Reveal and be damned

Malta's citizenship scheme has dominated the wires all week, at least in Malta. The furore could have been avoided if the Muscat administration had shown some wisdom, restraint and less effrontery.

Let us rewind to the early days of this scheme.

The truth is that this government needs the money to make up for the shortfall from revenues that would otherwise have been siphoned from income tax.

Refusing to take up last year's PN budget would not have changed the electoral outcome, but it did change revenue targets.

Henley & Partners were obviously working hard at getting the Maltese government to consider this scheme, well before March 2013. Tonio Fenech was not only talking to H&P - his face could also be seen in their fancy coffee table showcase book.

Unlike the previous administration, Muscat is hungry for investment. And in doing so, he may have underestimated the 'revulsion' and 'derision' towards giving out citizenship for a handsome price.

So sometime in late summer, a MaltaToday journalist comes knocking at my office door telling me about an advert that appeared in the Financial Times calling for an expression of interest in managing a citizenship scheme in Malta.

That was enough to trigger a story in MaltaToday, which led to the revelation of the scheme.

Strangely enough, at the time we did not know that Mario de Marco, Jason Azzopardi, Tonio Fenech and Christie Debono were locked in secret discussions with the Labour administration. Three long meetings were held, I am told.

For three weeks, the citizenship scheme was reported in MaltaToday but not in any other newspaper. Simon Busuttil had the audacity to state on TV that he had not read the story in MaltaToday, and then proceeded to ask me: "Do you have a stand on the citizenship scheme?"

To which I replied that he should read all the newspapers.

What really catalysed the bad feeling against the citizenship scheme was a survey organised by MaltaToday, which showed an overwhelming opposition to dishing out a citizenship for a price.

There were four main reasons for the objections.

Number 1:  It is fun to rip into Joseph Muscat;

Number 2: Giving out citizenship to the rich but not to the poor is questionable;

Number 3: Citizenship is not for sale;

Number 4: Maltese legal and audit firms were left out of the loop;

Number 5: Ignorance of the fact that other EU countries also have similar schemes.

So let us tackle these concerns one by one.

Number 1 is something you cannot handle or control. No matter how pro-business and liberal Muscat tries to be, those who dislike Labour and treat the menopausal Bile Queen's blog as their Bible will always believe that Muscat devours new born babies and that Busuttil is the next best thing to Clark Gable.

Number 2 is a good point. Where is the solidarity? Where is the social democrat in Muscat?

Number 3 is an issue of morals and principles. And one that many would be sympathetic to, though the Nationalist Party still believe that it should be linked to more investment. In my view there is no middle road - it's either a yay or a nay.

Number 4 is one point which would have dampened the opposition of the legal fraternity.

As for Number 5... if knowledge of what other countries had to offer in terms of citizenship was made known, many people may have considered shutting their mouths and looking the other way.

The Opposition did what it had to do. It raised a firestorm in the European Parliament and the end result was a resounding victory for the No vote - far too big to be ignored.

It failed to change the Prime Minister's resolve, who has by now learnt that backtracking or saying sorry will not win him any brownie points.

The citizenship scheme has been shaken and it remains to be seen whether the candidates interested in the scheme are willing to take the next step and apply for the scheme.

If the citizenship scheme does not materialise, Muscat will be mortally wounded and would have sacrificed honour and respect for nothing in return.

As things stand today, the affront between the two political sides has fomented some fighting spirit within Labour's hard core. 

That hard core is traditionally antagonistic to criticism from foreigners. The sight of all those members of parliament slagging Malta off was what fanned the flames of wrath within the Labour rank and file.

On the other hand, the clumsy introduction of the citizenship scheme was a gift to Simon Busuttil to organise a campaign without resorting to a spending spree.

As is often the case, only time will tell how all of this will pan out.

If the €1 billion does not transpire, then Muscat will be facing a real problem. If not, he may well turn round to everyone and lecture to them on the wisdom of his risky policies.

***

I cannot quite understand why the Maltese police would want me to name my source, when they probably know the source in question. But more importantly than that, why do they need the source? Is it really necessary?

If they're genuinely after more information about the case, they should structure their questions in court.

They should also ask me to present documents and to explain the links between one person and another.

They have simply not done this.

I do not want to sound like a prima donna, but what the hell: had it not been for MaltaToday, nothing would have happened. 

Here I am waiting to see if the police will present a formal judicial request before the magistrate to oblige me to reveal my source. Though it appears that I am fully covered by the law, there are some interpretations in the law which may conclude that I am in contempt of court.

If that is the case, I have made a very clear choice. Truth be told, do I even  have a choice? My credibility does not depend on how many libels I have in front of one magistrate in the Maltese courts (a debatable matter, if there is one).

Though I don't mind being a hero, I could think of better things than taking a short sabbatical at Kordin.

The truth is that the police investigations have, in my mind, been rather sloppy.  To start with, the decision to issue a pardon to George Farrugia was an unnecessary mistake. 

It would be far wiser to remove his pardon and nail Farrugia, rather than believing that the man was a victim of other individuals.

But Gonzi - who knew Farrugia - thinks otherwise.

Former prime minister Lawrence Gonzi argued that he only gave a pardon after being advised by the former commissioner of police John Rizzo. Even though George Farrugia said he did not utter one word about the case and the police had nothing to go by.

Rizzo has chosen to remain silent, citing a number of irrelevant excuses for not explaining why he suggested the pardon.

The second most important observation is that the police have not even screened the foreign bank accounts of all those involved or potentially involved.

It is incredible.

What is more incredible is that the perpetrator of these bribes was given a pardon, the minister responsible for Enemalta at the time spends most of his time laughing and instituting libel actions, and the political party which oversaw this incredible mess is in denial. Furthermore, the public accounts committee has failed to instigate the police to act and the media responsible for having spilt the beans are facing serious court action, which could land yours truly behind bars: first of all for not revealing a source and secondly for having catalysed the cataclysmic defeat of the PN at the polls.