Mario Vella
Standing up to the bullies
The rabid witchhunt unleashed following the Prime Minister's reluctant dropping of the co-cathedral underground museum project is shocking and shameful. The orchestrated smear campaign against officials of Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar will cause more damage to the Prime Minister than his own mismanagement of the situation before scuttling of the project. In both cases, the prime movers are evidently unaware of the ongoing sea change in public opinion. Or they are too desperate to care.
Public opinion is - slowly but surely - turning against the arrogance of power. We are, traditionally, a people whose tolerance for the arrogance of the powerful is incredibly high. We grumble, clench our fists and chew our innards but, ultimately, we bite our tongue, bow our head and kiss the hand that beats us. It is a characteristic feature with deep historical roots but things are changing. There are, I believe, clear signs that more and more citizens across the political spectrum are no longer willing to be led by the nose and to vote one way or another because of something akin to a tribal instinct.
This concerns both parties in Parliament. Labour (PL), in this context, enjoys the bitter benefits of opposition. It has had no choice but to reflect hard on its own and its competitor's experience in government. Twenty-two years have gone by since 1987, of which 20 were spent in opposition. Sufficient time for Labour to think about its achievements and its sins.
The Nationalist Party (PN), on the other hand, has had no such advantage. Evidently, the two years of opposition, 1996-1998, were not sufficiently long for the PN to examine its conscience on the matter of arrogance.
The vile attacks on environmentalist Astrid Vella and her colleagues indicate that influential elements in and around the PN have yet to realise that arrogance is just not on anymore. Attacking those who dissent will not strengthen the bullies. On the contrary, undignified displays of arrogance such as we have been witnessing will only make matters worse for those who support the bullies, directly and indirectly. The least the PN can do to distance itself from the bullies is to condemn the current hatred campaign against those who opposed the co-cathedral museum extension project. Better still, it ought to apologise to Ms Vella, the FAA and all those who supported them.
• The members of the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation, who should ideally have resigned after their project was effectively killed by the joint statement of the Prime Minister and the Archbishop, should also - at the very least - distance themselves from the witchhunt by condemning the smear campaign against Ms Vella. If they feel they cannot do it jointly as a body, they should at least do it individually.
On February 16, commenting in this newspaper about the failure of the members of the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation "to resign gracefully", Lino Spiteri asked: "Why was the foundation so pig-headed?" This query synthesised three other ones posed earlier in the text: 1) "Why did it take the Archbishop to be embroiled in a clear political move to sink the proposal?" 2) "Why did the foundation, on its own intellectual steam, not realise that so many sectors and notable individuals were against their proposal that there had to be something fundamentally flawed in it?" 3) "Why did the foundation, acting with due humility, not withdraw the proposal itself?"
The article's bottom-line was that "It is for not doing so that the foundation members should resign".
Evidently, they lacked the humility needed to admit that - to put it very mildly indeed - there was unequivocally not sufficient support in the country for the project. Evidently, they lacked the humility to admit that there was sufficient reasonable and expert doubt about the wisdom of the project.
Not surprisingly, therefore, they could hardly be expected to have the graciousness to resign. They seem not to have considered the possibility that their failure to resign could have been interpreted as sheer arrogance.
• Only last December, many Maltese and Gozitans congratulated and patted themselves on their back because a Maltese was awarded the special jury prize for the most deserving work in the International Volunteer Day competition organised by the Fédération Francaise du Bénévolat et de la Vie Associative (FFBA). That Maltese was Astrid Vella. She won this European award and received 12,000 votes from different countries in recognition of work carried out by the FAA, especially for the battle against development in the Tal-Papa area in Birżebbuġa, the scheduling of the area around Villa Bologna in Attard and the protection of the Gozitan scenic sites of Ramla l-Ħamra and Ħondoq ir-Rummien.
One expects all those who, less than three months ago, were made proud by Ms Vella and the FAA to speak out now against the bullies who cannot forgive her and her colleagues for having dared to oppose the co-cathedral museum extension project. It's not enough for them to merely grumble. They need to stand up to the bullies if they do not wish to be their accomplices.
Dr Vella edits the blog http://watersbroken.wordpress.com .
Popular Stories
In Discussion
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Antoine Vella
Mar 3rd 2009, 22:17
Paul Borg
The CHAC did not change their minds. In 2007, they discussed a Development Brief (do you know what it is? Look it up on the MEPA website) and said it was not acceptable because no studies had been carried out. Then, in 2008 they discussed two alternative projects and recommended EIAs.
I see that you have now realised that it is not the CHAC which orders EIAs. You could at least have had the intellectual honesty to admit you were previously wrong. It's ok though - I know how hard it is for some to admit a mistake. You are slowly learning that the planning process is not as simple as you had imagined. Good.
Paul Borg
Mar 3rd 2009, 21:25
@Graham Crocker: I am not a member of FAA so I do not know what they sent you, why don’t you ask them about the reports yourself? I do not need to read their material as unlike you, I can find the reports in the relevant Heritage Advisory Committee section on the MEPA website.
