Friday, 20th February 2009
Three funerals but no wedding … with apologies to Newell*
Two stories which hit the news last week created quite a few ripples. I refer to the decision to bury without a decent funeral the plans of St John’s CoCathedral Foundation to build an underground museum to house the world known tapestries, The second story was The Sunday Times exclusive that Dr Joseph Muscat wants us the Maltese people to fork out an annual contribution of €5 for every vote the PL and the other parties got in the last general elections.
Let’s respectfully look at the funerals that will follow these two incidents.
The funeral of the EIAs
The decision of the Prime Minister and the Archbishop to bury the proposed excavations should be logically followed by an amendment of our planning laws. Up till now projects of certain dimensions and importance had to follow a set out route which included an Environment Impact Assessment. The result of such a study would help MEPA arrive at a rational, researched and studied decision on whether to give thumbs up or down to a particular project. This should now be abolished once and for all.
I was one of those who did not take a position in favour or against the proposed project. I said that I will take a position in the light of what the study would eventually conclude. There were others, including Din l-Art Helwa, who took a similar position. But FAA and others made the case that such an EIA would not be worth the paper it would be written on. Only a fool would expect Maltese or foreign experts commissioned by the foundation to be either free or objective, we were told by some. In the same breath we were told that experts commissioned by FAA could be free and objective so much so that the FAA uploaded their opinions onto its website to prove that experts are against the project. They also quoted a report by some MEPA committee, forgetting that they have frequently and repeatedly rubbished MEPA and its conclusions.
There could be some nincompoop who would dare ask why experts for the foundation are no good but experts for FAA are good. The answer is very simple: Because FAA says so stupid!
To use a gastronomical metaphor we could say that the FAA wants to have their cake and eat it. For theological reasons I would not use an equivalent medical metaphor i.e. they want a pregnant virgin.
Scrapping EIAs and substituting them with the scribbling of self styled patriotic citizens, hysterical bloggers, informed objectors writing in the media, panic stricken grapevine channels, lovers and pseudo-lovers of our historical heritage, business competitors, disgruntled this and that, etc, are more democratic and cheaper.
So I guess everyone would be the winner at the end.
I repent and change my original position i.e. EIA should be done to have a rational discussion. I will now happily attend the funeral of the EIAs.
The funeral of the new political season
Dr Joseph Muscat should be congratulated for presenting to Parliament the motion he did present and which eventually helped to kill the project. He showed that he was politically very savvy when he presented it. He embarrassed Dr Gonzi. He played on the disagreement with the project expressed for different reasons by diverse members of the Nationalist Parliamentary group. Most probably the group would have gone along with the sensible suggestion that a decision should be left till after the EIA. But who knows what would have happened.
Is it totally unreasonable to think that an MP with close to no credibility with his colleagues would think that embarrassing his side would enamour him the others? Would there be shedding of tears as a concrete sign of virginal love for our historical heritage as tears were shed in love of our natural environment? Could the pangs of a troubled conscience instil courage in the hearts of the timid? Since politics is such a strange and complex game no one would dare predict what could have happened.
Dr Muscat could not take the risk of a vote in Parliament could have brought Dr Gonzi to his knees. Dr Muscat is against any rocking of Gonzi’s boat. He is dead against the resignation of Dr Gonzi’s government. He promised to be a Labour Prime Minister at the age of 40 and he would hate to break his promise.
Dr Muscat’s motion, which one would presume is the first in a series, was a strategic move of Macchiavellian stature. Any politician who achieves such a good coup should be congratulated. There is just one little snag though. Dr Muscat promised a new season of doing politics. His move, instead, was an excellent vintage of the old way of doing politics.
Boo to the new; herald the old.
There is nothing like tried and tested strategies by the end of the day.
The funeral of Joseph’s Pence
The Sunday Times (15.02.09) informed us that Dr Joseph Muscat wants me and each and every one of us to contribute (collectively) €5 annually for each vote that each political party netted in the elections. If you want to nitpick on details, I would correct myself and say that he said something of the sort and not those exact words.
Let me say from the very start: I think that Dr Muscat is right. Political parties are essential in a democracy. Running political parties costs money. We should pay to get this service. No more, no less. But I am sure that the vast majority would be dead against the proposal. I think I am part of a minority that respects politicians and the valuable work they do. The vast majority does not respect politicians and have very little regard for them.
In this kind of atmosphere, i.e. distrust of politicians (this was also at the basis of some people’s aversion to the St John project), I don’t think that people will warm up to the idea of funding political parties. The more politicians bash each other, the more the majority of people will rejoice; and the more they would want to bash them themselves.
