The Opera House debate (1)

Daniela Bartoli of the Edward de Bono Foundation (May 20) took umbrage with Richard England's letter but preferred to ignore my comments (May 15). Whether it is her foundation or the Caravaggio Foundation is irrelevant. Once she got involved, it is her foundation that must answer for the gaffe. How was this particular idea selected by the Edward de Bono Foundation? What help, financial or otherwise, is this foundation giving Giovanni Trevisan? But the most important point is: How is it that the foundation, or any other organisation, has not called a national conference instead of backing blindfolded one idea without in any way considering the others?

In my letter I stressed that the Edward de Bono Foundation should go one step further and call a national conference to discuss all the possibilities for the reconstruction of the theatre, as more "civilised" countries had done after the last war and other disasters. I stress for the umpteenth time: Why are certain persons terrified to take part in a face-to-face public discussion?

The two letters (May 24) by Jovan Mizzi and Steve Pelan do not impress me at all and might be even irrelevant. The Trevisan project has been presented as a "temporary" structure that could be removed. Why go to the expense when a more permanent building could be erected? Are we going to keep on wasting good money? Where will the funds come from, who will foot the bill, and who will make good for the recurring expenditure?

I defy anyone with a bit of courage to a public debate as there are by far better and more practical ideas that should be examined.

One last comment: The Trevisan scheme does not state if any use is to be made of the "precious" space beneath the theatre and the square. It makes no mention of the entrance to the city and the nearby bus terminus.

The people of Malta should wake up and take stock of this impasse. The Theatre Saga is symptomatic of the Maltese society and mentality. Will the nation ever mature into the 21st century?