The statement made by Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech (November 15) that the names of persons granted Maltese citizenship by the Individual Investor Programme will be published has allayed the concerns of those who feared that the Maltese passport will become a passport of convenience granted to persons who wish to evade justice from their country by taking up Maltese citizenship.
Public perception on this issue was concerned that, irrespective of the many safeguards of due diligence introduced by the government, this scheme – as originally proposed – would have been open to abuse that would have impacted negatively on the reputation of Malta as a country enjoying political stability, due to its system of good governance. Such a negative public perception abroad would harm our financial services and tourism industries. Another objection to the Act – that the government has some pre-set plan for Malta, which it is not willing to divulge, and that it will not amend the Citizenship Act at all – has also been shown to be false. The two principal remaining objections to the Act are that the granting of citizenship is not conditioned by clauses of residence and investment, so that Malta may conform with similar legislation in other EU member states. Let us not forget that many other member states have schemes of citizenship by registration but none of these schemes grant citizenship solely on the receipt of a substantial sum of money and after a due diligence process.
On Sunday, the government invited the Opposition for talks that would hopefully lead to an agreement where these two and other objections may be discussed.
It is important that our political and social forces resolve their differences and are united on issues relating to foreign relations so that Malta may nip in the bud any speculative attacks on our reputation as a financial centre, which would benefit our competitors in Europe, mainly Luxembourg, Ireland and the UK, but which would be to our detriment. We may very possibly have to face sanctions from other EU member states that may feel aggrieved by this legislation if we do not amend the IIP. There is also the tourism industry to be considered, which would also be adversely affected by negative publicity.
This, after all, is what consultation is all about – that compromise is found in our society and prolongation of conflict which may lead to separateness and division is avoided – while at the same time satisfying the needs and aspirations of both the majority and the minority.
Malta’s history is rich in such compromises of consensual government which is the key to political stability and which we have generally enjoyed since independence. This political stability in turn makes a scheme such as the IIP attractive to serious-minded foreigners who would be willing to invest and reside in Malta, provided they are reassured that what they bargain for today will be honoured tomorrow.
On the other hand, if we do not find an equitable solution to our differences, the prolongation of conflict may very well degenerate into division and separateness.