The statement by Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech on 15 November that the names of individuals 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 people who wish to evade justice in their own country by taking up Maltese citizenship.

Public concern over this issue was that, irrespective of the many safeguards of due diligence introduced by the government, the scheme – as originally proposed – would be 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 to similar legislation in other EU member states. Let us not forget that many other EU member states have schemes of Citizenship by Registration, but none of them grant citizenship solely on the receipt of a substantial sum of money and after a due diligence process.

Last Sunday the government invited the Opposition for talks leading to an agreement where these and other objections were 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 can nip in the bud any speculative attacks on its reputation as a financial centre that would benefit our competitors in Europe, mainly Luxembourg, Ireland and the UK, but would be to our detriment. We may very well have to face sanctions from other EU member states who feel aggrieved by this legislation, if we do not amend the I.I.P. There is also the tourism industry to be considered, which would also be adversely effected by negative publicity.

This, after all, is what consultation is all about – that compromise is found in our society and the 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 Individual Investor Programme 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, as happened, for example, in Cyprus – another Mediterranean island – where ethnic differences have resulted in the division of the country into two distinct entities for the past 39 years.

Mario Mifsud  

HAMRUN