I can also tell you that decisions on EIAs are taken by the MEPA Director of Environment who would be guided by his Integrated Heritage Unit which, along with the Directorate and the HAC indicated that “The project is not acceptable”. What made them change their mind and consider an EIA I wonder?
But this is not important; the people cannot accept building on a sacred cemetery which even HAC and the Kummissjoni Kulturali tal-Knisja confirmed, and no EIA can assess that and nor can three monsijuri it seems. Also, the waste of the public’s money, without consulting with the public. With forts like St Elmo and St Angelo crumbling, we have much more urgent things to do with 16 million euros than throw it in a hole!
Graham Crocker
Mar 3rd 2009, 08:42
Paul Borg, so why did the expert report sent to me by the FAA didn't quote these people or reproduce letters from them? A geologist living abroad giving a free opinionated letter is what I found.
Anyways I can't find where you copied this information and I cannot open the documents in the search as it gives me a Directory Listing Denied error.
Paul Cassar
Mar 3rd 2009, 02:33
What an nasty campaign of bullying and personal attacks on environmentalists there has been on this issue. What a disgrace. You would almost think that the decision had been made by the enviornmental lobby itself, rather than the Prime Minister.
@V.Micallef. Who are the "REAL INTELLECTUALS" that you think should only be allowed to express opinions about public projects? You? Sorry, but as far as I know in a democracy everyone is allowed a point of view. Yes, even if they have written books on unrelated topics. A really poor, cheap shot from you which says a lot about you but nothing about your intended target. A real Intellectual indeed!
Antoine Vella
Mar 2nd 2009, 20:57
Paul Borg
No. The CHAC does NOT decide whether an EIA should be carried out; there are precise rules about that. EIAs are not "allowed" as you erroneously put it, they are "required". Some projects require them, others don't. If there is even a slight chance that a project might be accepted - with or without changes - then MEPA proceeds to ask for an EIA.
You really must do some research about MEPA's procedures before commenting rather than take FAA's word as gospel truth. There are only four gospels and Astrid is not one of the evangelists. Only by doing your own reading can you hope make up your own mind intelligently.
Paul Borg
Mar 2nd 2009, 20:16
@AntoineVella:I am not repeating FAA but copied this from theMEPAwebsite which everyone sees “The[CulturalHeritageAdvisory]Committee,together with IHM,are of the opinion that any excavation in the immediate surroundings of the Cathedral is extremely dangerous to the structural stability of the Cathedral itself,andTHE PROPOSAL IS THERFORE NOT ACCEPTABLE”This is plain English no way it can be misunderstood. It may be true that the CHAC does not decide a project but it does indicate if an EIA can be made or not.You are right that theHAClater said that studies should be made which is very strange seeing they stopped them for MostaRotunda.No wonderFAA wondered if there was pressure on them. Remember even MEPAsaid the Cathedral underground project“is a non starter AND WOULD NOT BE FAVOURABLY CONSIDERED due to the risk these might pose to the structure of one of Malta's foremost monuments and the art treasures within.”so again I wonder what made them change their mind and allow an EIA.All I can say is that an EU application that I worked on needed a MEPA permit before it could be considered for funding, so how come this one no?Sante Guido said, “Sheer madness” and I add “Xi haga tinten”
Antoine Vella
Mar 2nd 2009, 18:01
Paul Borg
"..MEPA's expert Cultural Heritage Advisory Commitee had already said that the project should not go ahead .."
That is NOT true. You are repeating the modified 'truth' that has been spread by FAA. For one thing it is not the CHAC's role to decide whether a project should go ahead or not. In this case they had expressed concern and asked for studies to be carried out to address these concerns.
F J Brincat
Mar 2nd 2009, 17:34
Lady, what you are saying is that we should just let the government institutions run roughshod on all of us and never question their decisions even when such decisions border on the insane. Not very democratic is it? This was one reasons why the MLP was booted out in 1987. Contrary to what you might think, the same reasoning still applies today.
Paul Borg
Mar 2nd 2009, 16:14
@Graham Crocker- You say that architects are the ones who have to decide but you forget that MEPA's expert Cultural Heritage Advisory Commitee had already said that the project should not go ahead and I looked up to see who it was made up of and found:
Perit Konrad Buhagiar B.E.&A.(Hons),
Perit Michael Ellul M.Q.R., B.E.&A.(Hons)
Perit Marie Louise Musumeci B.E.&A. (Hons)
Perit Hermann Bonnici B.E.& A. (Hons.)
Is that enough architects for you? Don't forget that the Chairman was also Prof Albert Ganado who is very respected.I think the Heritage Advisory Committee was the one that did not allow the EIA for the Rotunda underground carpark, I wonder why they should allow it for the Cathedral.
Prosit FAA I say,maybe now we see the money spent on really useful urgent projects as we deserve.
