Comments on: Dropping the secrecy clause? They can’t just do it. Only parliament can undo that.

By: Evarist Saliba

Evarist Saliba — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:22:50 +0000

Is there any reason why anyone should believe what any spokesman for this government says?

If and when the secrecy clause is no longer legally binding I have no doubt that this will be only after a few “chosen ones” would have been entitled to the anonymity that they were promised under the present law.

By: Oh Gosh

Oh Gosh — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:58:04 +0000

Oh there is so much of the evil mind residing in OPM in all of this.

By: Robert Caruana

Robert Caruana — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:12:57 +0000

Joseph Muscat can and will change it because the electorate gave him this power oh how small minded we can be and it will be those very persons who felt that the PN needed a lesson who will be hardest hit because they will be the ones to feel Labour’s wrath the most – mea culpa mea maxima culpa.

By: Zeppi Zammit

Zeppi Zammit — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:39:01 +0000

It cannot be done in a decent democracy, but who said we are still one?

By: Ghoxrin Punt

Ghoxrin Punt — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:22:40 +0000

In reply to Francis Saliba MD. But it will work on the stupid people in Malta

By: Ghoxrin Punt

Ghoxrin Punt — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 22:21:55 +0000

In reply to Niki B. Of course it is, and anyone who says different is a fool

By: Francis Saliba MD

Francis Saliba MD — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:18:55 +0000

The law is not being amended because Muscat’s government does not really want to divest it of its main attraction, the abhorred secrecy clause. That is the main attraction for the filthy rich prospective foreign applicants with something to hide. That is why, according to Grech, Muscat’s business consultants, Henley & Partners, insisted on it.

Muscat is trying to run with the foxes and to chase with the hounds. He would like to attract the suspect filthy rich while giving the false impression of enacting an IIP law that superficially appears to be above board.

The stratagem cannot work with intelligent people anywhere.

By: Tabatha White

Tabatha White — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:01:54 +0000

Will there have been a specific series of passport numbers allocated to the secrecy-bound passports and how will we know whether this series (unlimited?), “sold” before any further amendment to the law takes place with date of issue fitting within this date parameter, will then be activated post-amendment?

Hypothetically speaking.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:39:54 +0000

So assuming it does make it back for a parliamentary debate, the whole shabby lot who voted en masse against the opposition’s amendment to remove the secrecy clause, and then voted en masse (obviously) in favour of the secrecy clause, will then all have to vote in favour of what they voted against last week.

Confusing? And we thought that their voting against the last PN budget, only to vote in the very same one once in power was just plain ridiculous.

By: Alexander Ball

Alexander Ball — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:15:52 +0000

Not only do I not believe him, what a terrific sales pitch that is.

“Secret Passports – Limited Time Only”.

If they are serious about dropping the secrecy, they could rush through the vote. The clock is ticking on their veracity.