At one and the same time, Robert Abela’s words have meaning and no meaning. In their substance, the words tell us much about him but routinely nothing about that of which he speaks. Some of his key recent pronouncements have focused on issues of local and international significance – political accountability, neutrality and defence, migration, human rights and construction reform, to name but a few. It would not be unreasonable to expect something of substance from the Prime Minister given the importance of such issues in the current and future life of Malta. Sadly, no such luck. As all too often, his pronouncements amount to opportunistic soundbites apparently designed to energise the party faithful rather than enlighten the broader public. They have offered no substantial guidance on the government’s direction of travel or on the options being potentially considered. Instead, we are left to try to decode the PM’s thinking and conclusions from his particular form of negative semaphore, using the opportunity to attack any and all opposition. This should simply not be good enough or acceptable by any reasonable metric. While recognising the extraordinary power that is vested in the position of a Maltese PM, it seems strange and disturbing to me that so much depends on the routinely contradictory thoughts and minimally thought-out ‘policy’ positions of just one man. That national policy and practice could be so superficially derived and communicated should be deeply troubling to all thinking Maltese. And yet, Robert Abela and his regime continue to enjoy widespread (albeit fluctuating) support from the majority. This does not bode well for Malta or for the rights of Maltese. Take, for example, his much criticised observations on migrant human rights and more specifically his ‘drive by’ comments on the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite his legal education and background, he has suggested that such rights are substantively a matter of timing and context. They are something to be ‘awarded’ to (or crucially withheld from) those who ‘merit’ them by any given state or powerful individual as they deem fit. His core criticism is that the ECHR restricts the government in pursuing those policies it (or the PM) deems appropriate. In this, he conveniently ignores the fact that this is precisely what the ECHR seeks to achieve – ensuring that established rights are not subject to government preference or ideology. In human rights and legal terms, his observations represent very dangerous ground given the history and behaviours of those who deem themselves fit to award or withhold such rights. We are all aware of the groups and individuals who have previously been targeted in this manner – I do not need to spell out the list for it is as long as it is prejudiced. The fact that other world ‘leaders’ (including in the EU) are similarly inclined simply makes matters worse. The leaders and governments of smaller, infinitely less powerful nations need to be far more nuanced and cautious when dismissing established human rights norms for very obvious reasons. This should be all the more prescient given the attacks on international and multilateral human rights practices and structures (including those related to the environment) from autocrats and rights denialists such as Putin, Trump and Erdogan. To join such company and its fellow travellers (or even giving the appearance of doing so) is reckless. If the inherited rights of some individuals and groups are to be denied or made inoperable, it behoves any prime minister to carefully itemise the whys and wherefores of such a proposition and to subject it to legal and public scrutiny plus rigorous and sustained debate. To do otherwise is to risk the denial or suspension of the human rights of the Maltese for if rights are to be set aside, why not the rights of selected (or ‘merit-less’) Maltese? And it is doubly disturbing that no minister in Robert Abela’s regime (including its Foreign and Justice officeholders) apparently knew of his proposition or has offered any ‘clarification’ or observations as to why the ECHR suddenly needs reforming at the hands of Malta. The seriousness of the issues being raised by the PM (especially those around neutrality, defence and international human rights) and the cavalier and unserious manner of his approach is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. And if, as some suggest, Abela’s comments were simply intended to appeal to the Labour Party faithful, then this amounts to a cynical and equally dangerous playlist.