There is something, dating from the 1980s, that has been inscribed deep in the Nationalist Party’s DNA.

One may call it by many names but in essence it means turning weakness into strength, not letting being in a minority affect the way a political party acts.

In 1982, on the strength of the popular vote in 1981 being greater than that obtained by the MLP, the PN, led by the new leader Eddie Fenech Adami, walked out of Parliament.

In political terms that was called ‘going to the Aventine’, which is what the anti-Fascist forces in Italy did after the killing of Giacomo Matteotti.

There was no such murder in 1981 except the murder of the strength of the real majority of the Maltese voters.

Last week, there was no event that can be compared either to the killing of an Opposition personality as Matteotti, nor to an election result that privileged the seats obtained over the votes cast.

Yet such is the depth to which the 1982 walkout engraved in the party’s DNA, that confronted with the Speaker’s ruling of a prima facie breach of privilege by the Leader of the Opposition, members of the Opposition instinctively just upped and walked out.

In 1982 I had not sided with the PN choice. For that I risked being put on the PN’s subsequent boycott list. It was only later, in 1984, when push came to shove and the schools issue came to a head, that I realised I was wrong. That was when I upped and left, when I stopped my (limited and minute) collaboration with Xandir Malta, when I stopped dithering and saw clearly where my choice really lay. It was not the choice of a political party but rather a choice against a system built on an illegality, a lie.

Now to last week’s issue. The essence of a parliament is to offer freedom of expression, as wide as it can be. One admits that there have to be rules and curbs as otherwise freedom of expression can be abused. But the rule must be that it is only in extreme cases that freedom has to be curbed.

The head of a government must understand that he cannot tackle every untruth or coloured version that is offered, especially in the House. Being the head of the government gives anybody the right to say anything in his regard, unless it is downright untrue.

This holds in the case of every Tom, Dick and Harry. In the case of the Leader of the Opposition, the head of government must be more and more prudent. One cannot treat the Leader of the Opposition in the same way that a simple citizen is treated.

This was clearly shown, for instance, with the sobriety and the high quality of the debate in the Italian Senate on the vote of confidence in Enrico Letta’s majority. Every speaker was allowed his say, even if some were far more incendiary than Dr Busuttil’s. There were none of the angry interruptions that peppered every few words that Dr Busuttil uttered.

The Speaker is there to guarantee that every MP, let alone the Leader of the Opposition, enjoys his freedom of speech in as unfettered a way as possible. Instead, Speaker Anglu Farrugia reverted to his lawyer past and pronounced judgement as if he was a judge in a court case.

I have a small procedural point to make. In the past I have heard many Speakers react to demands for a Breach of Privilege claim by pointing out that if the complainant does not specifically mention the Standing Order that is being claimed, the claim is null. In Dr Muscat’s case, I did not hear him once mention under what Standing Order Dr Busuttil was in breach of.

In short, even if Dr Busuttil was wrong in claiming government pressure on the Police Commissioner in the John Dalli case, Dr Muscat was wrong in immediately going for the jugular and claiming a Breach of Privilege. It was Dr Muscat’s youth (or something much worse) that got the better of him. Speaker Farrugia was wrong in hurrying to deliver judgement and choosing the pound of flesh to do so. I hope judges in Court ponder their judgements more.

Now that the stone is cast, Dr Busuttil has an enjoyable future ahead of him. I was once found prima facie in breach of privilege and what ensued was rollicking high humour.

I had allowed (I must have written this once) John Zammit to write a scurrilous attack on Michael Bonnici for a very strong anti-abortion speech. Like Dr Busuttil, we were made to face the Committee of Privileges and it was hilarious. The members of this committee kept asking us questions and lawyer Emmy Bezzina, for Mr Zammit, answered for him. He answered each question with a half-hour speech. When the next question was asked, he replied with another half-hour speech, repeating practically the same things.

When this charade went on for three sessions, the MPs on the committee got bored of the whole thing and practically sat on poor Mr Bonnici to put a stop to it. We skipped out without one word of apology to Mr Bonnici. (I know we should have and I do apologise).

Besides, we have been here before, haven’t we? The last time a Breach of Privilege claim was upheld was in the notorious Charlie Demicoli case and the European Court of Justice found in his favour.

In other words, Dr Muscat will have, at some point, to give in and mellow his judgement. Even without saying anything, Dr Busuttil would have won this contest of wills.

This is perhaps the time for Dr Busuttil to commit his party to removing, as has been suggested by Censu Galea, the entire Privileges Ordinance. MPs are not extraterrestrial beings, nor should they be allowed to behave like ones.

For the rest of us, there are the Law Courts and the laws of libel. They should be enough for MPs, even prime ministers. I can remember cases where prime ministers sued the Leader of the Opposition for libel, but would like someone to list cases where a prime minister claimed the Leader of the Opposition had breached his privileges.

This is all a pity. A laconic, or even sarcastic, or witty, remark by the Prime Minister would perhaps have been far more effective than this blunderbuss of Breach of Privilege claim.

As it was, the Opposition did not hear Dr Muscat’s replies to the questions on his statement on Monday regarding all that he did while the House was in recess.

And the House, and the country at large, did not hear Minister Konrad Mizzi’s very good analysis of why strategically reforming the situation at Enemalta was a very important and urgent national task.

Now Dr Mizzi had been speaking quite a number of times on that same day and besides, he has a squeaky kind of voice and a hurried delivery that does not enable people, even journalists, to absorb the points he makes.

He spoke about (I am writing from memory) about the situation he found at Enemalta, a situation that is daily becoming more evident through reports such as by the Audit Office and PAC, a situation that had not been cleared up by the previous administration which threw two, not one, ministers, at the task.

He made the point, if I remember correctly, that unless the issue was tackled headfirst the rot in the national accounts could not be redressed.

That point is now being assessed and approved by ratings agencies.

The Opposition is making a lot of noise about the Chinese aspects of the Enemalta restructuring but far less about someone at long last tackling the Enemalta problem head-on.

In simple terms, where the PN approach was a gradualist and long-term approach, this government prefers tackling the issue head-on. The PN had first let the problem fester through long years of benign neglect when the capital cost of the first Delimara power station, now nearing the end of its term, has been paid off. Then, after many U-turns on gas and HFO, it plumped for the cheapest option, which we call the BWSC plant. Only then it focused on the Interconnector from Sicily.

I am still open to conviction on the Chinese deal but there you are, the country is now discussing the dratted Breach of Privilege claimed by a trigger-happy prime minister instead of this more vital matter.

[email protected]