It is difficult to know who to feel sorry for most in the wake of Alfred Sant's comments during a television interview last Tuesday. The family of Gunner Matthew Psaila, who died tragically after drowning during a military exercise last February, are the first to spring to mind.

Completely unnecessarily, the former Labour leader brought a dead man's name into equation when he advanced an argument - actually it was more of a trademark hip-fired allegation - that the government had embarked on a pre-election frenzy to gain votes by handing out jobs. He added that the army's 'C' company did not normally admit personnel who were unable to swim.

Not only was Dr Sant out of subject. He was totally wrong. On both counts. Yet this did not prevent the former opposition leader - despite facts proving otherwise - continuing to compound the family's pain. Instead of gulping down his words, he stood by them. True, he added his regrets that the comments hurt Mr Psaila's relatives. But actions speak louder than words.

The Labour Party deserves some sympathy too. Their former leader who - however he tries to mask it - was the main cause of their three (four if one includes the EU referendum) electoral defeats, has seemingly decided to emerge from the political dead and come back to haunt them.

Joseph Muscat did well to quickly distance himself from his predecessor's comments. However, the new Labour leader may be in for a rough ride if he will now find himself doing this on a more regular basis.

Why has Dr Sant chosen this as the time to re-enter the media as a politician (since stepping down as leader in 2008 he had till last week only wanted to discuss his novels)? What is motivating him? What is his objective?

His comment during the TV interview that autobiographies should only be written by those who have "no future" - the interviewer asked the question in a political context - can only be a cause for Dr Muscat's concern.

But perhaps the figure that deserves most sympathy after this interview is Dr Sant himself.

He still cannot bring himself to embrace the term 'Europe', more than six fruitful years after Malta - against his vehement advice - took the historic decision to join. He said he preferred to use the term 'modern', and attempted to claim that he had set the correct agenda for the country. The electorate have consistently agreed, however, that the credit for that goes to someone else.

Nor could Dr Sant bring himself to admit what really caused his downfall in 1998. He is still, publicly at least, labouring under the illusion that Dom Mintoff was "manipulated" by the Nationalists.

Whatever the old man's shortcomings, being susceptible to that sort of influence does not figure among them. Not when he sowed the seeds of Paul Boffa's demise in 1949; not when he chose to step down as Labour leader in 1984; and certainly not when he voted against the Labour government on a vote of confidence needlessly manufactured by Dr Sant himself in 1998. Mr Mintoff is as malleable as reinforced steel.

What Dr Sant has never been able to comprehend is that the successful politicians in this country have achieved and lasted because they went far beyond clichés, jargon and aspersion casting.

They had a vision which they persuaded others to share. They connected with, and understood, the Maltese. The biggest tragedy that emerged from this television interview, in political terms at least, is that he failed to learn anything from them.