In the space of a few hours on Wednesday, consultations on the new Cabinet were completed, portfolios assigned and the government's executive team unveiled. It may well rank among the shortest Cabinet formation exercises in Malta's political history.
There are two ways of interpreting such efficiency.
The first is positive. It could indicate a Prime Minister firmly in control, certain of his choices and facing little internal opposition. It could suggest a governing party united behind its leader and comfortable with the direction he wishes to take.
The second interpretation is less flattering. The speed of the process may simply reflect the reality that there were very few meaningful choices to make. Once the election results were known, the broad outlines of the Cabinet were already visible. There were no new faces to consider, the same vacancies to fill and limited scope for renewal.
The result is a Cabinet that feels overwhelmingly familiar. Some ministers have changed portfolios, others have retained their previous responsibilities, but the people around the Cabinet table are largely the same ones Maltese voters have seen over recent years.
To a considerable extent, this is what the electorate endorsed. Labour secured another convincing victory and voters cannot reasonably complain that the government they elected resembles the one that preceded it. Continuity is part of the mandate Labour received.
Yet continuity should not be confused with renewal.
The Cabinet's composition raises a fundamental question. Is the Prime Minister genuinely satisfied with the performance of most of his ministers, or did he simply have few alternatives available to him?
The answer may lie in the parliamentary arithmetic. Labour returned only two new MPs at the election. This severely restricted the Prime Minister's options if he wished to introduce fresh blood into government. The lack of renewal in Parliament inevitably translated into a lack of renewal in Cabinet.
The reshuffle itself seems to have been driven largely by circumstance. It was widely understood that Byron Camilleri no longer wished to remain in charge of the Home Affairs portfolio. Once that change became inevitable, a domino effect followed, with responsibilities moving from one ministry to another until a new balance was achieved.
To the Prime Minister's credit, some mistakes from the previous legislature have been corrected.
The decision to place planning within the Gozo Ministry never appeared particularly logical. Planning has enormous implications for infrastructure, development and economic policy across the country. Reuniting it with responsibilities that are more closely connected to those sectors is a sensible move.
Similarly, separating tourism from foreign affairs restores greater coherence to both portfolios. The previous arrangement was born out of political necessity following a resignation rather than careful administrative design. Reversing it is therefore a welcome correction.
The restructuring of responsibilities previously grouped under justice and construction can also be viewed positively. Those portfolios never appeared to share a natural connection.
However, while correcting some errors, the Prime Minister has created others.
The pairing of justice with innovation and research is difficult to understand. Innovation and research would seem to fit far more naturally alongside education. Likewise, the combination of employment with planning and infrastructure raises questions about administrative rationality. Effective government requires ministries that are organised around complementary objectives rather than political convenience.
Another issue is size.
Malta has the largest Parliament, per capita, in Europe. With 22 ministers - including the PM - and two parliamentary secretaries, the Cabinet is among the largest, per capita, in Europe too.
This newspaper has long argued that Malta's Cabinet is unnecessarily huge. The latest formation strengthens that concern rather than dispelling it.
Indeed, the new Cabinet contains three more ministers than the previous one. The increase is largely the result of parliamentary secretaries being promoted to ministerial rank, but the broader question remains whether every promotion required the creation or preservation of a ministerial portfolio.
One must point out that while Alison Zerafa Civelli, Keith Azzopardi Tanti, Glenn Bedingfield, Malcolm Paul Agius Galea and Omar Farrugia have all been rewarded with ministerial appointments, Alicia Bugeja Said remains a parliamentary secretary in spite of improving her electoral result.
The Prime Minister was also confronted by another political reality. Demoting ministers can create resentment and instability. Removing individuals from Cabinet altogether can generate even greater tensions. Faced with a commanding electoral victory and a parliamentary group that remains largely unchanged, Abela appears to have opted for internal harmony over difficult decisions.
That approach may preserve unity in the short term. Whether it serves the country best over the next five years is another matter.
Finally, the return of Chris Fearne and Rosianne Cutajar deserves scrutiny. Both previously resigned amid controversies linked to governance, ethics and standards in public life. While neither has been barred from political office, the principles that prompted those resignations have not disappeared. Public expectations regarding accountability should not be lowered simply because time has passed.
The new Cabinet therefore presents a mixed picture. It contains some sensible corrections, rewards several rising figures and reflects the electoral mandate Labour has received. Yet it also highlights the limited depth of Labour's parliamentary bench, the continued expansion of government and an apparent reluctance to make more difficult choices.
Above all, it is a Cabinet that speaks more of continuity than change. Whether that proves to be a strength or a weakness will become clearer as the legislature unfolds.