Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1065920
19 LETTERS & EDITORIAL maltatoday | SUNDAY • 23 DECEMBER 2018 Suggestion on IIP citizens' anonymity Reference is made to MaltaToday's article by Mr Matthew Vella, dated 16 December 2018 and titled "IIP Regulator wants only MPs to see Mal- tese golden passport names". In this regard the Regulator (IIP) wishes to clarify three points mentioned therein and which are incorrect and/or mis- leading. First of all the article claims that the Regulator wants the names of the Maltese citizens in question to be seen only by MPs. This is incor- rect. Within the report the Regulator made it clear that his Office will not be drawn into the controversy as to whether the names should be pub- lished or not. Instead he recommend- ed that Government should consider researching alternative means that would ensure a better degree of confi- dentiality whilst ensuring some peace of mind to the programme's detrac- tors that the potential IIP citizens are being adequately scrutinised. In this regard, the Agent's recommendation (for applicants to be subjected to par- liamentary scrutiny) was deemed by the Regulator as "worth considering" and therefore recommendable only if it qualifies as a viable alternative means. Secondly the article alleges that the Regulator's recommendation is be- ing put forward to please the Agents. This is also incorrect. The Regulator's recommendation (for Government to consider researching alternative means) is clearly being put forward – as indicated within the 2018 report – in order to address the concerns of both those who allege that the pub- lication of names is not enough and those who are contrary to the placing of names in the public domain. It is important to note that the aim behind any recommendations put forward by the Regulator is to ensure a fair application of the provisions of the IIP Regulations to the satisfaction (as much as possible) of all, including those who are in favour of the Pro- gramme and those who are against. Thirdly the article infers that the Regulator's recommendation could fall foul of democratic requirements of transparency. Again, this is incor- rect. It is obviously a sine qua non that any recommendations by the Regulator which deviate from the provisions of existing IIP Regulations would need to be accompanied by related amendments to such Regula- tions. It is neither the Regulator's intention nor is it within his remit to recommend anything which is con- strued as a clear departure from the transparency necessitated by the law. Carmel L. De Gabriele Regulator (IIP) Editorial Note: MaltaToday under- stands the regulator's wish to see the language employed in his annual re- port being reported without nuance, but this newspaper understands that the clear wishes of the CBI industry are to protect the anonymity of their clients against intrusive media atten- tion and also against public scepti- cism. Naturally, we are aware of the ten- dency of the government to acquiesce to such "industry needs" for the small- est of whims. Language such as that employed by the IIP regulator only serves to encourage 'willing' politi- cians who will eagerly pounce on sug- gestions by independent authorities as rationales to take away the public's power of scrutiny. It is also incredible that IIP citizens are still treated as "first class" citizens, that even their handlers' complaints about transparency are deemed wor- thy of being 'considered' instead of being outright refused by the regula- tor as the attempt to subvert basic democratic norms of citizenship that they are. Mikiel Galea Letters & Clarifications