed on the tax payer, and then there are truly no words to describe the historic occasion. This is a truly historic event since in this fine hour of despair we have seen the dockyards demonised and finally, when we appeared to be coming to terms with the problem, the workers, whom we have accused of all sorts of crimes, are finally awarded, with wage increases. This historic blunder far outshines any of the collective blunders committed in recent years. Moreover, is not the government underwriting, so to speak, this insurance policy therefore a form of self-insurance by the banks' account holders as are they not in fact as tax-payers – courtesy of the government-ergo insuring their own savings and deposits? So my question is this. Why, given the absolute crucial aspect relating to a bank functioning and conducting its business – as they only operate on the OPM principle (Other People's Money, i.e., savings and deposits held by depositors/savers) – do the banks not ensure that the FSCS compensation amount falls solely within their responsibility to acknowledge and provide and how much,in fact ,do they contribute/pledge to this €100,000 maximum amount "guaranteed" – but only by the tax-payers themselves it would appear and where may one access such information – and why given the massive increases in deposits/savings, and not forgetting massive and increased profits, has this 100K compensation figure now also remained rigid and static for the last, more than five, years? Where is the evidence of any 'contingency' fund set aside by either the government or the banks for the specific purpose of settling any FSCS compensation payouts and how much is in any such funds if they exist ? Peter Murray Mosta

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of MaltaToday previous editions - MT 3 November 2013