Pullicino Orlando urged not to pressure MEPA
The president of the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation, Mgr Philip Calleja, has strongly denied an allegation made by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando in Parliament that he was being used as a mouthpiece for someone else.
Mgr Calleja said in a statement he was deeply saddened that Dr Pullicino Orlando chose to speak in Parliament to make false allegations against him.
“In the very many years I have been active in various roles in public life I have never been faced with such unjust and untruthful allegations. This is an uncalled for attack on my personal integrity and on a foundation which works very hard to safeguard one of Malta’s best treasures.
“As President of St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation it was and still is my duty to defend the hard work and the credibility of the foundation. I would like to assure Dr Pullicino Orlando that I will continue honouring my duties and commitments and I am convinced that finally the truth will prevail,” Mgr Calleja said in a statement.
He said the foundation was equally disappointed by the argument made by Dr Pullicino Orlando that St John’s Co-Cathedral did not deserve the investment the foundation was committed to make to ensure that the Co-Cathedral and its historical surroundings were safeguarded and preserved.
“From the way he spoke in Parliament it is reasonable to conclude that for Dr Pullicino Orlando, the safeguarding, preservation and upkeep of St John’s Co-Cathedral is not a priority. That is a very sad statement to be made by anyone, but coming from an MP, these statements are shocking.”
It was also clear, Mgr Calleja remarked, that Dr Pullicino Orlando was choosing to ignore the explanations given by the foundation after he first spoke about the cathedral in Parliament.
Mgr Calleja reminded Dr Pullicino Orlando that following a public call inviting all Maltese entities to submit proposals for EU funding, the foundation made a detailed and technical submission and €13.798 million, to which the foundation will be adding €2.06 million from its own funds as its co-financing share, were allocated.
Mgr Calleja noted that the foundation would be carrying out an extensive independent Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) under the control of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
“The Environmental Impact Assessment will cover all matters of concern such as the underground passages and the excavations of the square. I can assure Dr Pullicino Orlando that the foundation will never expose the Co-Cathedral or any other sites or buildings to any risk.
“Furthermore the Foundation is determined to allow MEPA to carry out its work without any interference or pressure. Dr Pullicino Orlando should do the same and avoid using his position as a Member of Parliament to put pressure on MEPA,” he said.
See also
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Petrol price up 6c
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
33 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Aldo.G. Portelli
Nov 29th 2008, 16:37
There is a home destined for very child that is born; likewise the tapestries were destined to adorn our Co-Cathedral. No arguments or excuses can alter or blur this truth and let no museum, or other, alter this fact. There seems to be little doubt that the greater part of public opinion is against the project with all the money that goes with it. Let's not risk it, we don't need better counsel we already have it; it comes natural.
Clint E Taliana
Nov 29th 2008, 13:04
I simply think that JPO should not be sitting in Parliament.
Josef Caruana
Nov 29th 2008, 02:35
I wonder if Mgr Philip Calleja is willing to take personal criminal responsability for any damage that St John's Co-Cathedral might suffer due to the proposed work. This is what is needed in Malta, accountability - putting your money where your mouth is.
I also feel that for the Mgr to attack JPO 'ad hominem' shows a vulnerable debating position, especially when mentioning Mepa and when claiming that the preservation of the Cathedral was not a priority for JPO, which is an obvious misinterpretation.
I feel that JPO should raise the question of the Ownership of this site in parliament, so that this issue would be settled once and for all, and thus if the government assumes ownership of the site he would be able to stop any development which had not looked at alternative viable sites first.
An interesting read about the question of ownership of the site is the paper written by Mario Buhagiar in Melita Historica http://www.geocities.com/melitahistoricab/19913.html
Ing. S. Cremona
Nov 28th 2008, 08:39
Well done JPO! Nice to see you back doing what you know best!
While it will be difficult to put the Mistra case behind you, standing your ground on such 'extravagant projects' will remind people why they have voted for you after all!
To the foundation, while i have the highest esteem for Mons. Calleja, obviously i cannot say the same for some committee members!
Finally 14 million euros should be utilised on projects that need immediate attention. I understand that this foundation applied for these funds and obtained them on its own steam but as had been suggested we would like to see which projects were refused by the EU which had been proposed by the Government!
I am sure it will be an eye opener!
J Martinelli
Nov 28th 2008, 08:14
@ Vincent A Galea, et al
The last thing I would criticize, is the spending of almost e16 million in this project. In this uncertain economic atmosphere this is what is needed to create jobs in a substantial project which will take several months if not years to bring it to completion.
