Don’t be gulled by hand-puppet Louis Grech’s announcement that the secrecy clause is going
Success kbir – tal-ghageb
The secrecy clause is now law. It has been voted on by parliament and signed off by the president. In a situation like this, the government can’t just decide not to use it, or decide to ‘take it out’.
It requires yet another vote in parliament.
Between now and then, whenever that happens, the secrecy clause is law and the government can sell citizenship to the 45 or 60 families it says it has lined up without the need to publish their names in the Government Gazette.
What we need now is a firm commitment from the government – not that we should necessarily believe a bunch of liars like them – that between the secrecy clause becoming law this week, and its being repealed, they will sell no passports.
Will we have that commitment, and if we do, can we believe it?
Time for another set of questions in parliament.
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Is Muscat’s hand really inside the puppet’s head here? Great picture for this title, Daphne.
A commitment to removing the secrecy clause could end up being as hollow as a pledge to be transparent, accountable, fair and meritocratic.
And in any case why should we believe him? They’ve done nothing but lie, so why should this be any different?
One must wonder if that international fraudster Mary Swan is among those 60-odd families lined up to buy Maltese passports, giving her access to the US, assuming she doesn’t have one already.
Needless to say, she would come up with yet another alias in the hope of fooling border controls. She has paid for a few false passports in the past and certainly has the money for a new one, but a Maltese passport may be the most lucrative for her yet.
Owen Bonnici was saying on Xarabank on Friday that a change in the law as now amended is not needed in order to remove the secrecy aspect of the Citizenship Sale scheme.
This is of course not true and not correct.
The amendments to the Citizenship Act (Chapter 188) which the Labour majority – including Owen Bonnici – voted for in Parliament on Monday included the replacement of Article 25 – which provided for the publication of information by the Minister – by a new article which prohibits the Regulator from providing in its annual report to the Minister for publication the “personal data relating to individuals who have acquired Maltese citizenship under the individual investor programme.”
Personal data is of course any information which identifies a person – in this case those who obtain Maltese citizenship under the “individual investor progam.”
Therefore, in the first place, with the amendments as approved, the Regulator and the Minister cannot publish in the annual report the identification details of those who acquire the Maltese citizenship under the “individual investor program.”
In the second place, it would also be possible for those who acquire the Maltese citizenship under the “individual investor program” to argue that the Regulator and the Minister cannot publish anywhere else (that is other than in the annual report) their personal information – their identification – because no provision is made in the law and because this would violate the Data Protection Act, and that such publication would be inconsistent with Article 25.
In fact, on Monday the Labour majority repealed the following Article:
“25. (1) Not later than fifteen days after the end of every
quarter the Minister shall cause to be published in the Government Gazette a list containing the name and surname of all the persons who shall have become citizens of Malta by registration or by naturalisation during the immediately preceding quarter.
(2) For the purpose of this article, “quarter” means any period
of three calendar months beginning on the 1st January, 1st April, 1st July or lst October of any year.”
Source: http://www.foreign.gov.mt/Library/Citizenship%20Forms%20and%20Templates/chapt188.pdf
Instead, Owen Bonnici and his labour colleagues voted to insert the following replacement Article – see sub-Article 8:
25. (1) The Prime Minister, after consulting the Leader of the
Opposition, shall appoint as a Regulator for the purposes of the correct implementation and monitoring of the individual investor programme, a person who has held the office of Judge or Magistrate, or who has held the office of Attorney General, or Permanent Secretary or who has practiced as an advocate in Malta for a period of at least twelve years:
Provided that during such time when a Regulator is not ppointed the Ombudsman appointed under the Ombudsman Act shall act ex officio as Regulator.
(2) The Regulator shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(3) In addition to his functions under this Act and such other functions as may be assigned to him under any law the Regulator shall keep under review all aspects of the individual investor programme.
(4) The Prime Minister may by regulations assign to the Regulatorany other function related to citizenship.
(5) In the discharge of his functions under this Act, the Regulator shall act in his individual judgment and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.
