Prevention is better than cure. A stitch in time saves nine. Better safe than sorry. Three tenets that basically transmit one obvious message: If you would not like to get hurt, in whatever manner, make sure you take the necessary precautions in advance. And in a world shorn of any values, no country can be 100 per cent safe.

The improvised explosive device that went off at Transport Malta’s offices in Sa Maison early in December, when a traffic consultant lost part of his leg, is enough of an eye-opener in terms of security in public places. Because this is usually a safe country, we tend to think that serious crime – not to speak of terrorism, which the TM bomb certainly was – is unlikely to occur here. Well, the sort of crime reported over the past months and weeks and certain information that has emerged surely call for more attention to be given to security in general.

Over the past days we have learnt with trepidation how a police inspector – now no longer forming part of the force and facing criminal charges – was allegedly the mastermind of serious crime. The person, David Gatt, must be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, but, still, the horrid details that have come out so far in the compilation of evidence in his case rightly give rise to concern on who to trust and to what extent. It would not be amiss for the police to launch a powerful and effective publicity campaign to counter the damage done.

The same applies to Malta International Airport and HSBC Bank Malta.

The Italian police reported last month a 37-year-old Sri Lankan man travelling with two co-nationals to Doha, in Qatar was stopped at Fiumicino airport after arriving on board an Air Malta flight two days before Christmas. Two knives were allegedly found in his trouser pockets together with a screwdriver. It seems terrorism is being ruled out but a passenger carrying pointed objects on a flight is certainly a serious security breach.

The MIA said on Tuesday it would be taking a number of initiatives to enhance the security services at the airport, including upgrading and introducing certain equipment, increasing the aviation security legislative training and intensifying tests, whatever that means.

It insisted it “takes its security operations very seriously and is fully committed to continue adopting all the necessary measures to ensure passengers’ welfare is safeguarded at all times”. The statement is appreciated but passengers expect a better explanation to put their minds at rest.

So too would bank employees and customers, especially after what a police inspector said in court a few days ago in connection with the botched heist at the HSBC headquarters in Qormi last June.

The officer identified four weak points in the bank’s security system: the control room had no security cameras; the phone calls there were not recorded; a CCTV camera near a fire escape was unable to pick up individuals in dark clothing and the system proved incapable of detecting the intruders as they made their way from the point of entry to the control room.

There is no need to point out that both the airport and a bank headquarters are high security risk areas and yet...

It was a case of clear and present danger in all the three instances listed above but, especially, in the last two. The public deserves unequivocal explanations and, more importantly, solid action ensuring that security is not being taken for granted or lightly.