In his article ‘Busuttil: a lightweight’ (May 24), Martin Scicluna has completely steered away from the critical situation Malta has found itself in due to the severe blow to our reputation and credibility brought about by this government.

Instead of stressing that this election is all about the very economic survival of Malta, Scicluna has played the Labour Party’s ploy of reducing it to a mere comparison between party leaders Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil.

I believe that, at this critical moment, he should have stressed the fact that the harm our Prime Minister (who, he himself admitted, is ‘tainted’) did to our reputation can only be remedied by the honest, upright and widely respected Forza Nazzjonali leader.

Besides, what seemed like glossing over all the facts surrounding Panamagate and Egrantgate, Scicluna has dismissed it all as ‘political frenzy’ and has unjustly compared it to the oil scandal under the last administration (in which, incidentally, no Nationalist minister was involved).

He also keeps saying that the accusations of corruption surrounding Egrant are based solely on ‘circumstantial’ evidence, completely ignoring the evidence bravely given by an independent whistle-blower.

While again attacking an ‘individual’ who, he alleges, is “not known for her impartiality” (and who, incidentally, has generally been proved right in her assertions), he has amply betrayed his own lack of impartiality.

Again, instead of pointing out what he deems as weaknessesin Busuttil, he should have stressed Busuttil’s undoubted qualities of integrity, honesty, steely determination, perseverance and wholesome judgement, qualities which he amply displayed in the past while steering us safely into the EU against all odds, not least, a hostile Sant/Muscat opposing stand.

As for principles, which of the two leaders does Scicluna believe can be trusted to uphold the principles of good governance, independence of institutions, accountability, meritocracy and transparency?