We have to assume that the recent outburst about our security service is well-intentioned. However, any section of the media anxious about privacy and the right to it presumably also understands that that particular right is not sacrosanct.

Any opposition party that attempts to pose as a champion of privacy must also demonstrate that it understands there are occasions when criminals, for example, drug traffickers, bent policemen and even bent soldiers, it seems, politicians entangled in any scam of whatever kind, when it is ethically and morally incumbent on the forces of law and order to limit the privacy of these people and of their known associates. A failure on its part in this area, some of it grey, it is true, must cast a horrendous shadow on its claim to be the alternative government.

Those who would irresponsibly argue in favour of dismantling a country`s security services, or restricting its activities beyond what the law already provides, must have their credentials very carefully examined. These services are the country`s final say on the conduct of law and order in what we can call high places at the political, social, cultural, professional and criminal arenas.

In Malta, the law that was worked out to create these services is based, in the main, on British law and formulated to take into account the local scene. Safeguards are inserted into the law that make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the services to function in an illegal or unauthorised manner. Their powers, to take a few examples, are circumscribed by the fact that special powers invested in the security services can only come into effect if they have been specifically authorised by the home affairs minister or the prime minister.

Furthermore, any such authorisation is itself subject to examination by a legally appointed commissioner, who can decide as to its validity. Over-arching all this is a Security Commission whose task it is to keep close tabs on actions carried out by the security services. That Commission is not any Commission. It is composed of the prime minister himself, the home affairs minister, the foreign minister and, of particular significance, the leader of the opposition.

Whether the leader of the opposition sits on this committee or not is his responsibility and the nation`s business. By including him on the committee, the government acted in the most open manner available to it. When he does not attend committee, this has the effect of reducing to nothing any complaint against the security services that may from time to time be initiated by the Labour Party. For who better, how better, for the party to have its claims investigated, or any claims instigated by other quarters, than by its own leader sitting in committee with the prime minister and other selected ministers of the Republic?

Given the background to the security services, it ill-behoves anybody to criticise them without due cause. Allegations of this and that are spurious unless they are accompanied by proof of evident discrimination or wrongdoing.

The security services may be guilty of commissions that go beyond their brief and the law. When this happens, it is right that matters are taken up to the Security Committee. What is fatally wrong, however, is for anybody to undermine by innuendo, by false allegations, by claiming wrongdoing where none exists. This helps the criminal and not the private citizen and should be treated with contempt.