Martin Scicluna’s highly manipulative, carefully crafted contribution, ‘Hobson’s Choice’ (May 31) targets switchers (his words not mine), is anything but objective. He derides the notion that “if you set out your ‘principles’ these will survive the first encounter with reality”. If we accept this then why have principles at all?

Such a premise, coming from our great thinker, is shocking. He tells us that the Nationalist platform is “about reintroducing good governance to Malta after four years of ‘corruption’ and maladministration (which in Malta is often referred to as ‘corruption)”. The inverted commas underline the message: we have been confusing corruption with maladministration.  Scicluna we bow to your wisdom.

Defence counsel Scicluna admits “there is clear evidence of malice aforethought by Mizzi and Scicluna”, but pleads unconvincingly there is “only an unsubstantiated perception of corruption”. He demands a “smoking gun”, stating that “none of the evidence presented to the magistrate about Schembri has been exposed to public scrutiny”. While knowing that the magistrate cannot make the evidence public, Scicluna ignores the fact that the evidence has been published. Why do his statements have such striking similarities to the defence put up by government apologists?

Can Scicluna supply readers with the name of one politician or public figure in the UK who retained his post after media revelations of misconduct? Does Scicluna dismiss evidence merely on the basis of source while ignoring its quality?

Posing as the objective observer, Scicluna writes that “Muscat is undoubtedly guilty of failing to demand the resignations of Mizzi and Schembri as soon as their Panamagate involvement was exposed, and continuing to stand by them. His government is guilty of broken electoral promises and multiple cases of maladministration”. Notice, guilty of maladministration not corruption. A misdemeanor not a crime. On the other hand “Busuttil is guilty of ratcheting up the accusations of ‘corruption’ for party political reasons”. So Busuttil is the culprit for not remaining silent.

With switchers in mind Scicluna laments “that Muscat had a golden opportunity to change the political face of Malta to deliver on his promises about meritocracy, accountability, transparency and good governance” and that “instead, he betrayed those promises”.

Though Muscat fell far short of expectations that were the foundation of his appeal to voters, Scicluna is incapable of admitting candidly that like so many others he was the victim of Muscat’s self-proclaimed salesmanship talents. Rather he adopts the Muscat-serving position that all politicians are cut from the same cloth. But Scicluna’s ability to judge character is questionable. He is so desperate to marshal voters away from Busuttil that he implies to his less attentive readers that he voted for Alternattiva Demokratika. The discerning reader, however, is left in no doubt that he voted for more of the same.

I respect people holding different opinions to mine, and will always defend their right to express them, but I am extremely allergic to hypocrisy.