It was in September 2018 that the then Minister of Finance had expressed his irritation that when he went abroad he had to confront comments made about Malta's poor record in tackling corruption.

Addressing a pre-budget meeting, Edward Scicluna had noted that it was not only international bodies that used to bring up the subject.  "Even if I'm in a taxi in South America I get asked about the situation and have to explain," the minister had said at the time.

He had then spoken about "false allegations" made by fellow Maltese who aimed to tarnish Malta's reputation, and that the government, then with Joseph Muscat as Prime Minister, was doing its best to repair the damage.

That was more than five years ago, and since then things have become worse.

For one thing, when Scicluna made that statement, the three hospitals' deal was still seeing the Labour government pumping out millions of euros each year. It was only in 2023 that the accord was rescinded following a court judgment which spoke about "evidence of fraudulent intent".

Later, following a magisterial inquiry into the same contract, a long list of people has been taken to court to face criminal charges. Both Scicluna and Muscat are on that list, and both are fighting to clear their name. The cases related to this magisterial inquiry are still ongoing, with all involved pleading not guilty to the accusations brought against them.

But the hospitals' saga is just one in a series of situations that have embarrassed the government. When Scicluna had spoken the way he did in September 2018, other shameful episodes such as the social services racket, the driving licences shame, the identity cards issue, and the Siggiewi housing estate addresses exercise which was reversed by the courts were still to happen, just to mention the most striking of the lot. There was then the resignation of two ministers - Justyne Caruana and Clayton Bartolo - in connection with scandals involving people close to them.

More recently, another magisterial inquiry into the company known as 17 Black has been completed and, even here, court arraignments are set to happen.

Other magisterial inquiries into other serious situations have been requested or are already taking place, so there could be more news of wrongdoing in the months and years to come.

While the magisterial inquiry tool has been precious in uncovering details which have ultimately led to charges in court, the other side of the coin is that such investigations were called for mostly because it was felt that the police were not doing their duty.

This is why there is so much opposition to the government's plans to reform the system related to how magisterial inquiries are requested, even before the details which have so far been kept secret are revealed. This is particularly so since it has been hinted by Justice Minister Jonathan Attard that citizens will need to require a police investigation before resorting to asking a magistrate to probe a particular subject.

The argument that is being made against such a suggestion is that magisterial inquiries have been asked for because the police were seen to be underperforming - to put it mildly - in such circumstances. And so the government's attempt to change the way magisterial inquiries are initiated is perceived as a way for the government to make it more difficult for such investigations to be started and, by so doing, the government is seen to be aiming to protect itself, given that more often than not such inquiries involve top officials or people close to them. Adding a police filter before a magisterial inquiry is launched only serves to make things more difficult.

It is therefore not surprising that the government's proposal, first announced in authoritarian style by Prime Minister Robert Abela in the wake of more requests for magisterial inquiries involving his team, has found so much resistance.

The Nationalist Party, NGOs, civil society, ADPD and the two newly-formed organisations, Momentum and the Malta Progressive Party, have come out strongly against Abela's idea, leaving the government isolated on this particular front.

But, as we all know, the government has a strong majority in Parliament and will see the amendments through easily. The Prime Minister appears adamant in his will to change the system, and his MPs will follow their master. The chances of seeing another of Abela's u-turns, at this stage, are minimal.

It's however not likely the matter will end there. One of the newer parties, Momentum, has launched a parliamentary petition against the changes, and the oldest of the small parties, ADPD, has said it is prepared to collect signatures to force an abrogative referendum aimed to have the amendments revoked.