Many rightly argue that politicians’ private lives should generally be off limits to media scrutiny.

There are some notable exceptions, however. The media has a duty to the public, and an obligation under its watchdog role, to probe and ask awkward questions.

It has a right to do so if it suspects, for instance, any kind of behaviour which could unduly influence the carrying out of a politician’s public responsibilities, or some breach of the government’s own policies, or some sort of financial impropriety.

The latter sort of suspicions have been much in the headlines over the last few years. And when politicians lead a lifestyle that cannot be explained by their known income, then the media also has every right to seek explanations.

Recent pictures of holidaying politicians have raised doubts over whether their lifestyle is compatible with their known income from politics or past profession.

A few months ago, former prime minister Joseph Muscat failed to explain convincingly how he financed his lavish travels in the last few weeks of his premiership.

He claims that a private individual paid the air fares and accommodation for a trip to Dubai with his family.

He now insists that he is no longer in office and does not owe the public any further clarifications on this and other incidents that indicate that his lifestyle was, and still is, not compatible with his official income from politics.

Muscat’s wife Michelle recently published photos on social media indicating that, unlike most ‘ordinary’ citizens, her family recently enjoyed what looked like an extravagant summer vacation on a private yacht and in a private palazzo in Rome.

How can the public be reassured that whoever financed this holiday did so out of genuine friendship and not as a result of other less noble motives?

If it was the Muscats who footed their own bill, is it not equally legitimate to question how they could afford it? Muscat still serves as an MP.

The present prime minister, Robert Abela, was rightly criticised for the insensitivity of spending a holiday abroad on his expensive yacht when the rate of coronavirus infections in his country was rising substantially.

Many also asked how it was possible for him to enjoy a lifestyle that is difficult to reconcile with his current income from politics.

Was his income derived from legal fees charged to public entities in the last few years enough to enable him to support his lavish lifestyle today?

Opposition leader Adrian Delia’s financial situation has also been in the headlines. Reports by Times of Malta have made it clear that from his known sources of income, Delia could not cover his lifestyle expenses and debts.

People can live beyond their means for some time either by borrowing excessively or by having hidden sources of income.

When these people are also politicians, the public has a right to know where this income is originating.

Public officials are paid by taxpayers and politicians are at the very top of the hierarchy of those in the public service.

Very few expect politicians to wear hair shirts and live a Spartan life.

But ordinary people have every right to know whether those they elect are living beyond their means.

And if they are doing so, people need to understand how those high-maintenance lifestyles are being financed.