“No one should write the speech for him.” President George Abela speaking in Floriana yesterday, where he raised the controversy that surrounds the speech he was asked to deliver at the opening of Parliament. Photo: DOI/Omar Camilleri

Presidents should not be forced to read “purely political” speeches during the opening of Parliament, President George Abela said yesterday.

This was his first public address since Parliament convened on April 6 when Dr Abela read the Speech from the Throne, only to end up in the middle of what he yesterday described as an “unfortunate” controversy.

Responding to criticism about the speech, which has been labelled as partisan and divisive, Dr Abela stressed that it was written by the Prime Minister, a tradition the Maltese inherited from the British.

“As you saw on TV, the Prime Minister gets up and passes it on to the President to read it,” Dr Abela said at the annual reception organised by the Vilhena Philharmonic Society in Floriana to mark the Feast of St Publius.

President Abela’s comments prompted the Nationalist Party to demand an apology from Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. But in comments to The Times, Dr Muscat simply said the President’s comments “make sense” and should serve as the basis for a wider discussion on constitutional reforms which the Government would be proposing.

The speech read out in Parliament by Dr Abela was replete with Labour rhetoric. It opened with a call for an end to arrogance in leadership and closed with the electoral slogan Malta for All (Malta Tagħna Lkoll). It said Malta did not belong to a “clique” and praised the Maltese people for uniting to take the right decisions for the country by choosing to be protagonists rather than spectators – all key elements of Labour’s electoral message.

Dr Abela yesterday said he had been extra careful to avoid political controversies throughout the past years but this incident had subjected the presidency to unnecessary criticism.

“I like to look forward and I don’t want the next President to face this uncomfortable experience. This system needs to change. People respect the President because he is above politics... That’s how it should be,” he said. Dr Abela proposed amendments to Parliament’s Standing Orders to ensure that the President could give his views about the opening of Parliament, as stipulated by the Constitution.

“No one should write the speech for him,” he said. It should then be up to the Prime Minister to write and read out the Government’s political programme for the next five years, he added.

Stressing that everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, Dr Abela urged people to safeguard the country’s institutions and refrain from attacking them unnecessarily.

Dr Abela also paid tribute to the decision by Lawrence Gonzi, now Opposition leader, to appoint him as President after the PN’s victory in 2008 despite coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. He said he was honoured by the faith shown in him and would work till his last breath to that this “experiment” was successful.

“We should not let this unfortunate incident taint the harmony and respect enjoyed by the Presidency,” he concluded.

In its reaction, the PN said the President had “disassociated” himself from the speech, confirming the “irresponsibility” of Dr Muscat in giving the President a “partisan” speech. “Instead of seeking unity, at the start of a new legislature, Muscat sought to bring division and used the President’s peech to do so,” it said, accusing Labour of trying to humiliate, hurt and embarrass everyone. The party said the speech featured direct and indirect attacks against Dr Gonzi, who had for the first time in Malta’s history chosen a President from the opposing political party.

The PN added that the public demanded an apology from Dr Muscat but this was unlikely given his “arrogant” behaviour.

Labour reacted by accusing the Nationalist Party of having learnt nothing from the election.

“The PN’s statement is a weak and short-sighted reaction that shows that the PN minority is still thinking on negative lines, more concerned with dividing rather than building.”