Edward De Bono defines lateral thinking as methods of thinking concerned with changing concepts and perception. Lateral thinking is about reasoning that is not immediately obvious and about ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic. A new idea that is the result of lateral thinking is not necessarily always a helpful one. Thus considering only one idea in isolation is not good lateral thinking. Lateral thinking should not be misused when a straightforward solution is available. It must not be confused with underhand thinking or worse, thinking at a tangent.

The centrespread article about yet another hybrid idea for the war damaged (and eventually nearly dismantled) National Theatre (May 10), deals with the concept as devised by Giovanni Trevisan. To try and confuse the average reader there is even a mention of energy efficiency characteristics, the latest gimmick. This concept must not be considered on its own. A sequence of events has already occurred which would make one think that it forms part of an underhand strategy. First, no action had been taken for 66 odd years. Then we had the previous Minister of Tourism expounding the idea that the ruins should be left in their shameful condition and serve as an open air theatre, finally we had Mepa who "leaked" to PBS that the ruins should be preserved as a monument of disgrace to Malta's intransigence, lack of inertia, a lifetime of pique and stubbornness, a lifetime of boot licking and waste of funds, a lifetime of dearth of good imagination and practicability. It will also be a monument of waste of public funds as, I understand, some €5 million have already been spent on a wild goose chase. Now we have another ugly metal structure eyesore being proposed to stand on its own with the utterly impossible hope that one day it will be clad in stone. Who is going to pay for these wild ideas?

Once the Edward De Bono Foundation felt that it should help this "bravado", how about going 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? Why are certain persons afraid to take part in a face-to-face public discussion?

The conference, if eventually held, should have a wide parameter for discussion: First and foremost, how to finance of the building. Second, the running costs. Third, the design. Finally, how the project will integrate with a baroque Valletta. Many people are concentrating on the outer design without considering all the other implications.

Once again I stress that I have presented an outline plan on how to obtain funds for the reconstruction and even more so about the overheads involved. My suggestion will not impose on public funds; all the other hybrid ideas expect the exchequer to foot a bill of well in excess of €100 million