Another point which is sorely missed by many, is that this project is not mainly for the preservation of the cathedral itself but rather for the preservation of the priceless tapestries and other treasures which, due to inadequate temperature and humidity controlled premises, are being damaged. So, what is the use of spending millions preserving the tapestries when after restoration they will still suffer the ravages from unsuitable facilities?
Thirdly, one gets the impression that the project entails some new unproven methods, which is clearly not the case.
And lastly, someone wrote that EIAs are not to be trusted and that they are a smoke screen! Why then, do we have them? EIAs are used throughout the civilized world, so are they all useless expenditures? And, who is giving the impression that an 'independent EIA' will be conducted by MEPA ? - see comment by S Caruana.
Henry Galea
Nov 27th 2008, 21:50
Mgr.Callija, sorry but it's not time to redo the paving in the squire, who will pay. Also if your poject matures is it the church /EU who will supply the Euros. I say NO to such a project, you should have awoke before, better to give a face lift to the cathederal, I am ahamed to point to tourists that is a gem of the knights. Places of interest abroad, can easly dedected from the outside, and if you permit me that includs the Governers Place, from the outside it's in such a bad state. EU supplies part Euros but we don't want erode what we saved.Hard times comming,
Astrid Vella
Nov 27th 2008, 21:36
@ Mr Leone Ganado; as you indicated Heritage Malta is still having huge problems with the climatisation of its Hypogeum project which is a fraction of the size of the cisterns involved in the St. John’s project, let alone the whole underground gallery.
The I.M.Pei parallel has been flogged to death;some French architects recently pointed out that the tiny graveyard to be glassed-over cannot even begin to be compared to the scale of the Louvre forecourt, where the IM Pei pyramid was built.Still less is the Louvre sacred ground.
These arguments overlook the fact that like the rest of Europe,Malta is facing a period of recession and should make every cent work many times over. €16 million could be sunk into restoring one of the many structures that could accommodate the Foundation’s collections, with enough left over to restore St. Angelo and give our shabby capital a facelift which will attract more tourists to Malta and create tourism jobs in depressed areas like lower Valletta and Birgu.By clutching onto all their riches in terms of treasures and EU funding,Government and Church members of the Foundation are being extremely elitist and betraying the people they are answerable to
Astrid Vella
Nov 27th 2008, 21:17
While one has every respect for members of the Cathedral Foundation for their respective role, it has to be said that none of them has experience in structural work on ancient buildings,and neither does the architect, a strange choice given that he has no track-record in restoration projects.
In fact when we brought up the matter of the Foundation tender which included power water washing which could have a very damaging effect on old stone, causing micro-cracks which would allow water to seep into the Preti wall-paintings,none of the Foundation were even aware of this! Is that how “the foundation will never expose the Co-Cathedral or any other sites or buildings to any risk”
If the Foundation were genuine about this it would heed MEPA’s words that this project is a non-starter as no mitigation measures can completely eliminate the risk to St. John’s,and drop the project in favour of one of the numerous valid alternatives that have by now been made.
A recent Foundation article called the project “What’s best for St.John’s”-that’s exactly it. They are not considering what’s best for Valletta’s people, its heritage, and its long-term sustainability, just tunnel-vision in more ways than one.
albert leone ganado
Nov 27th 2008, 20:59
I will not enter on the heritage or cultural merits of this project for I do not feel knowledgable or passionate enough to comment.
However from the technical point of view I have certainly seem more challenging projects all over Europe, York and Grenoble immediately, come to mind
14 million euros is not a large sum and certainly not extravagant if we are going to create a state of the art space worthy of the quality and professionality which such a project deserves.
Indeed when the Hypogeum was rehabilatated a few extra millions in expenditure would have ensured a space capable of accepting a much higher number of visitors without damage to the structure than at present .
Projects like this will always be highly controversial. One remembers the titanic furore when the I.M. Pei pyramid and underground extension to the Louvre was proposed . Now it is considered as one of the wonders of modern France.
S. Caruana
Nov 27th 2008, 18:30
My only two-pence worth on this argument.
EUR14 Million should be used for more important and immediate projects.
I completely agree with Ing. Cremona that the EIA is just a smoke screen - we have seen this happen in the past and i am sorry - WE DO NOT TRUST MEPA!!!!!
Mons. Calleja, think again and try to see how those EUR14 million could assist better the people!
Finally, how the foundation managed to obtain this immense figure baffles me! Probably there was a DIVINE hand! :-)
Marco Cremona
Nov 27th 2008, 17:58
It amazes me (and indeed worries me immensely) how the St.John's Foundation (a non-governmental organization) managed to secure Euro14 million of Malta's EU funds - when this Foundation has absolutely no track record in managing such projects.
