Leader of the Opposition Simon Busuttil has often been criticised over the last year and a half of being weak, but ironically it is Prime Minister Joseph Muscat who has turned out to be the weakling. If this was necessary after the disgusting events of last week, Dr Busuttil's budget speech on Monday exposed Dr Muscat, as I read somewhere, as "the Emperor without clothes". The Leader of the Opposition's speech was brilliant state of the art. Simon Busuttil now rides high. I would have loved to write this piece after the PM's reply yesterday, but, obviously, deadlines do not permit.

However, he is going to have a very tough job to reach the heights of the eloquence, structure, clarity  and forcefulness of the Leader of the Opposition's speech. I dare predict prior to following Dr Muscat's speech on the media that he will be totally ridden over (to keep the same expressive tone). I would have loved to dissect Simon Busuttil's address, but I do not think that is necessary considering the very large following during the live TVM transmission (and I know that as a fact) as well as the print media coverage.

Had the Prime Minister not had his imperial clothes removed already by Manwel Mallia and a number of other Ministers, they would have been torn off on Monday. But the truth is that it seems that he just does not have the guts to discipline his errant ministers, to put it mildly. To do this would leave him with half a Cabinet of course. But then his is the largest in history. While trotting around the world unsuccessfully trying to sell passports (and his wife - if not his children - trotting with him; or the wife organising high teas at our Auberge de Castille and Ghirgenti in the past), his Ministers are running wild breaking every rule under the sun without control or restraint. Sometimes I wonder why the likes of Minister Mallia seem to have a hold over the PM. Is there something we should know and don't?

I am sure that Minister Mallia will still be around to order the Police Catering Corps to serve at the high tea. Can I, at this point, kindly request the Department of Information (or Office for Communications at the OPM, as it is now being nicely called) who authorised this tea party and a list of guests who will be attending? We are entitled to know who is entering the people's property - and they must all be frisked under their corsets. Minister Mallia can deal with that, since he is responsible for national security. And while I am at it, and in the same vein, I just have to express my concern at the same man being appointed Minister to hold the most important, or powerful and controlling, tools of law and order and democracy: the armed forces (national security), the police and public broadcasting. I think that the Prime Minister's decision to do this might prove to be unwise. Gong back to the possibility of having a hold of sorts.

Into the famous Paul Sheehan incident. A few pertinent points and questions. Firstly, the Acting Police Commissioner should go with Manwel Mallia. It seems that he does not have the Mintoff proverbial meat balls. He has failed miserably. He is reported as having stated that he did not order the removal of Smith's car from the scene of the incident (thus tampering with the evidence that the Magisterial inquiry was due to collect). Then who did? The buck stops with him. The Ministerial car was not impounded by the police, as is usual after such an incident. Was it tested forensically? Gun powder residue? It was freely taken away, washed no doubt, and so again evidence was tampered with. Who allowed this? The buck stops with the Commissioner. Why did the Commissioner not go on the scene of the incident, but just send a Superintendent? Had it been a normal incident he need not have given directions. It would have been dealt with by the district police as usual. But he specifically tasked a Superintendent, thus knowing that the incident was serious. In a serious incident like this his presence would not have been unusual. But then of course he had been lied to and was advised that the shots had been directed in the air and not at the car.

Further, why was Paul Sheenan not arrested on the spot and taken into custody? This should have been done by the police officers there and then. But again the buck stops with the Commissioner. Was Mr Sheehan tested for alcohol or other substances, as was Mr Smith? Until the time of writing Paul Sheehan has not been charged before a court of law; and if it is proved, notwithstanding the police tampering with evidence, that Mr Sheehan fired at Mr Smith's car with the latter in it or in proximity, then the charge should be no less than attempted homicide. All in all the buck stops with the Acting Police Commissioner. He must go together with the police minister.