I have your read your comments in MaltaToday Midweek (19 December, 2007) on the Bondiplus programme and my memoirs ‘No, Honourable Minister’.
You stated that you have neither seen the programme nor read the book – yet you feel entitled to comment about both. Is this the sense of responsibility with which you approach your work as a journalist?

Evarist Saliba

-----------------

Regarding Evarist Saliba’s book, Dr George Vella had stated on Super One that he has written evidence that this gentleman, in his former capacity as head of the foreign affairs office, commented that he prefers to leave empty desks at the foreign office rather than having Labour-leaning civil servants occupying these posts – this after mass transfers at this office (not sure about the date but I think it was after Labour was defeated at the polls).

Charles Baldacchino
Via email

-----------------

No self-respecting journalist would presume to scribble the venomous criticism of the Bondiplus interview of a seasoned and respected diplomat like Mr Evarist Saliba without previously watching the programme or reading the book in question. 
At least, not unless he suffers from delusions of superiority and smug self-complacency about his insider knowledge of the intrigues of powerful intelligence agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, and not unless he is a frustrated politician jealous of the long sequence of PN successes at the polls (with or without supernatural assistance).
 
Dr Francis Saliba

-----------------

How nice of Mr Saliba to inform us of all this... up to few years ago we had been repeatedly told that the MLP are more pro-Russia (or shall I say USSR). Now all of a sudden this gentleman comes along and claims that Labour won the election because of US help! What next?
Sustain allegations before one even bothers to publish them. Would this paper publish something someone says against the PN leader, like winning his election due to external influence?
Well I very hope not. I expect a professional newspaper would first and foremost verify the source before going to print.

Jon Sciberras
Via email

-----------------

Do you truly think that people in their right mind will fall for this? A high-up, trusted and honest person within the PN – I reckon that such a person is still to be born as I cannot fathom any honesty within the PN.
Dr Alfred Sant won the election back in 1996 because of the arrogance within the corrupt PN. He will also win next year’s election and I wonder what the conservative media in Malta will try to push down the throat of its poor readers.

Anthony Micallef
Via email

-----------------

How can you have diplomats that are so politically biased and then write publicly about it? Incredible.

Lawrence Dimech
Sydney, Australia

It is becoming pathetic. The Malta Labour Party and all the smaller, old and new parties, currently acting as critics of whatever the present government has done, is doing and is planning to do, are still very far from being convincing to a very large percentage of voters who will in fact determine the election result outcome.
The MLP, a prospective alternative to PN in government, is shouting out loud at whatever is the topic of the day, whether it is an incinerator, a bridge or the health service, and stating what could be done better with a ‘Plan for a New Beginning’ if MLP won the election.
Words and facts tell different stories. Experience tells it all. What is missing is the “how, when, what, who, where, why”. This is what the voters want to hear.  
The incinerator issue in question is now “Project completed: 100%”. This is a fact which has now passed into history and there is no use in trying to downscale a milestone which is beneficial to public health and the environment.
Labour is no longer stating “it has not been done”, but “it could have been done earlier, cheaper or better”. Labour is in fact acknowledging all progress made to date with a pinch of “Buts and Ifs”. Why?
Everyone in business knows that, with projects involving a very large array of tasks which need to be co-ordinated in order for the final goal to be achieved, one must understand that it is not always possible to reach the exact deadlines due to unavoidable delays.
And this is being realistic in the whole world today. Malta, an island, has a disadvantage in that whatever it needs must come from abroad either by air or by sea.
The man in the street will not have details in hand of individual elements of a project. The man in the street judges by what is seen first and later by what is said.
So whoever it is, whether MLP or other parties or individuals having the role as government critic (and this is healthy) should get their facts right and use criticism in fairness with respect to all workers involved in the creation of a project.
Other projects are ongoing and should remain ongoing whoever will be in power after the election, since they are financed by tax payers’ money and it will only cost more money if they are stopped or shelved. No harm in making slight changes, but keep going.
Labour is offering ideas and strategies lacking concrete, well-calculated financially feasible data. Labour’s own word is what there is (which it expects voters to take for granted).
In a country which is very close to deciding who will govern for the next five years one needs a serious fact-based alternative which should be capable of convincing voters that it is the alternative to the present government.  
Picking on petty issues will not change anything and it will be a pity for voters, especially new generations, to resort to change just for the sake of changing.
In order to change one will require proof that the alternative “after sales service” and “customer feedback” is positive otherwise it is simply down to “Better the devil you know”.
 
John Scerri
Via email

On the 12th of this month, the 27 leaders of the EU signed a new Treaty instead of the defunct European Constitution which was rejected by the French and Dutch people. The treaty will have to be ratified by the 27 governments forming the EU, either by a simple majority in parliament, or by referendums. The majority of these parliaments, Malta included, chose the less democratic system, because they do not wish to have a repetition of a rejection.
It is true that Malta accepted to join the EU, with a massive vote, but that vote was not a blank cheque. When we voted, myself included, neither the European Constitution nor the new Treaty were there. In my opinion, this also applies to our parliament. Our representatives in parliament were voted in by the people over their respective electoral programme. Yes, as Mr Joseph Muscat MEP is reported saying, the government is duty bound to explain the contents of the treaty, but what is the use of explaining when the people are denied the right to show their resentment, or acceptance? I think the majority of the people only know that Malta is getting an extra seat in the European Parliament – to me it’s a minor thing, I am sure there are other issues more important than that.
I think it is an appropriate time to teach our Brussels comrades – sorry, that is a communist word – friends… that tiny Malta believes not just in democracy, but in transparent democracy.

Joseph Muscat
Mosta