Sitting duck
The controversy over the revision of some of the main indicators compiled and published by the National Statistics Office has not ended. Rather, it has expanded even if, as with most standoffs which develop in Malta, it is set to become a sideshow, as...
The controversy over the revision of some of the main indicators compiled and published by the National Statistics Office has not ended. Rather, it has expanded even if, as with most standoffs which develop in Malta, it is set to become a sideshow, as fresh controversies flare up over other matters. The technical aspect of the NSO controversy is - or at least, should be - clearer. Eurostat has confirmed that the revisions carried out by the statistics office were made correctly.
In reality, the underlying technical issue did not require underpinning by any external source. Malta was accepted to join the European Union. As such it was obliged to revise the time series of various data going back 10 years to bring them in line with Eurostat's methodology. Whichever party was in government, and whoever was heading the NSO, the revision had to be carried out. It was taken in hand in 2003, before EU accession, under the previous director of the NSO, who has attracted nothing but deserved praise from all quarters.
It should be completed next month, whether or not a new director will have been appointed in place of Gordon Cordina, who resigned in the midst of being kicked around as a political football by the two major parties. The game is still going on. The MLP claims it had not attacked Dr Cordina personally. The Nationalist Party and the government insist the criticism levelled at the former director and the NSO itself was intended to stymie Malta's advance towards euro adoption.
The underlying point - that the time-series revision was obligatory, in terms of EU membership - is ignored by both sides. They also fail to show any awareness that statistics are a historical record, and no revision of them will change the socio-economic reality lived over the life of the time series. Ironically, if anything, had the revision been carried out earlier it might, just might, have affected Malta's chances of getting the level of funding actually allocated to it by the EU.
While showing considerable obsession with the past, the two parties are not addressing the future. The revision of the GDP and other time series should be ready by March - but various indicators will remain "open" for three years on an ongoing basis. The past and present practice of qualifying the published data as provisional will take an extended meaning. If new inputs become available to the NSO over the three-year "open" period, the statistics office would be obliged to publish revised data. If revisions are always subjected to political doubt, there will be controversy without end.
The NSO would be well advised to explain to the point of tedious repetition what keeping data "open" means. There can be little doubt that it will do so in the explanatory notes appended to media releases, wherever the office managers feel that is necessary. What I am suggesting goes beyond that.
There had also better be a serious objective discussions on this matter among those who use NSO data, including the political parties, to bring about as much awareness as can be regarding the reliability of the official data. That is not to say that one should expect substantial variances over the open period. But, to the extent that over the three-year span variances do occur, these should be understood for what they are, rather than becoming fresh grist for the political mill.
The MLP leader's reaction to the Eurostat endorsement of the revisions carried out by the NSO in its time series has been that questions raised in a technical report prepared for the opposition have still not been answered by the government. It is not for the government to speak for the NSO. If clarity is lacking, remedial action should be taken by the NSO, and - in the circumstances - be released through the statistics authority. That should not serve as fodder for fresh polemics, but to move on towards allowing the NSO to focus on its work.
If, through time, anyone feels that there are aspects of that work which may be fairly criticised, that is what freedom of expression is all about. But criticism should relate to observable facts, not to individuals. The focus on individuals is one reason why the recent controversy still has a considerable way to run.
The Labour side, through the way some individuals within it wrote and spoke about the former NSO director, personalised the observations made about the revisions in the time series, and the correction of an error in the NSO media release which included a time series of the fiscal outturn and the structural deficit in 1996.
The report commissioned by the Opposition steered clear of personalising the issue further. The report stayed within technical parameters. It did not say who had authored it. The Prime Minister was not happy enough with pointing that out. In subsequent forays he indicated he knew who the author was, that he was someone in the public sector, and that he may have taken a week off to draft the report.
That was conduct unbecoming by the Prime Minister, as the UHM, apart from the MLP, was quick to point out. The PM declared there was no need for anyone to "hide", since freedom prevails. That only made the Prime Minister's declaration regarding who had prepared the report for the MLP jar further. If it was the case that the report was the work of someone in the public sector, then it was obvious he could not reveal his identity.
It is far less obvious that the PM was right to huff and puff, seemingly threateningly, though he was at pains to say that was not his intention. The author, assuming he works in the public sector, would have been at fault had he revealed confidential facts. That does not seem to have been the case. The darts thrown at him, therefore, were unjustified.
Whoever authored the report, the MLP made it its own. What counts is the content, not its compiler. The controversy continues to confirm that public officials can be sitting ducks for the political class to shoot at will. Whether the reason is an official revision of NSO data, or an unofficial technical report for a political party, the shooting is unjustified and obnoxious. Gordon Cordina resigned, rather than taking it any further and, in the process, see the NSO dragged down as well.