The bloggers would now do their rounds, the cynics will spread their opinions which will be more frosty than the present weather, the grapevine will be replete with rumours explaining why politicians want all that money, the paranoid will spin conspiracy theories and John citizen will graphically describe where Joseph’s pence should be stuffed.
The burying of the Foundation project can very well turn out to be a victory of the Pyrrhic kind.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
PS Mike Newell had directed the film Four Weddings and a Funeral. The 1994 release was one of the most successful products of the British film industry.
RSS
Comments
As for the so called 'big victory' for the FAA. Maybe if the FAA were in Italy, Rome would never have get its underground system...poor Romans...
If extending already existing tunnels is monstorsity, then what is it if cutting Valletta as an island as Labour proposed 12 months ago?? Where were the FAA when this proposal was put forward?? Is this project not dangerous for our heritage?? Is this a kind of two ways two measures from the FAA ?? This relationship between Labour and FAA can be explained - The enemy of my enemy is my friend!!!
A virgin - by our definition - who is the recipient of AID (Artificial Insemination by Donor) could well become 'a pregnant virgin' because the full physical 'experience' would still be lacking.
Of course, I am not a priest or a medical practitioner, nor am I a philosopher; I am merely a retired engineer whose function was to offer solutions to unusual problems.
That might raise a few eyebrows in certain quarters ... if a "pregnant virgin" is an impossibility, then, a "Virgin Mother" is pure fiction. But of course, with God, everything is possible. Which might explain why God chose to play His hand directly in the incarnation of His only Son, rather than entrust it to a mortal who is prone to screw up as mortals are wont to do in everything they normally do.
Even in the case of the sacrament of holy matrimony, there are cases where things aren't what they normally should be and therefore an ending is warranted. And no self-respecting priest would perform the marriage ceremony if he knows that present circumstances will lead to a future Annulment.
In the case of the Co-Cathedral project, it is likely that, both the Prime Minister and the Archbishop recognized the anomalous nature of the proposal: Baseless, ab initio, so to speak. Scrapping the project was logical and honourable.
Or, maybe because they are both mortals and male, the did it to spite Daphne. She's gone berserk :)
.
It is unfortunate that there had to be a controversy, for a controversy by its very definition has negative connotations – It is almost a declaration of war and one side is lined up against the other. It should not be the case with a treasure such as St. John’s.
Undoubtedly, everyone wants the best for this monument and for this reason, everyone should join forces to try and find the best possible solution.
Politicians should not make a power game out of this issue, if anything, on this, they should unite and let the experts, (whoever they might be, and from whichever side) work hand in hand. Any rancour that might have developed throughout these months should be forgotten for one can only think clearly and objectively if there is peace of mind.
An yet the PN are (were) being accused of paying Euro 200 for the votes!!!!
Dr. Muscat is selling cheap!
http://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/st-johns-beheaded/
Some people tend to ignore what FAA is saying:
http://www.ambjentahjar.org/pressRelease/stJohns140209.htm
and this
http://www.ambjentahjar.org/library/expertsreport.pdf
It seems that experts WERE consulted and this is not (as some people want us to believe) an amateurish opposition.
Going through with a formal EIA would not have been meaningful, given the restrictions that a Category 1 designation implies. All this apart from the fact that no self-respecting engineer would be willing, or able, to give an unreserved guarantee that there would be no ill-effects to St John's. The risks, in this particular case, are simply too great to entertain gambling with such a unique, irreplaceable, part of the National Heritage.
The good thing about is that the electorate would be truly in a position to expect good treatment from the poltical parties. Abuse could also be controlled if all parties declare their funds.
Yet this would perhaps create a precedent...like having state funding fo other clubs that justify their position in a community.
The St John Foundation explores a project for an underground tapestry museum - a project of which I am not particularly enamoured but for which any reasonable person would prudently wait for an EIA to be taken into account together with the already expressed opinions of other experts. All at once hell breaks loose in a mad scramble to claim credit for the precipitate abandonment of the project and angry protests from the opposition that the project had been abandoned even before they needed to debate the issue in parliament. This attitude is only a case of sour grapes and destructive, puerile rivalry.
"There could be some nincompoop who would dare ask why experts for the foundation are no good but experts for FAA are good. The answer is very simple: Because FAA says so stupid!"
Fr. Joe,
you just called me "stupid", because that was the obvious question that rose to my mind even as I am reading.
Jessica