"For some unknown reason the government seems to be emotionally attached to these foreign investors (in the proposed White Rocks project) to the exclusion of Maltese investors." Thus wrote Paul Abela in his Times Talking Point on Saturday (July 24). He is a member of the Consortium San Andrea, which six years ago entered into a binding agreement with the then Tourism Minister, Michael Refalo, to develop a specified White Rocks area under the prime-ministerial condition that the White Rocks would "never become a real estate project".

Mr Abela wrote, for the second time in a few days and with acute clarity in reaction to the PM who jibed at him instead of honestly saying why the government was going back on its word and ignoring the consortium. In secret negotiations going on for 18 months the government has agreed with a British consortium to allow it to develop the White Rocks into a real estate project of 300 apartments, commercial outlets and a four-star hotel, togeher with the development of a sports complex.

Mepa has, it is clear, been directed to change the parameters it had set for the White Rocks and has opened a so-called consultation period to that effect. In his first reply to criticism about the obscurity of the negotiations with the British consortium and the somersault about real estate development, the PM spun the accusation that the opposition was trying to scupper a state-of-the art sports complex, which wouldn't "cost the government a penny". He still maintains that notwithstanding that he hasn't challenged an expert estimate of a €500 million tag to the White Rocks land, it will cost the people nothing.

In reality, politics does not play a part in the questions being asked of the PM. Mr Abela is not politically motivated. He is a declared Nationalist who points out he has been in the PN longer than Lawrence Gonzi and who served the party as a local councillor.

The Prime Minister was moved to react. He did so briefly on Sunday week. In an astounding fashion. The Times reported him as follows: "Somebody who tells us in a simplistic way that what we are doing today is the same like when the government had issued a tender for a tourist complex at the White Rocks is motivated by personal interest and profit."

Mr Abela's reaction in his Talking Point was thunderous. He ignored the jibe that he was "simplistic". He simply asked: "Since when has the fact of looking after one's interest been considered not only distasteful but also made to sound like a crime?"

He has a point. Ours, as the government proudly proclaims, is a free-market economy. Profit is at the heart of the free market. Even lightly or heavily controlled economies set profit targets. Foreign investors come to Malta to make a profit. Our tax regime is structured to enable that. Part of the government's tax-take comes from profits.

So what is the Prime Minister on about, lashing at Mr Abela like that? When I first raised the White Rocks issue in this column weeks ago I posed a number of questions and said that many others could be made. Well, they are now coming along sharp and fast. By avoiding them the Prime Minister is begging more questions.

He is showing that his government is not merely "emotionally" attached to the foreign investors who someone somehow mobil-ised to get their hands on the White Rocks, no doubt to make a decent profit. There is more to it than that. What, exactly, will be seen in due course should Dr Gonzi and his team wade further into the morass.

If the government wants to develop the White Rocks area beyond the tourist complex secured through a public tender by the Consortium San Andrea, he has an honest way open to him. Set out the sports facilities, 300 apartments, four-star hotel and the proposed commercial outlets, plus public recreation space, in a development brief. Then put up that brief to tender.

That would still not be fair to the Consortium San Andrea. But at least the people can be certain that the current process has become honestly transparent and the project will be going to the highest bidder. If, instead, he persists with handing the land directly to the British consortium, Dr Gonzi will stand indicted with allocating public property to private interests in an improper way that does not necessarily maximise the potential return to the people. It is they, not Dr Gonzi and his team, who ultimately own the land in question.