The Prime Min­is­ter’s most im­por­tant na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty re­spon­si­bil­i­ty is to iden­ti­fy the risks and op­por­tu­ni­ties that face this twin is­land re­pub­lic and to craft ways to re­duce the threats and ad­vance the coun­try’s na­tion­al in­ter­ests. Cab­i­net min­is­ters are sup­port­ing ac­tors with spe­cif­ic in­di­vid­ual re­spon­si­bil­i­ties, but the ul­ti­mate re­spon­si­bil­i­ty lies with the Prime Min­is­ter, who chairs the Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Coun­cil. The crime sit­u­a­tion re­quires ac­cep­tance of re­spon­si­bil­i­ty and bold ac­tion to re­as­sure alarmed and con­cerned cit­i­zens.

When speak­ing on the prop­er­ty tax last week, the Prime Min­is­ter said that he and his par­ty will do the right thing even if it costs the par­ty the elec­tion. We ap­plaud the Prime Min­is­ter for ac­cept­ing re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for the many short­com­ings in the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the prop­er­ty tax. Even if the tax is not “new”, the ba­sis of cal­cu­la­tion is new and opaque. The Fi­nance Min­istry has in­vest­ed no time in ex­plain­ing how the in­for­ma­tion used to cal­cu­late the an­nu­al rentable val­ue is sourced. There is no pub­li­ca­tion with worked ex­am­ples that al­lows a tax­pay­er to eye­ball the rentable val­ue cal­cu­la­tion. The re­sult is jus­ti­fi­able con­fu­sion and an­i­mos­i­ty.

Re­duc­ing the tax rate is pal­lia­tive and does noth­ing to rec­ti­fy this weak­ness or ed­u­cate con­fused tax­pay­ers, in­clud­ing those will­ing to pay the tax. Cit­i­zens want to eye­ball how the rentable val­ue was de­ter­mined and want as­sur­ance that the method­ol­o­gy is fair and eq­ui­table.

The Val­u­a­tion Di­vi­sion has nev­er done an ex­er­cise of this mag­ni­tude, and there will be in­con­sis­ten­cies. Why should cit­i­zens sim­ply ac­cept a one-lin­er that gives rentable val­ue with­out ref­er­ence to ver­i­fi­able num­bers, not even a CSO-de­rived in­dex of rents, or a rental data­base from re­al­tors in dif­fer­ent ar­eas?

How were the “rents” used by gov­ern­ment val­u­a­tors sourced? Us­ing what da­ta? If a cit­i­zen ob­jects, is he go­ing to be asked to show the ba­sis of his ob­jec­tion? Will gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials re­veal theirs? Or is this ob­jec­tion process just a sham? If the Prime Min­is­ter is se­ri­ous, he will work to re­duce pub­lic dis­trust by mak­ing the cal­cu­la­tions un­der­ly­ing the as­sess­ments vis­i­ble and trans­par­ent.

We ex­pect the Prime Min­is­ter’s sen­ti­ments on prop­er­ty tax will ex­tend to na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty is­sues. Say­ing that cit­i­zens must be more vig­i­lant or should pro­vide in­for­ma­tion to as­sist the TTPS in the ex­e­cu­tion of their du­ties is ob­vi­ous, but weak. Wit­ness­es have been mur­dered. Oth­ers had con­ve­nient mem­o­ry laps­es in the wit­ness box.

If cit­i­zens can­not be pro­tect­ed, then self-preser­va­tion will come first. It is in­suf­fi­cient to say that the changes to the Po­lice Ser­vice Act in 2006 were flawed or that there are con­sti­tu­tion­al lim­its to min­is­te­r­i­al pow­er. Were min­is­ters un­aware of these con­sti­tu­tion­al lim­its be­fore as­sum­ing of­fice? Wasn’t ad­dress­ing crime an elec­tion promise?

There are ob­vi­ous changes that need to be made. First, the award of gov­ern­ment con­tracts to peo­ple with crim­i­nal in­volve­ment must stop, and “ghosts” re­moved from the var­i­ous make-work pro­grammes. Cus­toms and Ex­cise must over­haul im­port ex­am­i­na­tion process­es in line with mod­ern best prac­tices. Sim­i­lar­ly, the se­cu­ri­ty agen­cies and their per­son­nel must al­so be sub­ject to pe­ri­od­ic vet­ting.

If the Prime Min­is­ter is se­ri­ous about do­ing the right thing, the cit­i­zens need to see ev­i­dence that the nec­es­sary ef­fort is be­ing made. Mere talk is not enough.