NGOs I am involved with do not even dream of securing a few thousand euros in EU funds for their very good social and environmental projects, let alone Euro 14 million for what is clealy a very destructive project.
I cannot believe that the St. John's proposal, nonsensical and extravagant as it is, managed to beat other projects submitted by ministries (for education, society, tourism, cultural heritage etc.).
Being on the outside, I do not know what projects were submitted and refused (it would be useful if government were to publish the list), but I really cannot believe that the ministries could not come up with better project ideas than the Foundation's. Why weren't the St. Elmo and St. Angelo restoration projects submitted? Why weren't such more worthy projects in the running against the St. John's proposal?
Indeed, one only needs to look at the composition of the Foundation's committee to speculate whether some other factors, other than merit, were at play here.
Mario Tabone-Vassallo
Nov 27th 2008, 17:57
While I might disagree with Monsignor Calleja on some particular matter, I would never ever doubt his integrity not would I ever cease to greatly respect him. I only wish I could say the same about everyone else
Charles Farrugia
Nov 27th 2008, 17:47
@George Cutajar. Why are you assuming that something will go wrong during the works? Using your line of thought would mean bringing to a sudden halt all restoration works currently being carried out all over Malta (including in private property!). Is this what you’re suggesting?
Karen Zammit Manduca
Nov 27th 2008, 17:37
"...the foundation was committed to make to ensure that the Co-Cathedral and its historical surroundings were safeguarded and preserved."
"...the safeguarding, preservation and upkeep of St John’s Co-Cathedral..."
This whole project idea is not at all about the safeguarding, preservation and upkeep of St John's, but an extravagant and unnecessary underground extension which will alter the character of the cisterns and sewers built at the time of the Knights. We all know that this extension to the Cathedral Museum is uncalled for because it can be adequately housed elsewhere.
Please let us keep things in their correct perspective and not play around with words.
Marco Cremona
Nov 27th 2008, 17:35
Mgr. Calleja's arguments fail to convince.
1. How can he say that the Foundation's project will pose no risk to St. John's Cathedral when the Foundation's architect refused to give such guarantees?
2. Unlike Mgr. Calleja, we have no faith in the EIA process. Given that the studies are paid by the developer, EIAs inevitably are biased in favour of the development. Remember the EIA for the excavation of an engineered-landfill meters away from the Mnajdra temples? And how the 'independent consultants' said that such a massive development just metres away from one of Malta's most priceless monuments would NOT have any impact? Thank God for JPO who waged a battle against his own government's proposal so that we can enjoy these temples today. The EIA is a smoke-screen, nothing else.
3. Mgr. Calleja fails to see that it's not only JPO who's against this extravagant project but practically everybody under the sky. The project as proposed is so nonsensical and arrogantly destructive by design that public opinion is vehemently against it. One just needs to look at the comments hereunder. The Foundation should retract the project immediately and seek more sustainable alternatives.
Charles Farrugia
Nov 27th 2008, 17:31
Oh come on! It is extremely unfair for all of you to attack Mgr Calleja. He deserves our full suport for his role within the Foundation and the Church.
I’m sure the Foundation will take all necessary precautions to safeguard St John’s when the project is being carried out.
Joseph Galea
Nov 27th 2008, 16:43
Mgr Calleja, your integrity is not easy to taint and do not lose sleep over it.
Dr. PO should stick to his argument as he should know better. Keep it clean
Many of us, including the undersigned are behind Dr. JPO's way of thinking.
Let us fill this big gape in Valletta, once and for all, with a befitting project.
joe the plumber
Jeremy J Camilleri
Nov 27th 2008, 16:33
I wonder what he meant when he urged JPO not to put pressure on MEPA?
Does he usually do that I wonder?
ernest causon
Nov 27th 2008, 16:10
I have every respect for both Mgr Calleja and Dr Pullicino Orlando, However I would still prefer the Cathedral Museum to replace the Opera House ruins. This would serve a dual purpose by also accomodating Parliament, the area being large enough to serve both, Another gain is that the present space occupied by Parliament would then be an additional tourist attraction
GEORGE CUTAJAR
Nov 27th 2008, 16:07
The St. John's proposed project should be a non-starter not because JPO is saying so but simply because it is sheer madness to even dream about it. No EIA, no tests, nothing can ever justify this form of intervention and the Foundation should not have even proposed it.
If there are funds coming from the EU let us put them into good use for the common good but not at the costs of even minimally risking disturbing St. John's. Should something go wrong during the works - and as things are this is inevitable - I shudder to even think of the consequences.
Intervening on St. John;s CC is simply not on Mons. and not because JPO says so but simply because common sense so dictates.
lgalea
Nov 27th 2008, 16:05
Mons. Calleja and the foundation, lay your hands off OUR national heritage.
