As a commentator on the Maltese scene, now invited to write a regular weekly column for this newspaper, I am not in the business of scoring political points or wearing my political views on my sleeve.

My task is to provide informed and constructive criticism, and to cajole and if necessary to hassle those who have the power to make decisions affecting our lives.

The objective is to influence people’s views and opinions as responsibly as possible without making political distinctions or having a political axe to grind.

As a columnist I have entered the minefield of Maltese politics.

I know that apologists on both sides of the political divide will find my comments and criticisms may sometimes be unwelcome, as some did when I wrote in another newspaper just before the last election that “it was time for a change to Labour”, a judgement from which I do not resile. But both major parties espouse broadly identical social democratic values and policies. I am comfortable with both and have loyally served governments of both persuasions as an adviser since my return to Malta 17 years ago.

George Bernard Shaw once asked a female acquaintance on a cruise ship, “Will you sleep with me for £10,000?”, and received an affirmative answer. When he followed up by asking, “Will you sleep with me for £10?” the lady took considerable umbrage, demanding furiously ,“What do you think I am?” “That,” said the playwright, “has already been established. Now we are merely negotiating the price.”

I was reminded of this story as I struggled to reconcile myself to the sale of Maltese citizenship under the misleadingly named Individual Investor Programme, which had its Second Reading in Parliament last week. This is a contentious scheme, made more provocative by the unique structure chosen as the basis for its enactment into law.

There is about it a whiff of undignified haste.

The scheme, as set out by the accident-prone Minister for Home Affairs and National Security, would provide for the granting of a certificate of naturalisation as a citizen of Malta to any person who made “an extraordinary contribution” of €650,000 and an additional €25,000 for each member of their family. The programme would be operated by Henley & Partners, an international company, which would be the “concessionaires” of the scheme, and would receive about €26,000 for every new citizen it recruited.

The capital generated from the scheme – about €30 million in the first year – would go towardsa national development fund and would, in the Prime Minister’s words, “sustain spending on social measures”.

Is it right that nationality should be traded for cash as though it were a government bond?

Foreign individuals buying into the scheme would benefit from Malta’s taxation system and Malta’s membership of both the European Union and the Commonwealth, giving them European citizenship and access to 136 nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom, without a visa.

Names of applicants would not be published. The law that requires publication of the names of all new Maltese citizens is to be repealed.

Strict criteria for qualification as Maltese citizens under the scheme would be laid down and a regulator would be appointed who would examine all applications, ensuring that the final decision on whether to grant Maltese citizenship rested with the minister.

Henley & Partners would be entrusted with processing applications, and would carry out the due diligence validation on all applicants to ensure they had not acquired funds illicitly and were bona fide applicants. They would also be responsible for collecting fees from the applicants.

Henley & Partners would offer a fast-track option of 90 days for those who paid an extra €325,000.

What’s wrong with the IIP, either in principle or in practice? There are a number of practical wrinkles to the scheme which – if, crucially, one were prepared to accept the principle of what is being proposed – would need to be ironed out purely on grounds of good governance. The first and most striking aspect is the lack of transparency inherent in the scheme.

This gives it a shabby aspect that is neither necessary nor acceptable.

If an applicant is moved to become a Maltese citizen and to use a Maltese passport to further his own business or other interests, he should do so openly and, we would hope, with pride.

Secondly, flowing directly from this lack of transparency, is the reputational risk to Malta’s vital financial services, which have been painstakingly built over several decades. Malta must safeguard these at all costs.

Thirdly, the terms of Henley & Partners’ operation of the scheme should be altered to ensure the glaring conflict of interest that arises from their responsibilities to tout for business as well as carry out due diligence of applicants is removed.

Due diligence should be transferred to another body, preferably one of Malta’s reputable international accountancy firms.

Leaving aside the unorthodox concept of a cash-for-citizenship scheme that is not an investment scheme, however, the key question to be addressed is one of principle.

Is it right that nationality, which is my birthright (and I speak as one who also obtained British nationality by adoption), should be traded for cash as though it were a government bond?

That is the question 400,000 Maltese are asking themselves. Speaking for myself, I think not.