In his letter entitled “Ministry replies to claims” of 26 August, Dr Bonello persists in deceiving the reader by mostly making generalized statements and avoiding the crucial points as I will point out.

In paragraph 7, Dr Bonello tries to give the reader the impression that I want to deceive them by not quoting the ombudsman’s statement that there was no misconduct on the part of the Ministry. The reason I did not do so is because Mr Schiavone had already raised that point, which was tackled by letters from me and a certain Mrs Camilleri (TMIS, 29 April). Our arguments regarding that point have never been proved wrong. Do your homework, Dr Bonello.

In paragraph 5, Dr Bonello tells the reader what the Ombudsman implied by “incorrect assessment” − what arrogance! Instead of sticking to the facts, he speaks of implications saying that the Ombudsman was judging what occurred in 1996 by today’s standards! The fact is that the Ombudsman never ever said directly or by way of implication that the assessment was correct by the standards of that time. The Ombudsman merely says that both the Education Department and I accepted the 1996 evaluation as valid since the qualified authority had carried it out at the time (i.e. MEIC), but it doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes and that’s what they did in my case. And this explains the “no misconduct” on the Ministry’s part. However, since MEIC came under the Ministry of Education’s authority, the Ministry had to make up for MEIC’s error, as proved by the Ombudsman’s decision in my favour.

I appeal to the reader’s logic. If the 1996 evaluation was correct by the standards of the time, as Dr Bonello claims, then that fact would have delivered the deathblow to my case and the Ombudsman would not even have investigated it since no injustice was committed. For years, my case had been investigated for any loopholes that would favour the Ministry. None were ever found. I have asked all parties concerned for proof of these criteria that prove the validity of the 1996 evaluation and offered to publicly apologize to the Ministry and even renounce my claims to the arrears I had won, as I am not one to accept what is not mine. But these criteria do not exist and Dr Bonello would insult the reader by claiming it would be “unethical” to provide said criteria! No, Dr Bonello, it would be highly ethical and it would fulfil a democratic country’s claim to transparency.

I will not deal with the other points because of space, suffice to say that Dr Bonello speaks of my harassing phone calls and messages when I have only made four phone calls and Dr Bonello rudely hangs up when I tell him who I am; I had even sent a registered letter to discuss points to which I took offence and Dr Bonello refused to accept the letter, which is now tucked away in a drawer. For a lawyer and a Ministry that are so convinced that they are right and I am wrong, it’s funny how they avoid communicating with me.

The matter will be closed, Dr Bonello, when I get what is mine without those unethical conditions or you provide proof of those 1996 criteria that justify the evaluation and you will have the pleasure of making a fool of me. Bear in mind that I will give whatever you provide to the proper people for authentication.

Joe Falzon

QALA