The storm over the government’s cash-for-citizenship scheme rages on with little signs of a consensual agreement in sight. This is a great pity, as an issue such as citizenship should not be a matter for partisan divide.

The government, however, has handled this whole question terribly from day one and is entirely to blame for the controversy that erupted and for the bad press Malta is receiving on the international stage.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat initially rushed to have this scheme passed into law, refused the offer of reaching a consensus with the Opposition, did not consult with various stakeholders, especially financial practitioners, and rubbished criticism of the fact that the names of those granted citizenship were not going to be made public.

This was the worst possible way of introducing a law of such a delicate nature and aroused the suspicions of many over the real intentions behind this new measure.

Last week, however, within hours of President George Abela signing the scheme into law, the government announced that it would drop the secrecy provisions of the scheme, which is now on hold pending this amendment.

This was a welcome first move, but why was there such a rush in the first place to get the law passed?

Then last Tuesday, Dr Muscat said he was prepared to hold fresh talks with the Opposition to make some more changes to the law and reach a consensus, but was not afraid of seeking the people’s verdict if these talks failed – a reference to a possible referendum which some NGOs and the Nationalist Party are contemplating.

Again, if the Prime Minister wants consensus, why did he completely dismiss the Opposition’s arguments when the Bill was being discussed?

Furthermore, the government’s argument – put forward by Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia during Tuesday’s TV programme TimesTalk – that scrapping the citizenship programme will automatically lead to an increase in taxation to make up for a Budget shortfall of €15 million, is unfair. It exerts pressure on the electorate into believing there is no alternative to the scheme, and signals that the government has no ideas how to incentivise economic growth. It is ridiculous and unacceptable for the government to argue its point in this manner. If a scheme is bad it should be repealed or amended to make it acceptable and in Malta’s interest.

The government needs to fully comprehend just how damaging to our global image its citizenship scheme has been. The international press has had a field day and Malta’s credibility has been damaged. We are now being linked to the southern eurozone countries that needed a bailout, as well as to the Caribbean countries that have similar schemes, certainly both unfair and incorrect comparisons, but perception is often reality in politics.

On Wednesday, Dr Muscat flew to Miami, out of all places, where he addressed a conference organised by Henley and Partners to promote Malta’s citizenship scheme. Such a promotional drive in Miami just doesn’t look right. If there was one thing post-1987 Nationalist governments were good at it was enhancing Malta’s international image and credibility, something that was achieved patiently over many years, and which helped Malta join the EU in 2004. It would be a pity to discard such a positive record.

The government should have the courage to admit this citizenship scheme is flawed and not in Malta’s interest.

It should reach an agreement with the Opposition whereby the sale of citizenship is replaced by a programme linking the granting of citizenship to investment and residence in Malta.