Having lived for a decade in Singapore and now six years in Malta, I was intriguedto read Martin Scicluna’s comparison of the two nations (September 24).

However, it was disheartening, after a plausible summation of Singapore’s remarkable success since independence and the policies underlying its achievements, to find Scicluna gratuitously wind up by damning Singapore as a “near police-state” and declaring he prefers to remain a Maltese.

On the latter point, one would hope so, just as one might imagine that the vast majority of Singaporeans, given the choice, would prefer to re-main Singaporean.

Why, I wonder, is it necessary to damn another nation in order to feel good about one’s own?

And what is the point of a Maltese writing and publishing such an article, simply to end up stating it is better to be Maltese?

One can and should debate definitions, but I seriously doubt that the vast majority of Singapore citizens, or the couple million foreigners who live there as well, would agree with Scicluna’s description of Singapore as an oppressive, authoritarian state, which almost gives the impression that the poor Singaporeans are being compelled to have a high standard of living.

One might at least consider that Singaporeans have returned the same party into power ever since independence because of the exceptional achievements and lack of corruption that Scicluna himself acknowledges. Personally, I have very much enjoyed living in both nations and learning about their respective complexes of advantages and disadvantages.

Nanny state or not, one argument that might be made to the advantage of Singapore is that it is a bit less provincial.