I wonder who wrote the editorial of in The Times on November 12. It was totally dedicated to the negation and rebuttal of Joseph Muscat's reply to the budget speech given by Tonio Fenech, Minister of Finance, a week earlier. It could easily have been written by the minister himself or some ambitious backbencher eager to look nice with the minister or the Prime Minister.

Whoever it was though, stopped far short of tackling Dr Muscat's critical analysis of the budget speech.

This extremely partisan editorial complained that his budget reply was given with a view to the gallery and of being very political. Since when have budget speeches and the ensuing replies stopped being as much publicity exercises as policy statements? There is nothing more exposing than a government's budget speech and the opposition's reply to that speech. What on earth did The Times expect of Dr Muscat? Why did it not say the same of the budget speech itself? The Times must certainly agree that the budget speech was also well delivered and animated by the minister and intended for the gallery while, because of its very nature, being highly political. That is exactly what I expected from the Finance Minister.

Give, dear editor, one single example throughout the years that the PN was in opposition that the opposition leaders (George Borg Olivier and later Eddie Fenech Adami) did not play for the gallery in their budget speech replies. More so since such parliamentary sessions started being transmitted live on air. Give us one single example in which The Times accused the opposition leader of playing to the gallery or being too political! Again, that is exactly what I would have expected from the Leader of the Opposition then. Another sordid interpretation of goose-gander fairness and honest comment as defined by The Times.

This same editorial complained that Dr Muscat's reply was too political. Simply incredible! I am certain that this is the very first editorial anywhere on earth that criticised a politician for being a politician while conducting a budgetary critical analysis. How absurd can one get! What can one expect from a leader of a political party during his budget speech reply? It is the opposition leader's duty to be exactly that. Am I to understand that The Times suggests that technocrats should replace politicians and start debating the running of the country? Should we move our Parliament to the University building at Tal-Qroqq?

In his stupendous reply Dr Muscat was fair, lucid and to the point. He was technical, scientific, political and extremely clear. Such clarity of thought and simplicity of speech comes only to him who is gifted with the right background, moral fibre, personal integrity, courage, high academic achievement, sharp intellect and, to cap it all, the soaring EU credentials enjoyed only by Dr Muscat. This is what makes him so unique among our parliamentarians and this is what made his reply such a pleasure to listen to and concentrate upon.