Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/396532
maltatoday, Sunday, 12 OctOber 2014 24 Letters Send your letters to: the editor, Maltatoday, Mediatoday Ltd. Vjal ir-rihan, San Gwann SGn 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 e-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the editor should be concise. no pen names are accepted. Just as the dust over the Dar Malta controversy starts to settle, Minister Jesmond Mugliett with all good intentions, announces during a business breakfast organised by our sister paper The Malta Financial and Business Times that Cabinet is close to giving its approval to the Valletta opera house site being converted into the House of Parliament. The obvious question that springs to mind is whether Gov- ernment should commit public funds to a capital project at a time when the public finances are in dire straits and the people are being asked to make sacrifices? This was the controversial issue surrounding the Dar Malta debate and this is the identical issue that will inevitably rage following the Minister's declaration. It is, in its narrowest form, no more than a pounds shillings and pence issue. Looking at the bigger picture of what is essentially the entrance to a world heritage site, it is of course much more. It must be stated and stressed that the present site is an eyesore and that the shabby and the tatty atmosphere it gives to our capital city needs to be tackled. However, why now, and why as a Parliament? Government can be com- forted by the thought that this time it will not come in for any flak from the Labour Party hoisted by its own petard, as the Opera house was included in the Labour party elec- toral programme for urgent development. Government should still tread extremely carefully since the average citizen is most likely to be sceptical about the benefits of yet another project draining public funds. No doubt beyond the overcoming of the shabby remains, government may feel that such a project will help kick-start the economy. This Keynesian way of thinking is outdated. Governments are no longer the shakers and movers of their own economies, the global world market forces are the modern economic deus ex machina. The net result will only be a widening debt bill with very little added value bestowed upon the taxpayer that ultimately foots the bill. Beyond the financing difficulties what added value will a new Parliament bestow upon the people? Will it upgrade the level of debate? Will the added space really allow Parliament to function more via commit- tees than as at present? Will it in any way bring the people closer to its representatives - the ultimate test and criterion of a parliament? We have our doubts on the choice falling upon a Parliament Granted that the site is in urgent need of development, government must think out of the box. Bearing in mind that Government certainly cannot, at this given moment in time, finance such a project, a possible feasible alterna- tive is to think in terms of a public- private partnership whereby the private sector provides the financing and Governments contributes the value of the land. For this to materialise it is clear that the private sector would expect a return on its investment. Herein lies the difficulty, for what project can guaranteed a reasonable return to make the risk-taking worthwhile? An opera house would be unsustainable, a theatre would only conflict with the ever growing popular St James Cavalier, and The Manoel Theatre, a multiple shopping mall would put the survival of the already numerous retail outlets in Valletta in jeopardy. The way forward remains putting the site open to the dreams and the eventual proposals of any individual or group of entrepreneurs ready to take up such a chal- lenge. The tender, of course, as members of the European Union, would be to open to all possible bidders including European companies, many of whom no doubt do have experience of similar opportunities. Government's role would be, apart from that of providing the site for which it would receive its fair share of the even- tual profits of the company, to remain the prime mover and shaker and arbiter of the eventual design chosen. We anticipate the discussion about the project will reignite the controversy over whether the baroque archi- tecture of Valletta or a modern twenty first architectural design statement should be the chosen design. Raising the issue again may be healthy and conducive towards redeem- ing a city which is presently looking a pale shadow of its former self, a city built by an Order. Opera House: a public-private partnership Editorial • October 17 2004 Does the environment matter anymore? Living in the old core of a tradi- tional Maltese town has its charm. Quite a few old houses around us have been renovated, ref lecting back past beauty. MEPA's Policy UCO 10 states: "Developments will not be permit- ted which adversely affect views of or from Urban Conservation Ar- eas, or which detract from the tra- ditional urban skyline. Particularly important views will be identified in detail in Local Plans." Our house being situated in an Urban Conservation Area as defined by MEPA policies should give us peace of mind that no major disruptive alterations in our environment would be