It does not belong to you but to ALL OF US.
Joseph Grima
Nov 27th 2008, 15:47
Isn't it true that the cathedral is not top priority when St. Elmo is on the brink of collapse?
Brian Caruana
Nov 27th 2008, 15:37
I have great respect towards Mgr Calleja, but on this one I cannot agree with him. This is a waste of money, which can be spent on the same Cathedral, but on something which does not harm or damage the Cathedral itself. Hon J.Pulicino Orlndo has every right to speak on what he believes in. That's why I voted for him apart from others in the last General Election. By the way, let's say that JPO did somthing which was not right about the Mistra thing, doesn't he deserve another chance. Everybody makes mistakes! Some times they are exposed & sometimes NOT!!!
Muscat. Patricia
Nov 27th 2008, 15:32
I would rather believe the Monsignor, and am sure that what he says, he means it heart and soul, and not doing it for personal gain. But alas, after all the scenes concocted at Mistra, with all the wailing and crying; I will be a fool to cascade again!
Elisa Grima
Nov 27th 2008, 15:26
@ Glenn Barrossa, Louis Gialanze
Why are you trying to bring down JPO for doing a good thing and speaking out. No other MP has ever done this consistently, as JPO has throughout his political career. That is commendable, rather than something we should speak against. Keep your comments to yourselves, because it seems to me that as far as you are concerned, no one should ever speak against such projects, but keep quiet and let things be... What a Democracy! ... Keep to the subject instead of bringing up OLD news- perhaps your arguments would be more relevant that way! The fact remains that the money could go to restore other assets of our heritage that are in shambles- it is a shame that the government has not realized that there is so much left to be done with the rest of the country's architectural gems. Well done JPO for speaking up, Malta is behind you!
Alfred Zahra de Domenico
Nov 27th 2008, 15:08
How very sad it is to see that Mons. Calleja has not realised that not one single organisation or individual has been persuaded to change its/his mind by the explanations given by the Foundation. The Co-Cathedrals' Monsignors, the CCHC, FAA, the MEPA Direcorate,the GRTU, the 1060+MEPA objectors and others have not changed their stance on this project.It is also sad to see Mons. Calleja urging an MP to desist from speaking up in the House on something he too is convinced is wrong. That too is surley very wrong. It is JPO's duty to speak up.
Glenn Barrossa
Nov 27th 2008, 15:07
From what Fr Calleja seems to be saying Mr Pullicino Orlando is quite handy with throwing mud when it suits his political career. Does anyone remember how much he wailed when he was accused of sacrificing the environment in Mistra for personal gain. According to him and his party it was all mud throwing
Pawlu Agius
Nov 27th 2008, 15:01
JPO is hopefully back on the right track, defending our heritage / environment.
Louis Gialanze
Nov 27th 2008, 15:00
Isn't it rather rich of JPO to voice his concern about the proposed investment relating to St John's co-cathedral. The funding will be coming from the EU and the people of Malta, for which we shall be eternally gratefull.
Hands off please Dr Pullicino Orlando - you are merely a migratory bird.
Elisa Grima
Nov 27th 2008, 14:36
Dr. Pullicino Orlando did not pressure MEPA but substantiated their arguments. I think it is easy to try and twist the argument being put forward by the MP into a negative one. This has nothing to do with the Mistra development. We should feel proud and honoured to have an MP, who, even as he goes through his current situation, still stands up for what he believes in and what is right for his country. He has done so before, on many occasions, and will continue doing so. The honest truth of the matter is that the his arguments are right and he should be congratulated for speaking out against such projects. It's about time that we pay more attention to our fortifications that are practically in ruins!
J Farrugia
Nov 27th 2008, 14:24
Monsinjur, instead of wasting money on EIAs give them to the childrens homes. They need them very urgently. Dont give these monies to those ever hungry lions.
vincent a galea
Nov 27th 2008, 14:22
In the present economic climate, and financial depression, the finding of alternative measures for the preservation of St John's Cathedral relics, is the most plausible solution. The spending of quasi 14 million euros is highly and definitely unjustified.
It is hardly the moment to embark on these luxurious! How will it look to the faithful who have been facing inexplicable hardships to run cars, households, schoolings, water and electricity you name it?!
The Religious should be the last persons to push extravagance and should lead by example!
john borg
Nov 27th 2008, 14:03
This should not be taken that I concur with the Foundation's plans...but I would have expected Pullicino Orlando to first criticise the development which was being planned on that Mistra site before he opens his mouth and criticise others...he should know that people living in glass house should not throw stones...