No EU state has given up its right to grant citizenship to whoever it deems fit.  A number of EU states actually have schemes in place whereby, through residence, against a monetary consideration, be it a payment of a fee or a commitment to invest, or against a service rendered to the country, citizenship can be acquired.  No schemes that are in place, in so many EU states, have been subjected to negative criticism by the EU Commission, except the scheme of Joseph Muscat’s Malta. Why?

Our Prime Minister’s sale of (EU) passports scheme was never included in an electoral programme.  From the start the scheme did not enjoy respectability as it presented itself as a straightforward money transaction which cheapened the concept of citizenship.  The engagement of Henley & Partners, passport sale instigators for banana republics, and a secretive administration of the same scheme further denigrated the scheme’s reputation which immediately became a magnet to dubious and shady applicants.  A shabby scheme that demeaned the image of Malta.

An alarmed EU did engage in a feeble attempt to stop the money-spinning charade  but the commission only managed to expose its inability to sustain ethical standards in member states.  It failed to stop Malta from selling passports, however, the episode saw the start of a process of contempt aimed towards Malta by so many EU states.

Now again, operating within EU rules, no EU state has renounced its authority to adopt and apply a taxation regime that fits its needs to generate revenue.  All EU states have their own particular taxation set-ups and they differ substantially from each other.  To date no EU state has been unduly singled out for a concerted negative attack on its EU-conforming taxation system.  The conforming company tax regime of Malta is, however, being attacked by EU politicians and the EU media; why?  Again it is a question of reputation, standards and values.

For years there was no focus on Malta’s tax regime by the EU, a regime which favoured foreign-registered companies with tax rebates, but then Panama Papers came along

For years there was no focus on Malta’s tax regime by the EU, a regime which favoured foreign-registered companies with tax rebates, but then Panama Papers came along and a number of top government personalities turned out to be Panama stars.

Muscat’s government confirmed to the world that such stars, with impunity, could continue to participate in the governance of Malta.  This decision started and accelerated the process of Malta’s loss of reputation as a serious, rule of law, corruption-free jurisdiction.  Malta stopped being perceived as a State capable of offering an environment that allows trustworthy financial services to be competently offered and administered.  This is why our financial services sector is under threat.  Malta’s image is tarnished and its enemies are taking advantage.

Corruption in Malta has lately seriously flourished, especially local corruption, but what is more worrying are rumours of alleged corruption conducted in transactions at an international level.  Why are local banks experiencing difficulties in their relations with reputable foreign correspondents?  Why are local financial operators seeing their professional integrity and competence internationally questioned? Why has foreign direct investment from decent sources dried up?

Undoubtedly, Malta desperately needs to clean up its act and the reputation of the island has to be restored to decent levels of respectability.  This, however, cannot be effectively done by the outgoing administration, more so when one considers its negative track record.

Much as it will not be flattering, even a mere 100-vote majority to the Forza Nazzjonali should kick-start this critical rehabilitation of Malta.  It will be a daunting uphill struggle that Simon Busuttil will be undertaking, however, the man is made of sterner stuff than anyone imagined.  Under the circumstances, the country is fortunate to have an honest, upright, principled and courageous leader.  But Busuttil needs to be more than just a corruption buster, as good governance on its own will not ensure economic success.  So a critical examination of the proposals being put forward by the Opposition is due.  Overall, the proposals are sound although not all might possibly be realisable.

So many valid social and economic measures are planned for implementation, however, there are also proposals for some fundamental institutional reforms.  The latter are of crucial importance if we are to lay the foundation for robust legal and constitutional safeguards that will protect us from a repetition of a reprehensible abuse of power.

Over time we should also then be able to encourage a good number of Maltese citizens to adopt more decent moral values when assessing their politicians.

In conclusion, a defeat for the Moviment will prove beneficial to the Malta Labour Party, as it will provide it with the umpteenth opportunity to maybe, finally, resolutely, drop some of its ingrained sinister patterns of behaviour.  Should we hope that at some future time, were the Malta Labour Party to find itself once more in power, it will desist from reinaugurating widespread corruption and despicable governance? Will the party desist from recreating an image of sleaze for Malta?