The Government’s decision to drop the highly controversial confidentiality clause in the cash-for-citizenship scheme is stunning proof of how badly it had gone about launching it. But the removal of the clause is not enough. Even at this late stage, when so much damage has already been done to the island’s reputation, the Government ought to have the courage to climb down even further and remove other unacceptable aspects of the scheme.

The Government insists the money earned from the scheme will be used for social projects but many are not convinced. Only eight months into its term after winning last March’s general election, Labour has surprisingly chosen to strike at a most sensitive nerve, one that brings out a multitude of considerations touching nationality and pride.

Clearly, the reason for deciding to steamroll over the Opposition on this scheme is that it urgently wants to plug a hole in the country’s finances. At least this is how many logically read the Government’s urgency in rushing the scheme through Parliament. The Government truly believed that the scheme was one of the fastest ways of raising money and it chose to go ahead with it at whatever cost to Malta’s reputation.

Still feeling almost giddy by the spectacular result of the general election, the Government probably truly believes it has all the political backing and moral strength to bulldoze its way through almost anything. But it looks as if it is very much mistaken, as the general reaction to the so-called Individual Investor Programme has shown.

It is striking that so soon after the election the Government is acting as if it is already distancing itself from the people’s feelings. Had this not been the case, it would have sought to come to some sort of agreement with the Nationalist Party over the amendments they proposed. However, the Government, instead, ignored the Opposition and ploughed on regardless.

Never mind for a moment the raft of very good points made by the Opposition in Parliament; both the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry and the Malta Employers’ Association have also come out expressing their own concern over the scheme.

The chamber did not mince words, arguing that it can affect Malta’s reputation because it can raise questions about the soundness of the country’s fiscal and financial credibility. It noted that successive administrations had, rightly, gone to great lengths to protect the country’s reputation because of its importance for future economic development, especially in sensitive sectors such as financial services.

The scheme, as devised, is already being widely criticised abroad, with some newspapers and agencies ridiculing Malta for coming out with such a programme to raise money.

Labour politicians argue that other countries are offering citizenship schemes and that more are about to do so. But are the schemes already in existence as half-baked as the one rolled out by the Government? And, in any case, is this argument sound enough to justify the move. In the opinion of many, it is not but the Government stuck to the advice it got and went ahead with it, even though it was not even included in its electoral programme.

This scheme, with the right changes, could benefit the island. But if Malta starts to be classified with countries that raise doubts about their integrity, the net loss will be far greater than any gain the Government is projecting.