It is almost surreal.

The government wants to change things that are functioning well, and does not want to amend other things where change is needed to make things better.

Instead of taking steps for more transparency, accountability and the strengthening of the rule of law and free journalism, it is working to make it harder for justice to be served, for the truth to emerge, and for anyone who is responsible for wrongdoing to be punished.

Over the last 10 years, we have spoken at length on how the culture of impunity was fostered by the Joseph Muscat government and endorsed by his successor Robert Abela. It is now taking on a new meaning.

In the past month or so we have highlighted how the government intends to modify the process leading to the setting up of magisterial inquiries requested by citizens, largely because of the police's failure to do its duty. Rather than facilitate matters, the government wants to make it harder for such an exercise to be initiated.

The Labour government is going down this road after magisterial inquiries exposed transgressions which would have otherwise remained hidden. This disclosure has led to the arraignments of former top Labour Party exponents and is expected to lead to more charges against the same or other people. But the government sees this tool which is granted by law to any citizen of good intent as "abuse", and wants to curtail it. The abuse, as we have already said, is in the wrongdoing, not in the calling for an investigation.

The Opposition has taken an important stand against the move, voting against the bill at the presentation of the first reading in Parliament last Wednesday. It is unusual for such a step to be taken so early in the parliamentary procedure, even before the details of the law were made available a day later. But the Nationalist Party immediately said it would oppose the bill at every stage; and this is what it has done.

Resistance to the government's plans are coming from other sectors too, with eight organisations teaming up to call for a white paper followed by public discussion.

But the government ploughed ahead and, in its presentation of the changes on Thursday, it has become clear that the intention is to make it much harder for magisterial inquiries to be initiated.  The new system would require a police report to be filed and, if after six months no action has been taken by the police, the complainant must then go before a judge who will decide as to whether a magistrate is appointed for the inquiry to take place. It is a complicated, convoluted system which favours wrongdoers. The government seems intent to offer more protection to people in the wrong than facilitate investigations into the wrongdoing.

The government also wants to change a system that has been in place for decades, and this regards the publication of a declaration of assets which is supposed to be presented to Parliament by Cabinet members, including the Prime Minister, every year. These financial disclosures can help identify unexplained wealth.

Abela has failed to submit, by the end of April 2024, a declaration of his and his ministers' assets as he is obliged to do. He is now saying that the system needs to be revised to include all MPs. This may well be a subject to be discussed, but until any new system is put in place, Abela has the obligation to follow the procedures in place. Why has the PM chosen to hold back on doing his duty?

The government, then, has opted to reject amendments which were proposed by the Opposition with regard to the anti-SLAPP legislation. SLAPPs are lawsuits aimed to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of the legal defence. The amendments proposed, which had the backing of the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IGM), were intended to offer better protection of free journalism.

The government voted against the amendments, and by so doing it exposed itself as being, yet again, against more transparency and accountability. Its rejection of the amendments, described by the IGM as disgusting, means that the government is not interested in supporting free journalism. Neither is it interested in offering better protection to journalists.

It must also be remembered that the Prime Minister, in October 2023, had given a promise that a white paper on media reform was to be published. The white paper was supposedly to be based on a report drawn up by a Committee of Experts which was tasked to come up with proposals on how to implement recommendations made by the public inquiry into the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Sixteen months have passed since the Prime Minister made a public declaration in Parliament that the white paper will be published.

We are still waiting for it, and there is still no indication on when the government intends to fulfil its pledge.

With the way it is behaving, the government is coming across as being all out to keep citizens away from learning the truth, against the need for more transparency and accountability, and against free journalism.

It is, really and truly, surreal.