Joseph Vella Bonnici’s article, Citizenship And The IIP (November 28), is either outdated or out of sync. Either way, his article raises questions that need to be clarified by the government.

Vella Bonnici defends the controversial citizenship-for-cash scheme.

He considers the scheme as proposed by the government as a unique opportunity for Malta – one that should not be missed.

He clearly believes there is no harm in selling citizenship for cash as long as there are adequate controls in place.

In doing, he is missing the core objection that fuelled opposition to the scheme in Malta and abroad.

The majority of Maltese clearly do not want to have our citizenship up for sale. The core issue here is not one of control, checks and balances or which company is doing what.

We have two contrasting positions emanating from the government

Citizenship has to be acquired through acceptable norms that, in most cases, is a bond forged through blood, marriage or a period of residence combined with a clear commitment that ties the person to the country.

Vella Bonnici referred to the 1,100 citizenships being issued by Malta every year. I challenge him to state on which basis these citizenship were granted.

Is he saying we should not grant Maltese citizenship to Maltese des-cendents living abroad? Or to foreigners who marry Maltese citizens?

Our system provides how one can acquire citizenship and this is set in a transparent way that respects the integrity of our country, of our nation.

One cannot substitute these requirements with a due diligence exercise, as Vella Bonnici is implying in his article.

In the absence of such strong ties, the scheme would remain one of outright sale – a sale that is being strongly objected to in Malta and abroad.

The opposition to this scheme that Vella Bonnici attempts to defend at this late hour was very evident in Malta, with a number of organisations and civil society voicing their concern.

The concern is not partisan but cross-party, with a number of prominent Labour-leaning opinion makers also strongly against. The issue is not political. It is national.

Criticism of the scheme was predictably also vociferous abroad, as a result of which our reputation as a country with a strong economy and that of a serious financial services centre is at stake.

The scale of the opposition prompted the Prime Minister to agree to change the law within a few hours of it being enacted and put on hold the publication of the legal notice that would have given effect to such scheme.

Yet, here we have a key player, a senior government appointee, saying that the scheme as originally proposed should stay.

What game is the government playing here? Is the government seriously committed to changing the scheme and seeking consensus or is it simply playing for time, hoping that the opposition to the scheme will wither away?

Is this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?

Vella Bonnici’s article throws serious doubts on the government’s intentions.

Who are we to believe, the Prime Minister who says that he is willing to change or his appointee who is saying that the scheme should stay as it is?

One has to keep in mind that Vella Bonnici was politically appointed to head Identity Malta, the very entity that will be running this scheme.

So his published opinion has to be taken as the official position of the government. This means we have two contrasting positions emanating from the government: one that recognises that the scheme should change and the other stateing the scheme should remain intact.

The Opposition position is very clear. We are against the sale of citizenship.

Yes, we do favour schemes that encourage and attract foreign investment to Malta. Yes, we are in favour of schemes that recognise the commitment and contribution made by foreign persons in Malta over a period of years.

But this does not mean that we prepared to accept a scheme that sells citizenship and passports over the counter. These positions are not contradictory.

Citizenship has to be tied to a period of residency. It has to be the final step in a process throughout which a person clearly shows that s/he is committed to Malta and its people. The relationship has to be one of conviction, not convenience.

Anything short of this will be an act of prostitution.

The Opposition will continue its discussions with the government on this issue. We do this because we know this country’s reputation is at stake. We do this because we are aware that reputation is key to success in attracting foreign investment, enterprise and financial services to this country.

We do this because we do not want the hard-earned achievement of so many thrown away by the short-sighted whims of a few.

We will continue to seek consensus but won’t move away from our principled objections.

In the light of Vella Bonnici’s article, the government must clarify whether it is serious in its intentions of amending the botched scheme and law and do away with the selling of citizenship.

Mario de Marco is PN deputy leader.