The Prime Minister was often “overconfident and at times arrogant” while the Opposition leader seemed “tense and uncomfortable” during a leaders’ debate on Tuesday, according to political commentators.
Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil exchanged ‘blows’ in a political sparring match during a debate on Times Talk, but most felt there was no clear-cut winner.
Martin Scicluna – who runs Malta’s independent public policy think-tank and gave the government contrasting scores out of 10 during Times of Malta’s weekly TV programme – felt the end result was a tie.
Dr Muscat, he said, spent the bulk of the programme “ducking and diving” to avoid criticism hurled by himself and former Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio, as well as Dr Busuttil, who, despite raising some fair criticism, failed to land any “jaw-breaking blows” during the debate.
Commenting on Dr Busuttil’s performance, Mr Scicluna said he was “professional but aggressive” and at times “almost too aggressive”.
Perhaps the clearest example of Dr Busuttil’s assertive approach was when he accused Dr Muscat of accepting bribes in relation to the Café Premier bailout, an accusation that was met with some very hard criticism from Dr Muscat.
Mr Scicluna described Dr Muscat’s response to the accusation as “a mix of anger and disdain” because, at one point, the Prime Minister told Dr Busuttil he pitied the Nationalist Party for being lumped with him for a leader, a response that took Mr Scicluna by surprise.
Others felt Dr Busuttil had other problems besides the occasional aggressive turn. The Sunday Times of Malta columnist Claire Bonello said Dr Busuttil was “not comfortable and it showed”.
She said Dr Busuttil’s delivery seemed conditioned by an inability to acknowledge the strong public support enjoyed by Dr Muscat, despite recent political scandals.
“The preposterousness of the situation seems to be flooring him,” Dr Bonello said.
That aside, she was far from impressed with Dr Muscat, who she said had won the debate “simply because he was more confident and at ease”.
She said the Prime Minister’s self-confidence at times resembled cockiness and he was not adverse to making snide comments either.
Dr Briguglio, a sociologist, also felt there was no clear-cut winner and agreed that Dr Muscat came across as arrogant at times.
“It seems like it is a defence mechanism to criticism that doesn’t always work so well,” he said, adding that when Dr Muscat told Dr Busuttil that nobody understood him, it did not come across as statesmanlike.
He failed to land any jaw-breaking blows during the debate
Ultimately, it would appear that both leaders were appealing to their traditional voters, rather than the undecided.
Dr Briguglio did not think the arguments made by either of the speakers would convince anyone who was unsure before tuning in.
Mr Scicluna shared the sentiment, saying he did not think they would have changed too many minds during the debate aired on TVM.
Joe Friggieri, University of Malta pro-rector and former Nationalist Party MEP candidate, also felt there was no clear winner and did not feel that anybody watching the debate would have switched allegiance by the end of the programme.
This, however, was not because of any perceived arrogance or anxiety from either leader but because the arguments were relatively unconvincing, he said.
“We have got so much used to the arguments on either side that we know what to expect,” he said.
Falzon return after push-back U-turn
NGOs are hoping the Prime Minister’s statement during Tuesday’s debate that considering a migrants’ push-back in 2013 was “a mistake” is confirmation he will not try it again.
“It is good that we can close this chapter and look forward to the future. We are choosing to look at this admission as a confirmation that it will not happen again,” human rights lawyer Neil Falzon said.
Dr Falzon, who also heads human rights NGO Aditus Foundation, was reacting to Dr Muscat’s admittance that it was a mistake to consider an illegal push-back of a group of Somali migrants back in July 2013.
Dr Falzon had formed part of a group of NGOs’ representatives who had spoken out against the move that was eventually blocked by the European Court of Human Rights.
He said the government’s original position was a breach of international law and Malta’s humanitarian obligations and he was pleased to see Dr Muscat had finally realised this.
When the government was considering the move, Aditus had decided to leave the government’s LBGTI consultative council. Dr Falzon said he yesterday wrote to Civil Liberties Minister Helena Dalli to ask to be reinstated in the council following Dr Muscat’s remarks.
The admission was also welcomed by human rights activist and Integra Foundation director Maria Pisani who said she respected Dr Muscat for acknowledging the mistake.
“I appreciate that Dr Muscat didn’t just buckle up on this but was strong enough to say ‘I messed up’,” she said.
PN ‘unclear’ over Bill
It is still not clear what position the Nationalist Party would take on the Civil Unions Bill even though Simon Busuttil said he would not abstain on the vote if he could turn back the clock, according to the Malta Gay Rights Movement.
MGRM head Gabi Calleja said it was “somewhat unclear” what position Nationalist MPs would have taken if the abstention was not ordered.
Ms Calleja said MGRM was disappointed with the PN’s discourse on same-sex relationships and parenting at the time of the civil unions’ debate. The organisation would welcome a clearer statement recognising equal rights for same-sex couples.
Meanwhile, the university students’ LGBTI support group, We Are, said it was pleased with Dr Busuttil’s statement but felt the damage had already been done.
The decision to abstain “cannot be erased” and the LGBTI community was “disappointed, hurt and taken aback by the PN’s decision to abstain”.