Allow me to make some comments on the way the report on Shortcomings And Irregularities (March 25) was written.

Some expressions used are not quite mistakes but neither are they written in good English, in fact more like a translation from Maltese using the same style of placing adjectives or phrases in sentences.

For example "should better plan the full tendering process" could have been written "should plan the full tendering process better'. Also "being one of the signatories" sounds better if said "As being one of the signatories". In fact, that part of the paragraph needs total reconstruction since the phrase "was questionable" should be closer to the subject of the matter, that is the presence of the adjudicating officer, than at the end of a long paragraph.

The presence of a person is on the adjudicating board, certainly not "in".

And "deliberated upon or discussed and evaluated" is more or less the same; if anything "deliberate" is not quite the word to use about discussions during meetings.

In the paragraph "The Auditor had been asked...", the expression "had a conflict of interest" should come immediately after the words "stakeholders involved", not at the end of another long paragraph describing the adjudication procedure.

In another paragraph "it was not deemed within the competence of" should have read "it was not deemed to be within the competence of".

Having said all that, I may be wrong in some or all of the comments I made, however, my long acquaintance with the language, and numerous articles and a few books published in Britain, have given me some experience in that language. In my days at the Lyceum our masters, among them Mr Glass, were very strict in the correct use of the language, as some of my classmates may remember.