Antoine Vella
Mar 2nd 2009, 15:35
Jesmond Farrugia and others In democratic countries, lobby groups exist to influence public opinion and politicians, not to exert pressure (sometimes intimidation) on the courts, the Broadcasting Authority, MEPA, the Electoral Commission and similar bodies. "In days gone by, the powers vested in this agency (ie. MEPA) were the realm of government ministers, which circumstance could and did lead to abuse to the detriment of sustainable development in our limited territory due to the political climate prevailing in Malta. The scope, therefore, of setting up an independent institution in order to do away with undue political interference made sense. In practice, however, matters did not evolve as originally planned and we have witnessed over the years undue incursions by persons of influence in the independence of this authority." Jose Herrera. 2008 (http://www.dinlarthelwa.org/content/view/299/68/) The last sentence of this quote is especially relevant to what the puppeteers are doing, through FAA, among others.
victor caruana
Mar 2nd 2009, 15:28
to hell with the quarry at St. John's Square. at least we now know that dcg is not negative in its approach to any issue on the island - even though she considers all those who do not agree with her as negative - can you imagine that? to hell with all as now, i am earning more, spending more and saving more.
Paul Borg
Mar 2nd 2009, 15:21
@Daphne Caruana Galizia If you are saying the EIA should have gone ahead on a scheduled building where the law says it could not take place, then you are saying MEPA should break the law. You are also forgetting that the project was cancelled by the Prime Minister and the Archbishop, not Astrid Vella and the FAA. If you are saying these people forced them to take that decision, (forgetting the part of the PL and the PN backbenchers) then what you are saying reflects very badly on our Prime Minister, becuase you are telling us that we have a very weak Prime Minister who gives in to bullies. Why are you always trying to attack Astrid Vella, what has she done to you? She has given a lot of help to your father in his case in Milner Street. FAA does this work without asking for money, unlike you who is a paid to do the publicity for big building projects.
Graham Crocker
Mar 2nd 2009, 14:59
I'm sorry to say this Mario, but a Geologist is not an expert of buildings. I think you need a Civil Engineer and/or an Architect (if not a team of), to be able to say that you had the experts on your side. In fact most real experts have yet to give an opinion of it, because REAL experts conduct research using the scientific method. Not many experts ride on mass ignorance/hysteria, because their opinion is not free like the Geologist's, their opinion costs money, which is why they are experts and why others simply aren't. Prove me wrong. Imagine a man (or maybe yourself) buying an old farmhouse to refurbish and resell who do you ask for advice when it comes to converting the cellar into a full basement? A geologist (who gives you free advice) or an architect (who gives you costly expert advice)?
V.Micallef
Mar 2nd 2009, 14:57
How could Daphne Caruana Galizia not react when Dr Vella writes something like this: "The vile attacks on environmentalist Astrid Vella and her colleagues indicate that influential elements in and around the PN have yet to realise that arrogance is just not on anymore. Attacking those who dissent will not strengthen the bullies. On the contrary, undignified displays of arrogance such as we have been witnessing will only make matters worse for those who support the bullies, directly and indirectly." There is only one comment one can make in this direction: recipe book writers or compilers should keep back and let the real intellectuals debate issues of national import.
J.A. Agius
Mar 2nd 2009, 12:39
@DCG
"Arrogance is taking it upon yourself to decide for others ...I am in no doubt at all as to who the bullies are in this on-going farce." You say. Most others would say that the opposite side could repeat these same words with much greater justification.
J Busuttil
Mar 2nd 2009, 12:16
I totally agree with DCG. How can it be that any organisation or Parliament does not leave MEPA to finish and Environment Impact Assesment on a peoject?
Jesmond Farrugia
Mar 2nd 2009, 12:16
@DCG
In every civilised country lobbies are allowed freedom of expression and this is why the PN were given the reins to govern. Is is evident that the construction lobby is a very powerful one in Malta and it is only fair to have associations like the FAA to lobby against projects seen as a threat to the environment.
You are conveniently forgetting that the project was halted by the PM/Church not Astrid....
Some more fodder for your blog…..(it would be so much poorer without your lifting of quotes and reporting from the TOM blog)
Daphne Caruana Galizia
Mar 2nd 2009, 11:40
Arrogance is taking it upon yourself to decide for others what projects should or should not be allowed to proceed to environmental impact assessment stage, when you are not the Malta Planning and Environmental Authority.
I am in no doubt at all as to who the bullies are in this on-going farce.
Charles Farrugia
Mar 2nd 2009, 11:29
The International Volunteer Day competition is a joke. I can clearly recall an e-mail sent out by FAA encouraging all Maltese (including those living abroad) to vote for Astrid. The e-mail also highlighted that “repeat voting is allowed”!!!
What a farce!!
J.F. Vassallo Ebejer
Mar 2nd 2009, 11:15
Ms. Astrid Vella, will never be demoralised or discouraged by the cowards who are carrying out the character-assassination attempts against her – she is far too strong.
Furthermore, she has won the admiration and respect of thousands of people who realise that a person such as her is vital for this country – she has has the guts to take on the fat cats that run this country, and she wins.
This is good news for all law-abiding citizens- the ones who are not on the gravy-train…