The average citizen does not give so much importance to what credit rating agencies say about Malta. The reports they issue periodically about the country's progress - or lack of it - are full of technical jargon on a subject that does not create the buzz that surrounds other, hotter topics. We have come to learn that stories about the economy do not generate the same interest as, say, a minister who gives a job to his girlfriend with the complicity of another minister, or a former Prime Minister and three former ministers who are charged with criminal offences in court.

But what these credit agencies say does count in important quarters, and a positive review is significant to investors, businessmen and entrepreneurs who have made Malta their base. Just as much as a negative appraisal would make them possibly reconsider their decisions to Malta's detriment.

This is why the government always gives great attention to what these agencies say. Where the government is at fault is that it looks at the good comments that are made, wrongly ignoring the criticism and brushing it off. Where agencies say that Malta is doing well, the government takes all the credit. Where agencies pinpoint deficiencies, the government says that it is either already tackling the problem (and we have serious questions whether this is really the case) or, if it suits it better, overlooks the issue. One common reaction from the government, when the assessment underscores matters of concern, is that Malta has its own uniqueness and there should not be a one-size-fits-all approach.

In the last months we have had credit agencies reaffirming Malta's economic stability, giving the country ratings that are an encouragement to companies which have set up shop here, may be planning an expansion, or thinking of moving their operations to Malta.

But they also highlighted issues which the government cannot sweep under the carpet. They are known factors that we have written extensively about in the past, matters that the government has unfortunately tried to minimise or even sweep aside, preferring to portray the picture that nothing is wrong in this country.

In the latest report, issued early in December, S&P Global Ratings, while affirming that Malta's economy has continued to expand rapidly and keeping its debt levels manageable, said that Malta falls short in a number of areas compared to international standards, "and the country scores weakly in corruption perceptions, particularly in a European context". Checks and balances, and the overall accountability of institutions "are somewhat weaker compared with that of peers at similar income levels, which weighs on Malta's competitiveness." Malta's ratings would be higher, the agency said, "if we (the agency) saw a meaningful reduction in the government's exposure to oil prices, for instance through an elimination of energy subsidies or a very significant increase in renewable generation".

In November, another rating agency, Moody's, while highlighting the "strong" economic performance which is expected to continue and a "relatively diversified economic base", had remarked about the "remaining challenges on the institutional front, in particular related to control of corruption, rule of law and the supervision of money-laundering risks". It had also pointed out that while the population growth is supporting the fluid labour market, it also "poses challenges to Malta's infrastructure due to the island's physical capacity constraints."

In October, DBRS, while projecting that Malta's economic growth is likely to continue to outpace real GDP growth in most other EU countries, had commented about Malta's rankings for control of corruption, rule of law and regulatory quality which "have been deteriorating in recent years". The agency also noted that the government has been told by the European Commission that there is "room for further improvement in the government's efforts to strengthen the judiciary's independence and to ensure effective criminal prosecution".

In September, Fitch, while underscoring Malta's economic growth, had highlighted that Malta "lacks a clear exit strategy from the fixed-price policy, creating fiscal risks around the future cost of energy prices." Fitch also referred to the fact that Malta has been taken before the European Court of Justice due to concerns about the Citizenship for Direct Investment programme; in other words, the sale of passports.

The Nationalist Party, NGOs and the media have been highlighting these issues - corruption, rule of law deficiencies, money laundering activity, institutional crisis, energy and population issues, judiciary's independence, citizenship - for years.

The fact that these challenges continue to be underlined also by credit rating agencies - who cannot be accused of being biased - indicates that the government has done little, if anything at all, to address them.

That some of these problems have been with us for a decade or so shows that the Labour government has allowed them to fester, both under Joseph Muscat, and now under Robert Abela.

Hiding or ignoring them will not make them go away.