Arrogance can be seen in both little and big things – and the Nationalist Party in government has almost perfected the art.

The divorce issue has found the PN on the wrong side of what the people wanted, and yet it does not think it is wise to change its position after the overwhelming “yes” vote in the referendum. It has adamantly refused to accept that the people have voted for change, and to me this means that the PN still thinks it is right.

The number of Nationalist MPs who have seen the light grew between the vote on the second reading and the final decision that was taken last Monday. Nineteen government members – more than half – voted yes in the Third Reading, up from 12 in the earlier round. But there are 16 others who either voted against what the people want or took the cowardly way out by abstaining.

Among those who have rejected the will of the people one finds the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. It is shameful that the head of government and his right-hand man have decided to respect their conscience, rather than the 28 May popular vote.

They say that, ultimately, what was important was that the bill went through all the parliamentary stages and that they, after all, were just being consistent. But consistency is not always the best way forward. To be consistently in denial, as Lawrence Gonzi and Tonio Borg have been these past few weeks, is just another sign of arrogance. They think they are right, and they will stick to their position, no matter what.

That the top two Cabinet members continue to believe that they know better than the collective decision taken smacks of intolerance and a superiority complex that is hard to come to terms with, given the positions they hold.

The divorce debacle (for the PN) followed the Cabinet’s decision to give a hefty salary rise to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, keeping the decision away from back-benchers and the public. It was yet another occasion on which the top brass collectively put their personal interests first. But enough has been said and written about this, and I will not bore you again.

* * *

The police are only doing their job when they investigate reports that they receive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I find it rather strange that the charges filed against Cyrus Engerer arrived days after his defection, when the police first began looking into the matter nearly two years ago.

The questions that need to be asked – and answered – are: why did the police take so long to file the charges, and why did they choose to do so just 10 days after Cyrus crossed from the Nationalist Party into the Labour fold.

The thing is, even if the police investigations had been finalised to the point where charges could be filed, it would have made more sense to let the hype surrounding Cyrus’ political stunt subside – once it is a matter that can wait.

As it happened, suspicions about the timing were bound to arise. The police have denied that there is any political motivation, but the way things have happened has put the force in a bad light, and with it the government.

The government and the Nationalist Party may reject accusations that Cyrus is the target of revenge a million times, but to the man in the street it does appear that the activist’s move from one party to another has annoyed them. And now, the more he is in trouble, the more his credibility will be dented.

What I think is even more sensitive is the telephone call that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Edgar Galea Curmi made to Police Commissioner John Rizzo about the matter.

The case has been given too much importance, but at the same time I think Mr Galea Curmi could have handled things better. For one thing, he should never have called the police commissioner with Cyrus by his side.

Mr Galea Curmi said that he did not interfere in the case and all he wanted was to assure himself that the police were not under some sort of political pressure to take action against Cyrus Engerer. He says such a call was an “administrative matter” and was not with the intention of intervening in police investigations.

His intentions may have been good but, given the circumstances of the case, the telephone call could be seen as being an attempt to exert some pressure, indirect as it may have been, on the police chief.

I think that, given the position he holds, Mr Galea Curmi should have been more careful in the way he handled the information he had received.

* * *

Arrogance can be seen in small things too. I will just give two examples and let the readers judge.

A few days ago, a Nationalist MP barged into a privately-organised reception without having an invitation. He simply made his way through the security guards – who did not stop him, perhaps thinking that he was one of the invited guests, although he was not wearing the required tag. The hosts were too embarrassed to show him the way out, so they allowed him (and the person with him) to stay.

This MP should have been the one to be embarrassed, but I guess some politicians will do anything to get a free drink and some canapés, and use the occasion for some personal propaganda.

Another Nationalist MP took the liberty of attacking my professionalism during a programme on the party’s radio station, saying that one of my news stories had been “invented”.

I am used to such comments when what I write is not what some people want to read. I remember smiling to myself when I was listening to this MP’s comments on the radio, thinking that, after all, journalists and commentators are part of the political game and they should accept criticism in the same way as they expect their criticism to be accepted.

I thought the matter had ended there. But then, a few weeks later, I realised that my “offence” – whether it was just this article, or others I do not know – was such a mortal sin that this MP thinks I am no longer worthy of a glance, to put it mildly.

This same MP frequently speaks about the need to be tolerant and that democracy allows anyone to speak his mind. Well, he should be practicing what he preaches.

[email protected]