This cuts both ways. It also means that, for example, a Nationalist government can’t deselect individuals for appointments on the basis that they don’t want to be seen to be discriminating IN FAVOUR of Nationalist supporters, and end up discriminating in favour of Labour supporters instead.

It’s always got to be a fair fight, based on merit.

There are some exceptions, and these apply to politically sensitive positions where appointees are going to be privy to a great deal of information, documents, and even details about the comings and goings or meetings involving those who are targets of the political party they support. In that situation, it stands to reason that they are going to have divided loyalties and that no calculated risk should be taken because it isn’t necessary and can be avoided.

By this I obviously don’t mean a mere Labour voter – just an ordinary Joe who goes out to vote Labour every five years. Somebody like that is no risk at all. But Labour Party insiders are obviously going to be a massive risk and a stupid and pointless risk to take. If you’re going to have Narcy Calamatta’s daughter working for Richard Cachia Caruana at Dar Malta while Narcy Calamatta is making Labour Party campaign videos for Joseph Muscat and Keith Schembri, there is obviously going to be a huge problematic risk, and you don’t bother finding out whether the risk is real or perceived, but simply don’t take it at all. Because if you’re going to go down that route, why not have Yana Mintoff working for the man who was the Labour Party’s No. 1 target? Same difference.

Many engaged in active sabotage.

There are more unanswered questions on Muscat’s sale of passport. The Opposition needs to make the pertinent questions as it needs to continue to press on to get answers about other shady deals Muscat signed behind our backs.