It was always on the cards that the return to office of a Labour Administration would step on a hornets’ nest. Among other things, the Nationalists, having persuaded themselves that they have some divine right to rule, would be a negative opposition. Early signs appeared from the day after the March 9 general election result.

Labour made President George Abela read out its words which also included unnecessary partisan jibes

Parts of the media too immediately sharpened their claws, including by expecting information from the Labour Government which was never given by Nationalist administrations; or taking Labour to task for things which were ingrained in the Nationalists, such as appointments to public sector boards and committees and to positions of trust.

Labour has a choice to make. It can shrug its shoulders in the knowledge that it can steer at will through the five-year cycle with the likelihood that it will win a second term, even if Nationalist deserters in 2013 flock back to the PN in 2018.

Or Labour can implement the philosophy that it professed in its electoral campaign and, while taking over the reins of firm control, truly govern on the basis that Malta belongs to all of us, thereby signalling an end to the tribalism that has bedevilled our islands for so long while leaving full space for the democratic clash and contrast of ideas.

Over the first few weeks of its life, Labour has stepped gingerly on both models of behaviour. It has made appointments which indicate it is seeking talent from the whole of Malta for the good of the country. It has made others which were unnecessarily divisive. That of Franco Debono in the constitutional review is the main example.

Labour also decided to ape the Nationalist Government that took office in 1987 and placed in the mouth of Acting President Paul Xuereb an unduly partisan President’s Speech. Labour made President George Abela read out, according to custom, its words, which also included unnecessary partisan jibes.

Labour did not need to do that. It could have soared above the fray with a classic speech that embodied its new ethos. As it turned out, this year’s speech involved the President in unnecessary controversy. Evidently, he felt he had to signal strongly that he disagreed with the partisan content of the speech which he read out.

That earned him stones thrown from both sides of the fence. Labour voices said he had not spoken out during the time when Lawrence Gonzi made a mockery of parliamentary democracy. Nationalist voices spat out that President George Abela should have demanded that changes be made to the speech he was given to read out.

We do not know what went on behind the scenes between the President and the Prime Minister. President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami was not helpful in the circumstances. Though dog does not bite dog, he showed that Presidents sometimes snap at each other’s heels.

Dr Fenech Adami said that when he was given the President’s Speech in 2008 he did suggest a change, and it was accepted. He added that it was not substantial. In short, it was inconsequential. So why raise it if not to attempt to push Abela further into hot water?

A Government leak that the speech had been given to President Abela days before he delivered it did not help matters, either.

At least from all this there seems to be agreement on an idea launched by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. He unequivocally declared in l-Orizzont that the 2013 speech was partisan and that tradition should be broken – in future, the Prime Minister should read out his or her policy speech at the opening of Parliament. He is right. We need not follow the Westminster model (the Queen’s Speech) so slavishly.

Ripples in the national waters were also caused by a waiver from part of the ministerial code of ethics given by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to Parliamentary Secretary Franco Mercieca to partially continue with his ophthalmic practice in view of his expertise in particular areas.

Before this broke out, last week I commented in this column about the undue restriction the code of practice places on members of the medical profession, a restriction which does not simply bind holders of office but also denies their patients of the care they were being given. I called for a revision of the code.

The waiver to Mercieca, an esteemed ophthalmic surgeon, is not a revision. The Prime Minister did promise a revision, also saying that he had given the waiver in the interest of patients.

Not quite. Mercieca will not be paid for operations held at Mater Dei, the main State hospital. But, it seems, he is free to receive payments for private operations.

That is wrong. In anticipation of a revised code of practice the Prime Minister could have exceptionally given a waiver conditional on a complete detachment from remuneration. Unfair on Mercieca? Not really.

He knew when he accepted the invitation to become a parliamentary secretary that the existing code of practice for ministers would prohibit him from any work, even on a voluntary basis. That is a very severe handicap to surgeons, whose operating skills diminish when they are not practising, which is why the code should be revised.

But at the moment, it is what it is. I do not think Mercieca wanted a waiver to be able to supplement his official income with private fees. I believe he has his patients’ interest at heart.

I suggest that the way to partially defuse the controversy is for him to forego any fees at all. What is paramount are his patients’ needs, and his skills, since he shall not hold an official position for ever.

Hopefully, the Labour Government, while being as firm as required, will be less unnecessarily controversial in the months and years to come. They should keep their powder dry. There will be ample provocation to use it properly.