(6) It shall be the duty of any person involved in the administration of the individual investor programme or of any other matter in relation to which the Regulator is assigned functions under sub-article (4) to disclose or give to the Regulatorsuch documents or information as he may require for the purpose of enabling him to discharge his functions.
(7) The Regulator may at any time report to the Minister on any matter relating to the discharge of his functions under this Act.
(8) The Regulator shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Minister which annual report shall not include personal data relating to individuals who have acquired Maltese citizenship under the individual investor programme.
(9) The Minister shall lay a copy of each annual report made by the Commissioner under subarticle (8) on the Table of the House of Representatives as soon as possible after the report is made to him.”
Owen Bonnici’s perfomance on Xarabank was pathetic. He was insinuating that the foreign media were orchestrated by the PN, as if the foreign media are puppets of a political party in Malta – surely an insult to that media and to the thousands of intelligent persons who read that media every day. Is he thinking that because the Labour government and the Clowns in Castille can control the news of the public broadcasting here in Malta, then all news agencies of the world can be controlled by some central office?
And now I have to say this in Maltese:
Imbasta meta Owen Bonnici tkellem fil-Parlament kien mohhu biss biex jizzuffjetta bil-“kazz.” Dam xi hames minuti ghaddej idahhaq il-kamra bil-“kazz.” Imbaghad meta gie ghas-si u n-no, ivvota favur is-segretezza, u issa, ghax il-media tad-dinja kollha izzufjetat bihom u waqqathom ghac-cajt, qed jghid li ma jsib l-ebda problema inehhi s-segretezza. Ara vera kaz li l-gvern “bela’ kazz.”
There is one circumstance under which I would agree with Owen Bonnici on not changing the law on the secrecy aspect. That would be if the Labour clowns totally REPEALED the law as they changed it.
Source for the text of Article 25 as amended:
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2013/10/and-bang-on-cue-the-government-emails-parliament-with-changes-to-the-citizenship-act-allowing-the-sale-of-maltese-citizenship-to-investors/
Point is, how can Government MPs now vote to remove the secrecy clause when they’ve just voted for it to be in place as part of the amendments to the citizenship act? An even bigger dilemma for Marlene Farrugia.
Labour has taken parliament to unprecedented lows. This is not the way to govern; and yet I’ll be getting comments tomorrow (naturally from pro-labour supporters and some with tertiary education) all in support of Joseph.
Joseph Muscat can claim that “with hindsight” he thinks that transparency is better than secrecy. Because you know, one needs to use hindsight to realise that transparency is better than secrecy.
It will not be the first time he determined policy with hindsight, so we will not be surprised.
Before the elections I predicted on this website that the roadmap will be full of cul-de-sacs, wrong ways, U-turns and slippery roads ahead.
Perhaps a clause stating immediate mandatory publishing of the names in the Government Gazzette is necessary, without which the passport cannot be issued.
[Daphne – It is parliament which legislates, not the government, unless it is by means of a legal notice, which is not the case here.]
We have to be extra careful. They are trying to avoid taking it to parliament.
“The PN pointed out that secrecy was introduced to the scheme when the government in Parliament removed clause 25 of the Citizenship Act which imposed a duty on the government to publish the names of new citizens within three months. Therefore, if the prime minister was serious about dropping secrecy he needed to return to parliament to reinstate clause 25. He also needed to ensure that no secret passports were issued before this clause was reinstated.
Once a clause of primary legislation had been removed, it had to be restored in the same manner.” (Times of Malta)
I am sure those that were forcing the PM’s hand to get the law through have already been given the citizenship and the passport all in secret.
This is the only way Labour understands.
Probably the passports they wanted to keep secret have already been issued and that is why they are now willing to remove the secrecy clause… Gvern li jisma my foot.
We should also check whether Aliyev now already has a Maltese Passport.
Malta Today’s 12th November report that Aliyev’s Austrian passport has already been retracted since 7 months was a coincidence of timing that seemed altogether too smooth.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Rakhat-Aliyev-stripped-of-Austrian-passport-20131111
Running a country the same way as a band club.