Malta has long prided itself in the scrutiny that its financial watchdogs have over investments and to make sure that things are done as they should be.

To continue to build on the same argument, this government has continued to espouse and promote Malta as a financial hub, saying that it believes in its potential and its regulatory structures.

So why then, does a Cabinet member of the government of an EU member state see nothing wrong in acquiring a company in Panama, a country which is well known for its money laundering operations, and which is also blacklisted by the European Union? Mr Mizzi says that the choice was based on the advice of experts to maximise the returns of he and his spouse through a Trust Fund in New Zealand.

Following allegations that he had done so, it quickly emerged that the Prime Minister’s Chief of staff also had a trust fund in New Zealand, and an attached company. The PN leader jumped at the chance to strike at the jugular yesterday morning, saying that this government was rotten to the core.

He asked whether Mr Schembri and Dr Mizzi acquired their trust fund and the same time. He also asked whether they acquired them around the time of a ‘secret visit’ to Azerbaijan by themselves and the Prime Minister. More importantly, the PN leader asked whether Joseph Muscat was an accomplice. All these are very pertinent questions. Questions that are on everyone’s lips. People in the street are asking why Malta is still paying through the nose for petrol thanks to Dr Mizzi’s hedging deals in Azerbaijan when prices are plummeting in the rest of Europe.

But we have other questions to ask. Both Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri have pledged to have their interests audited and for the findings to be made public. Why not simplify matters and make them more transparent. Why don’t those concerned – we wonder if there are more – simply repatriate their investments in Malta, subject them to the normal rules of scrutiny and try to at least restore some trust from the people.

When the Swissleaks scandal broke, we were told – from both sides mind you – that skirting around the law will not be tolerated and that people would have to regularise their position. What is different in all this? Mr Schembri said that he relocated on advice that local investment facilities might be changing their business models. Does this not imply that a trust in a country on the other side of the world can tap into an EU blacklisted country, can get you a better return on your investments? Read that question again and let it sink in. One minister and one senior government officer saw no problem in seeking out financial advice to invest in a blacklisted country, be told that they can get a better return on their investments there, and go for it, without even batting an eyelid. It must be said that Mr. Schembri is a well known business entreprenuer and such doesn’t exclude him from having accounts in foreign juristriction, however, the time is ripe for him to decide on which side of the fence he’d like to sit, the Government or the private enterprise.

Surely, people with as much acumen as these two men, should have been able to put two and two together and ask: “What would it look like to the general public? How will it be perceived?” The answer, for us, is that such behaviour is unacceptable. This cannot be ascribed to ignorance. On the contrary, it seems more fitting to ascribe this to cunning and deceit. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said he would be running Malta like a CEO, but he forgets that even global giants can also be brought down by their own deceit. Just ask Volkswagen or FIFA.