The author of the MLP report, now that a prime ministerial finger has been pointed at him, will hardly feel that he will be trusted enough to be able to fulfil his official duties as he had done in the past.
Individuals in the public service who give good service to the public deserve much more respect.
In reality, the underlying technical issue did not require underpinning by any external source. Malta was accepted to join the European Union. As such it was obliged to revise the time series of various data going back 10 years to bring them in line with Eurostat's methodology. Whichever party was in government, and whoever was heading the NSO, the revision had to be carried out. It was taken in hand in 2003, before EU accession, under the previous director of the NSO, who has attracted nothing but deserved praise from all quarters.
It should be completed next month, whether or not a new director will have been appointed in place of Gordon Cordina, who resigned in the midst of being kicked around as a political football by the two major parties. The game is still going on. The MLP claims it had not attacked Dr Cordina personally. The Nationalist Party and the government insist the criticism levelled at the former director and the NSO itself was intended to stymie Malta's advance towards euro adoption.
The underlying point - that the time-series revision was obligatory, in terms of EU membership - is ignored by both sides. They also fail to show any awareness that statistics are a historical record, and no revision of them will change the socio-economic reality lived over the life of the time series. Ironically, if anything, had the revision been carried out earlier it might, just might, have affected Malta's chances of getting the level of funding actually allocated to it by the EU.
While showing considerable obsession with the past, the two parties are not addressing the future. The revision of the GDP and other time series should be ready by March - but various indicators will remain "open" for three years on an ongoing basis. The past and present practice of qualifying the published data as provisional will take an extended meaning. If new inputs become available to the NSO over the three-year "open" period, the statistics office would be obliged to publish revised data. If revisions are always subjected to political doubt, there will be controversy without end.
The NSO would be well advised to explain to the point of tedious repetition what keeping data "open" means. There can be little doubt that it will do so in the explanatory notes appended to media releases, wherever the office managers feel that is necessary. What I am suggesting goes beyond that.
There had also better be a serious objective discussions on this matter among those who use NSO data, including the political parties, to bring about as much awareness as can be regarding the reliability of the official data. That is not to say that one should expect substantial variances over the open period. But, to the extent that over the three-year span variances do occur, these should be understood for what they are, rather than becoming fresh grist for the political mill.
The MLP leader's reaction to the Eurostat endorsement of the revisions carried out by the NSO in its time series has been that questions raised in a technical report prepared for the opposition have still not been answered by the government. It is not for the government to speak for the NSO. If clarity is lacking, remedial action should be taken by the NSO, and - in the circumstances - be released through the statistics authority. That should not serve as fodder for fresh polemics, but to move on towards allowing the NSO to focus on its work.
If, through time, anyone feels that there are aspects of that work which may be fairly criticised, that is what freedom of expression is all about. But criticism should relate to observable facts, not to individuals. The focus on individuals is one reason why the recent controversy still has a considerable way to run.
The Labour side, through the way some individuals within it wrote and spoke about the former NSO director, personalised the observations made about the revisions in the time series, and the correction of an error in the NSO media release which included a time series of the fiscal outturn and the structural deficit in 1996.
The report commissioned by the Opposition steered clear of personalising the issue further. The report stayed within technical parameters. It did not say who had authored it. The Prime Minister was not happy enough with pointing that out. In subsequent forays he indicated he knew who the author was, that he was someone in the public sector, and that he may have taken a week off to draft the report.
That was conduct unbecoming by the Prime Minister, as the UHM, apart from the MLP, was quick to point out. The PM declared there was no need for anyone to "hide", since freedom prevails. That only made the Prime Minister's declaration regarding who had prepared the report for the MLP jar further. If it was the case that the report was the work of someone in the public sector, then it was obvious he could not reveal his identity.
It is far less obvious that the PM was right to huff and puff, seemingly threateningly, though he was at pains to say that was not his intention. The author, assuming he works in the public sector, would have been at fault had he revealed confidential facts. That does not seem to have been the case. The darts thrown at him, therefore, were unjustified.
Whoever authored the report, the MLP made it its own. What counts is the content, not its compiler. The controversy continues to confirm that public officials can be sitting ducks for the political class to shoot at will. Whether the reason is an official revision of NSO data, or an unofficial technical report for a political party, the shooting is unjustified and obnoxious. Gordon Cordina resigned, rather than taking it any further and, in the process, see the NSO dragged down as well.
The author of the MLP report, now that a prime ministerial finger has been pointed at him, will hardly feel that he will be trusted enough to be able to fulfil his official duties as he had done in the past.
Individuals in the public service who give good service to the public deserve much more respect.