Malta Chamber of Commerce president William Spiteri Bailey made a very simple point in a recent meeting with the Prime Minister.

He said that at a government conference marking its first 100 days, the message had been that things were going very well and that it would essentially be business as usual. Two days later, at the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, the Finance Minister was giving a much more cautious message about energy prices, pressure on the deficit, and the very limited room available for additional spending, whether capital or recurrent.

The chamber president said he understood and respected the Finance Minister for speaking frankly. But he then asked the question that the government should also be asking itself: why should the people outside the room be hearing something different?

This is the heart of the matter.

The public does not need a government that presents only the pleasant part of the story. It needs a government that is prepared to explain the unpleasant part as well.

There is nothing wrong with saying that Malta's economy is performing well. There is nothing wrong with pointing to economic growth, employment and the resilience of businesses. But economic performance does not mean that there are no problems.

And if there are problems, they have to be acknowledged before they can be addressed.

That is particularly important as the country approaches the presentation of Budget 2027.

The government should use the budget not merely as another opportunity to announce measures, distribute benefits and reinforce a message of confidence. It should use it to explain where the country actually stands.

The issue of energy subsidies illustrates the problem perfectly. Nobody is suggesting that subsidies should simply disappear tomorrow. The chamber itself is not calling for such a reckless approach. What it is saying is that subsidies cannot be treated as though they are a permanent feature of Malta's economic landscape.

A subsidy can protect households and businesses from sudden shocks. But a policy designed as a response to exceptional circumstances becomes something else when it continues indefinitely. At that point, the question is no longer simply how much the government is spending today. The question becomes what economic behaviour the policy is encouraging, what investment it is discouraging, and what burden is being transferred to future governments and future generations.

The chamber is therefore right to raise the question of transition. Malta needs to discuss what happens next, rather than repeatedly postponing the discussion because the present arrangement is politically convenient.

There is an even more interesting possibility.

Elsewhere in this newspaper, Labour MP Clint Azzopardi Flores puts forward the idea of agreeing now on a timetable for the eventual removal of the subsidies - at a point when nobody can know which political party will be in government.

That deserves serious consideration because it could change the nature of the debate.

If the two sides of Parliament could agree on a credible timeline, the decision would no longer belong exclusively to whichever government happens to be in office when the political cost becomes unavoidable.

It would become a national commitment.

That is precisely why such an agreement would need to be reached now.

The temptation in politics is always to leave difficult decisions for another day. Governments prefer to announce benefits today and worry about the bill tomorrow. Oppositions understandably prefer to attack the government of the day rather than bind themselves to difficult decisions that they may have to implement themselves.

But this is precisely where political maturity is required.

More fundamentally, however, the government has to address the contradiction highlighted by Spiteri Bailey.

If the Finance Minister is privately warning representatives of the social partners about pressure on energy prices, the deficit and limited fiscal space, while the public is being presented with a largely reassuring picture of business as usual, then the government owes the country an explanation.

The issue is not whether the government should be optimistic.

It should.

The issue is whether optimism is being allowed to replace honesty.

There is a difference between reassuring the public and concealing the difficult choices that lie ahead. The first is responsible government. The second risks undermining public trust.

The approaching budget provides the opportunity to remove that doubt.

Tell people where the finances stand. Tell them what pressures are expected. Tell them what choices will eventually have to be made. Tell them what the government intends to do about renewable energy and reducing dependence on subsidies. And, most importantly, tell them whether the cautious message being delivered in closed meetings is actually the government's real assessment of the situation.

The first step in solving a problem is admitting that the problem exists.

That principle applies to governments as much as it applies to anyone else.

Malta does not need two economic stories - one for the people sitting around the table and another for everyone outside it.

It needs one story.

And the people deserve to hear all of it.