Only the most delusional politicians would deny that the perception of many local people, the foreign media and, probably, many international investors is that Malta has an image problem relating to its determination to fight corruption. In a survey commissioned by The Sunday Times of Malta, corruption was ranked as the third biggest problem facing the country after traffic and Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder.

Some rightly argue that, in politics, what matters is not whether corruption exists or not but whether people believe it exists. The fight against corruption must be seen to be backed by the political will to act whenever there is the slightest evidence that politically-exposed persons acted in a corrupt way to gain financial or political advantage. A move in that direction was made in 1988 when the Permanent Commission Against Corruption was set up.

Regretfully, for the past six months the commission was unable to function the way it was meant to by law because one of its members passed away and another was appointed magistrate. This does not augur well for the damage limitation exercise that has become an urgent priority to restore Malta’s tarnished image in the fight against corruption.

After this newspaper raised the matter earlier this month, the government said it had nominated a new member and was awaiting the nomination of another member by the Opposition. Why the Nationalist Party has not made its nomination yet is unknown and questions sent by this newspaper earlier this week were still not answered by yesterday.

Whether the delay is justifiable or not matters very little if the perception of both local and international observers is that, in this country, there seems to be scarce political will to make independent governance watchdogs functional. Though, of course, bodies like the Permanent Commission Against Corruption should never remain unconstituted.

But that is not the only problem. Earlier this year, the commission said in a report it was convinced former Labour Party general secretary, Jimmy Magro, had sought bribes from a public tender. The fact that after 10 months the police have still not taken action, or at least commented whether it has enough evidence to proceed against Mr Magro, risks transmitting a message that some suspected of having acted in a corrupt way benefit from unofficial impunity.

This attitude and lack of urgency to act promptly when faced with allegations of corruption undermines Malta’s credibility in the eyes of many. The commission in question is not a court of law but a watchdog that investigates allegations of corruption, especially against those involved in public life.

To be effective it needs to hear out the prima facie evidence that is presented to it and, in as speedy a way as possible, express an opinion on whether further action is necessary to confirm or otherwise whether the allegations made are founded.

Those who serve on the commission have the onerous responsibility of safeguarding the interests of society by investigating allegations of abuse by those in some positions of power. Such abuse may be motivated by financial gain or political advantage. Both types of abuse are equally harmful to a democratic society.

The government, the Opposition and, the President have the duty to ensure the Permanent Commission Against Corruption can function immediately.