Raphael Dingli questioned Daphne Caruana Galizia’s comments regarding Joseph Muscat’s absence at the Prime Minister’s farewell dinner to President Emeritus Dr Edward Fenech Adami (TMIS, 5 April).

Mr Dingli’s letter reveals his lack of understanding on how the real world works especially in official circles. This is the same level of thinking as Dr Muscat’s way of doing things the “new way”, which unfortunately are not always correct.

To begin with, when someone, whether a Prime Minister or pauper invites another via a personal invitation, the invited person has two and only two options: To accept and attend the function, or to decline with thanks. The invited person does not have the third option of handing the invitation over to someone else. Joseph Muscat was wrong to pass on the invitation to Charles Mangion – period.

Secondly, in the case of a State function, someone who holds some capacity in the nation’s political echelon has the duty to attend such functions without reservation and, if absolutely unable, he/she should have a plausible excuse. Dr Muscat had none

Thirdly, one has to be absolutely shorn of any class to prefer a cheap foray to Sicily to a State dinner.

Then comes a classic from Mr Dingli, namely: “This was an invitation by a Nationalist Prime Minister to bid farewell to a Nationalist President, albeit held in the Office of the Prime Minister.”

Here again Mr Dingli shows either political naivety or lack of understanding of what the President’s office means. There is no such thing as a Nationalist President because if that were the case, Dr Gonzi would have committed political suicide appointing a Labour politician as President. Truth is that whatever political beliefs a person had prior to such an appointment, he or she promises to be loyal to the Maltese Constitution and not to any political party.

Another gem from Mr Dingli: “DCG’s pages continue to be full of vitriol and anger and never contribute in any meaningful way to the political debate.” Why then, I ask, bother to comment? DCG never hid her political leanings. Some may not agree with her from time to time, but one can hardly criticize her in matters of protocol and procedures since she demonstrates the depth of her knowledge every time.

And finally: “This is a very bitter and very twisted approach to journalism and political commentary.” My only comment to this is that if indeed DCG’s pen is poisoned, then why is Mr Dingli responding in kind?

My past personal experiences, reinforced by uninterrupted information over the years, confirm my observations that the MLP (now LP) always played on the minds of the uninformed and, by repeating misinformation, which, in a minority of minds, take the semblance of truth – the MLP’s brand of truth, that is.

J. Martinelli

Ontario

Canada