A bitter pill, sweetened

An eleventh-hour announcement that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat will be removing a secrecy clause that would keep under confidentiality the names of naturalised citizens on the €650,000 golden passport scheme, is perhaps a mild sweetener for the bitter pill that the IIP is.

The international press gave Muscat's IIP's the coverage it necessarily deserved. An EU member state planning to make €30 million by selling visa-free and eurozone mobility to the global rich is a clamorous event, especially for a social democrat government attempting to cross over from the culture of austerity economics to that of growth.

The negative perception was that Malta was 'cash-strapped' - an incorrect notion even though Muscat is diverting €15 million to the consolidated fund, revenues which are badly needed for the carefully planned budget of 2014. The other negative, but alas, correct perception was the image of the southern EU member state ready to open the doors of Fortress Europe to the rich while trying to close the doors off to the poverty of African migration.

MaltaToday was the first newspaper to question the secrecy of the scheme and the principle behind it: specifically we asked why a double-tier system was being created for the global rich, and for those taxpaying migrants who have formed a substantial community bond for them to remit becoming naturalised citizens.

Although the IIP is technically lawful in the eyes of the European Commission, the spectre of a referendum piloted by the Nationalist Party has raised new political lines of action, some of them questionable in themselves.

This newspaper cannot not note the unusual silence of the Nationalist Party and the other media in general over the IIP, with no voice of dissent questioning the human rights principle at stake on this matter. Weeks later, the misgivings raised by the Opposition appeared to ascribe more value to the actual cost of citizenship, rather than the principle of the matter. With evidence showing that even prior to the launch of the scheme, meetings had been held between the PN and concessionaries Henley, and an apparent 'convergence' on the workings of the scheme, it emerged that divergences on the citizenship sale had cropped up inside the Opposition.

The fragmented stand on the IIP inside was evident to the extent that it was clear that discussions had taken place as to whether the party should embrace the scheme. There was little criticism on its fiscal advantages, but the ultimate proposition was to 'add value' to the scheme by linking it to investment.

It was of course one way of stalling the debate. After the parliamentary debate, we were left with the impression that Opposition leader Simon Busuttil would be happy to embrace the 'golden passport' if an equation spelling out investment in clearer terms was linked to the scheme. But it was this lack of a moral stand that may have allowed the Labour government to refuse amendments that first aimed at making the IIP more transparent.

This newspaper will continue to support a proper framework into which migrants who have residence, pay taxes, and who can prove affinity with the Maltese and English language as well as culture and history, can be granted citizenship. Naturalisation should be a reward to members of our society who have cultivated a community bond, who have contributed to the economy, and whose children represent the future of this island. We warn that, as the law stands today, there is ample room for corruption when the power of granting citizenship is at the full discretion of a government minister.

In the meantime, the interests of economic stability have placed a new priority on the IIP. The fiscal targets set out by the government have placed it in a fix. It cannot afford to retrace its steps on this scheme although it definitely had ample time to sugar the pill by sending a message to those who are 'honestly' worried about the sale of citizenship.

Government has acted correctly in guaranteeing transparency on the IIP, controversial though this scheme will always be. But this concession should be backed up by real rights: rights for migrants who contribute to our social and economic development, not just for the rich.