A mutual friend drew my attention to an article of yours printed on last Thursday’s issue of this paper. His first reaction upon reading your eulogy to little old me was to re-read the article which set you off on a literary rampage. His reaction was the same as that of all the other people who spoke to me about our tiff. A half-page article in response to a mere paragraph was a bit much. Talk about “political overkill!”

I’d like to focus on some points you raised in your article to clarify matters.

You speak about the Greens “losing out on a national propaganda scale” by “championing” particular issues. I agree, Greens are losing out on a national level, as evidenced by last Sunday’s local council results. Losing more than 50 per cent of the support given to the Greens in the 2003 elections must have been disheartening. May you allow me the luxury of being constructively critical without lashing out at me again?

You should ask yourself: What does AD stand for today in the eyes of the electorate on a national level? You have gone against what you believe in on more than one occasion in an attempt to gain kudos. Speaking out against the modernisation of the obsolete waste recycling plant in Marsascala was a case in point.

It was obvious that you were doing so simply in an attempt at impressing the concerned residents of the area. These were faced with a situation in which conflicting messages were being transmitted from the Labour-led council and from the government. Instead of doing what would have been expected of the leader of the Greens – endorsing the project but insisting on more information – you indulged yourself in a display of opportunism. After initial resistance even the Labour party has come out in favour of this project.

Your party’s participation in the Qui-si-Sana car park saga was an exercise in political opportunism at its best. The result on a local level: a mere increase of 31 votes for your Sliema candidate. The result on a national level in terms of loss of credibility? In the past you have personally encouraged the deviation of all Tower Road traffic into Qui-si-Sana and insisted that a car park in Qui-si-Sana was vital if the Bisazza Street-Tower Road area was to be kept alive. I would say that even your most loyal supporters are sorely disappointed.

I could go on, but I feel I’ve made my point. Let’s just hope that last weekend’s disastrous results will serve as an eye-opener and not merely lead to another spectacular u-turn. Your reaction to last year’s results was to change your party’s policies with regard to the detention of irregular immigrants without, or so I’ve heard, any attempt at consultation.

The party I represent in Parliament may not be perfect, far from it. But I have been allowed to be critical and to take stands on particular issues on a regular basis without having to fear anything approaching the level of vitriol which characterised your article. Quite the opposite, in fact.

One of these issues was the Mnajdra landfill issue. When you referred to this issue as being one in which I “was championing the residents of Qrendi” I couldn’t keep my jaw from dropping! The parochial slant you are giving to all your political manoeuvres has rendered you incapable of distinguishing between a World Heritage monument and a local landmark.

By the way, Qrendi does not form part of my district. It does not even form part of any of the three districts my original district has been divided into at present. Your insinuation that I champion particular issues for purely parochial reasons tempts me to retort by using a particular Maltese expression involving a pharmacist.

I sincerely wish you well,

Jeffrey

Dr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is a Nationalist MP