Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1240944
THE benefits of Malta's citizenship-by-in- vestment policy are being seen across the country, especially through multi-million euro investment projects. Such investments include the €50 mil- lion social housing plan, with 500 new social housing units at 22 different sites, the €10 million project for the upgrading of eight health centres and 54 clinics, the €950,000 investment in Mater Dei Hospi- tal's Cardiology Department for the up- grading of its two catheterisation suites, and €5 million to Puttinu Cares for the construction of new apartments to house cancer patients and their families in Lon- don. The European Commission says the cit- izenship schemes of Malta and some oth- er countries could help foreign-organised crime groups infiltrate the 27 member bloc and increase the risk of money laun- dering, corruption and tax evasion. These are serious concerns, but how valid are they? The Commission's approach has many flaws. Countries like Malta and Cyprus are being singled out for criticism how- ever other countries much bigger than us, have an established practice of grant- ing citizenship by investment since 1986. The reality is that many European Union member states have similar provisions in law. In fact, the member states granting the majority of citizenships to investors are never mentioned by these critics, whereas Malta, with its highly transpar- ent procedures, is constantly singled out. Does that add up? On average, 700,000 grants of citizen- ship take place in the EU every year, of which up to 1,000 are citizenship by in- vestment. In other words, citizenship by invest- ment represents approximately 0.1% of the total new EU citizenry per year. And this tiny fraction is highly vetted. Each applicant goes through an intrusive and detailed process where their identity and source of funds are verified by mul- tiple parties, including police and intelli- gence agencies. If these critics were really concerned about security, they would be asking questions about the 99.9% who are sub- ject to screening processes much more limited or non-existent because, while Malta is busy carrying out due diligence on each applicant for its scheme, citizen- ship by other means is being granted to people originating from high-risk coun- tries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. And these critics' credibility problem doesn't end there. One must point out that the EU actually welcomes outsid- ers to Europe, to travel freely within its borders, through its Blue Card scheme. While a Blue Card offers only a work and residence permit in the country con- cerned, the holder can actually travel to and between most EU countries. It's not hard to see how this might offer opportu- nities for wealthy individuals, or criminal organisations, to create an employment contract with a pro-forma employer, for instance through the creation of a let- ter-box company with its seat and tax domicile in a given EU country, for the issuing of a Blue Card. When all is said and done, the fact is the right and the power to award citizenship or residence authorisation rests with the state concerned. This is part of the sov- ereign powers of a state. As a democracy, we welcome scrutiny and are always will- ing to improve our procedures. However, we know that our citizenship scheme is honest, fair and, ultimately, benefits all Maltese. One thing we have learnt from the COV- ID-19 crisis is that economic fortunes can change overnight. We now see there was great foresight when the Individual Inves- tor Programme was set up. Does anyone doubt that it was a good idea to establish a National Development and Social Fund to invest for the future before this crisis reduced government tax revenues? Does anyone doubt it was a good idea to spend millions on upgrading health facilities in recent years? Malta, like other countries, will have to rebuild in the months and years ahead. The revenue from this initiative means we are in a stronger position than we would have been. Malta will continue to engage with the European Union to persuade it that its concerns are misplaced and we don't rule out making changes that would enhance our scheme. We will continue to say merħba to new citizens and new talent while taking care to say no to applicants who cannot pass stringent tests. The best thing we can do is act responsibly, and that's exactly what we will do. 11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 26 APRIL 2020 OPINION during which there was no 'mag- isterial inquiry' to be used as an excuse to avoid providing any information to the public. Ultimately, this raises the ques- tion of what would have hap- pened had those allegations not been made at all. There would quite simply have been no at- tempt, of any kind whatsoever, to get to the bottom of a myste- rious maritime tragedy in which 12 people lost their lives. And this, to me, is quite frankly inconceivable. As for point number two: the AFM's obligation is not to- wards the media, or any specific NGO… but to the general public, to whom all national institutions are supposed to be answerable. Meanwhile, those 12 deaths were separately confirmed by both Frontex and the Interna- tional Migration Organisation… so even if Curmi is technically correct to cite the 'onus of proof' argument, with regard to the ones making the allegation… that argument doesn't apply to the broader (and entirely legit- imate) questions that should always be asked in the case of proven fatalities. In this case, these include the question of whether the AFM actually adhered to its legal and procedural obligations, or not. The most worrying part, how- ever, is that the alternative to asking these questions is… um… not asking them at all. In other words, to simply take the au- thorities' word for it that all laws and procedures are always being observed to the letter: in the pro- cess, throwing overboard all no- tions of 'transparency, 'accounta- bility', 'checks and balances', etc. And oddly enough, this is in fact the substance of the third main argument: which can be roughly translated as: "No need for any official inquiries. We did everything right; and anyone who says otherwise is lying, full- stop." And what... we're supposed to all just accept that blindly, with- out even asking any questions? Sorry, but that's asking too much… One thing we have learnt from the COVID-19 crisis is that economic fortunes can change overnight. We now see there was great foresight when the Individual Investor Programme was set up Alex Muscat Granting citizenship may have risks, but Malta isn't the problem Alex Muscat is Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Communities