carried out. Unfortunately, that policy re- mains a fiction as lately experi- enced on two occasions. One neighbor, without warn- ing and permits, added another f loor to his property. Through this exercise I lost my wireless internet connection. Shortly after, another neighbour decided to do the same, building another f loor to his dwelling, again without any permits. I had reported both matters to MEPA and the enforcement of- ficer, also including in my email exchanges the current chairman of MEPA. After many emails and tel- ephone calls, both illegal dwellings are still in place and both owners have been asked by the enforce- ment officer to submit applications to sanction the extensions. The moral of the story is the fol- lowing: start building and then the enforcement officer will help you to get your work sanctioned. I bet that both extensions will remain in place despite breaching UCA policies. Henrik Piski Qormi A similar letter about divine mer- cy by Mr Guillaumier appeared in your issue of 8.12.13; this time more details of tragedies were re- leased. With no pretension what- soever of being versed in moral matters, more so in being "God's counsellor", I only condemn Mr G. for exposing his fallacies so persistently and relentlessly in the press, to the extent of being a prominent monopolising feature in two English-speaking papers. If he thinks that anyone can wrap everything up in a neat little parcel and put a fancy theological bow on the single greatest chal- lenge to the Christian faith, then he can punch the air in celebra- tion for failing to find one. It is certainly beyond anyone to annihilate and rebut such a bril- liant exposure but though evil and suffering exist, a loving god can alleviate its pain. I can only revert to micrology (just one paragraph) and a quotation. I refer to deicide. The death of God himself on the cross. At the time, nobody saw how anything good could ever result from this tragedy. And yet God foresaw it as the opening of heaven to human beings. So the worst tragedy in history brought about the most glorious event in history. And if it happened there – if the ultimate evil can result in the ultimate good – it can happen any where, even in our own individual and collective lives. Here, God lifts the curtain and lets us see it. Elsewhere he simply says "Trust me". The prominent British pastor John R.W. Stott, reached his own conclusion: I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross: In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples in dif- ferent Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of Buddha. His legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. But each time after a while, I have had to turn away. And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding, from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in God-forsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of f lesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manage- able in light of his. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross, which symbolises divine suffer- ing. The cross of Christ: God's only self-justification in such a world of ours. Mr Guillaumier is certainly "au courant" with catastrophic statis- tics but not so with atheism – his religion. His conclusion that it's improbable that there is anyone up there "was a splendid anti- climax and a vacuous platitude to a theory which has long been vanquished, these last three years or so. Reasons of space permit me only half a quotation. "Probability of life coming spon- taneously into being is impos- sible… It's much more sensible to believe that an intelligent and wise God created living beings and the universe than those beings sprung out of nothing or through a spontaneous coinci- dence. (Fred Hoyle) Can there be anyone, even of the most liberal-minded type, who doesn't believe something has gone badly wrong with his priorities? I think he should re-schedule them. John Azzopardi Zabbar But what's wrong with John Guil- laumier ('No evidence of divine mercy', MaltaToday, 5 October)? What is troubling him? He keeps tearing into believers for their beliefs. He keeps tearing down their God. But why? What is tearing into him? Why does he have a problem with people believing there is a God, with their putting their trust in Him? No one is telling Mr Guillaumier to go out and paint the town red, or to stop being so morose, miser- able and negative. If that is what he wants in life, let him have it. But, on the other hand, he should respect other people's ways. If they want to believe in a God, let them. They are no harm to him. They are not getting in his way. Why is he so assiduous in trying to get in theirs? To be blunt, why doesn't he mind his own business? Why doesn't he give up moping about whatever it was in the past that gave him hurt, and get on with life? If someone hurt him, why blame it on God? Why not blame it on himself, for keeping such company? I am not a practising Catholic. Very selfishly, I pray to God only when I am in some difficulty. And you know what? I find solace from doing so. Prayer is the cheapest and most effective form of medicine I know of. Roger Mifsud Rabat Download the MaltaToday App now A soul-searching exercise and a backsliding So, what's wrong with him?