The Maltese public has been told that the alterations to the entrance of Valletta are intended to redeem us from sins of the past. As a taxpayer, and citizen of the Republic of Malta and the EU, it seems to me that this project is more likely an aggravation of past sins transmitted into the present and which will continue to hound and torment us into the future.
The existing entrance gate to Valletta has been considered by many to be in stark contrast with the ambient architecture of the city. Yet, when one investigates the reason behind this, it is revealed that our local architects were commissioned to replace the old dilapidated small entrance with a larger modern structure to allow motor vehicles to enter rather than just for the cart and horse of old times, and to give it a sense of grandeur, deservedly as an entrance of a city built by gentlemen for gentlemen. This they achieved within certain constraints, and although initially the new entrance gate was greeted with disapproval and complaints of being too grand a design for such a city, as time went by it became an accepted majestic entrance to a great city. In a similar situation, the Eiffel Tower in Paris was also highly criticized at the time of its construction due to claims that it would spoil the skyline of Paris and that it contrasted with its surroundings. Yet many years have passed since then, and as it has consequently become a major symbol of that beautiful city, no Frenchman or Frenchwoman would dare call for its destruction.
The general public appreciated the logistics involved in the facilities provided by the grander gate and the wider bridge and have made good use of these. Several public ceremonies, celebrations, carnivals and political activities have been held thanks to the wider bridge and the grand entrance. The overlying road on top of the gate is also constantly used by hundreds of vehicles during the day, and serves a good purpose for facilitating the flow of traffic from one side of Valletta to another. If the current planned changes to this city entrance are implemented, all the aforementioned facilities will be lost – all for the sake of replacing a majestic gate with a cavity in the city walls, and narrowing the bridge to satisfy the claim of a better perspective of the underlying ditch. It would be a pity, and a mortal sin that so much money is to be expended to deprive the general public of such utilities just because a minority government wants to make a break from the past, and redeem itself of the sins of an earlier period.
As for the proposed new Parliament, who needs a new Parliament? Aren’t the existing facilities good enough? The current Parliament is situated in a prestigious palace albeit secluded from the public, because what used to be a thoroughfare has now become a no go zone. It is symmetrical in shape, split right in the centre in two sides, which is ideal for our two-party system that has existed for several decades. The proposed new parliament, in turn, gives the impression of a multi-party system, the seating arrangements is ambiguous to say the least, and it is to be constructed on stilts to give it the aura of floating on air, as we have been told by the renowned architect. Do our people’s representatives need to be seen to be floating on air, when some of them already do, being as they are out of touch with our true needs and necessities? Moreover, as an ex-parliamentarian and leader of a local political party ably demonstrated in an article in a local newspaper, that in proportion to the size of our little country, we have too many parliamentarians in comparison to other small countries – we do not need more parliamentarians, or a new Parliament House for that matter. Thus public money would be totally wasted in this respect.
Even more so, this exercise in futility would also be detrimental because it will completely eradicate our beloved Freedom Square. This square has served as a place for merriment and rejoicing (during carnival and other festivities), as a mass meeting location to listen to our parliamentarians, and for many other public functions. I would dare say that in this respect, money would be better spent excavating this square to build a two storey car park and retain it as a square once its construction is completed but prohibiting any cars from being parked on it, which renders it an eyesore. I am sure that our local able architects can attend to this job cautiously, and diligently, and would give ample underground parking space for city employees to park their vehicles for a nominal fee thereby enabling this project to pay for itself over the years. This has already been done just a few metres away by private enterprise that at present clearly indicates that the demand for such a service is exceedingly high, because it is constantly full up.
And what about the much eagerly awaited rehabilitation of the war ravaged Opera House which has been in ruins since the Second World War – more than half a century ago? Not much work is intended to be done on this except for some side panelling to give an impression that it has been revived but without any roofing, so that theatre/opera lovers will enjoy the moon and the stars at night, listen to the din from outside, swelter in the heat of the sun by day, and be soaked to the skin when it rains. To avoid the latter, we have been told that this half-heartedly revamped theatre might not be available for the whole year, but only during the summer season. As for the local population’s hunger for culture, as Marie Antoinette once said, “let them eat cake”, instead (of bread).
If in spite of the majority’s opinion, the minority government still persists in proceeding with this project, then, not only will the mentioned negatives prevail, but as customary in our islands, (a) such government projects take a long time to complete, exceeding the scheduled completion date on a regular basis, thereby causing considerable inconvenience to the general public, (b) such projects normally surpass the estimated cost (from an estimated e80 million or so, it could easily end up costing twice or three times as much). Where will all this money come from, especially in these hard times of worldwide recession? Would the EU graciously contribute as it has done for road repairs? Or would our government impose an additional tax, appropriately termed as a development tax, similar to the surcharge applied on water and electricity rates? Wouldn’t such money be better spent on more acute needs like improving our infrastructure, which, especially this summer, has proved to be considerably weak with frequent power cuts, and water supply suspended? Does our minority government have the audacity to squander so much money on futile projects when there are so much more urgent needs? In trying to redeem ourselves from sins of the past, we would certainly be committing a grave sin, a mortal sin, which will torment our generation and future generations for years to come.
Raymond Sammut
MELLIEHA