The PN might be wrong, even if only slightly, in asking for Mr Sivio Scerri's resignation, unless they're playing to a wrinkle I'll mention further down.

For those of you who are not fully up to speed, Mr Scerri is Chief of Staff to Minister Manwel Mallia, who is responsible for the cops (which is a whole n'other story) used to be responsible for justice (and in a few short months had this ripped from under his wing) and for the military and public broadcasting. If Mallia wanted to pull a revolution in the South American style, which is obviously not the case for those who have had a sense of humour by-pass, he's ideally placed.

Mallia has been the subject of a number of episodes which caused eyebrows to be raised in the blink of an eye during which he's been Minister, what with the cops acting as waiters for him and all that.

But, to be getting back to my opening paragraph, the reason the PN are asking for Scerri's resignation, apart from his reported "do you know who I am" antics at Isle of MTV (to which the answer, from what I hear, was "No, should I and why should I give a toss anyway?", which would have been entirely correct) is because there are large questions floating around his involvement with a marginally-averted miscarriage of justice and his too-close association with a gentleman of small repute.

Side-bar: the use of the phrase "small repute" is humorous in the English manner, a style with which our cruising PM is - at least by his own, if no-one else's, lights - familiar and adept. It's like when one says "that's an interesting point of view", which a listener who speaks English as she is meant to be spoke hears as "oh dear, what a load of rubbish".

Forgive me if I don't bother going into the facts of the case regarding which the PN is getting hot under the collar. I'll leave that to others.

The PN, in connection with Scerri, should not, properly speaking, ask for his resignation. They should ask for his boss to fire him, it is not Scerri's choice whether he should remain in office, it is Mallia's. If Mallia, the elected politician, refuses to take responsibility, it is he who should be called upon to resign.

This confusion between employees, whatever their stature, and electees, is one that has plagued us before.

When the MLP threw its weight behind the Parliamentary move that - with the help of a now rewarded renegade - resulted in the resignation of Richard Cachia Caruana, it started the fashion of non-political incumbents being discussed in the House, which was entirely the wrong way of going about things. It was Mr Cachia Caruana's employer who was subject to the scrutiiny of the House, not the gentleman himself.

So, though the end result will be the same, the PN should perhaps be changing the tune ever so slightly: they should be demanding that Dr Manwel Mallia should take responsibility for his minions instead of hiding behind them and relying on their springing loyally to his defence every time some buttons are pushed.

On the other hand, if the PN are taking this tack to highlight Mallia's (and his colleagues') utter failure to comprehend the notion of political responsibility, then they're going about it in exactly the right way.

I mean, look at the evidence: a PM who is virtually invisible, a Foreign Minister who is incapable of finding his way to a meeting, an Energy Minister who allows power-cuts without a peep, a Home Affairs Minister who, well, enough said, an Animal Rights Mini-Minister who seems to have his priorities arse over elbow - the list goes on and on.

Perhaps it might be a good idea, after all, to push for officials to resign, because that might expose the ineptness of their political masters.