It is simply not acceptable that a new building designed and built by a world renowned architect for a specific purpose and use be changed to function differently in order to meet completely alien needs and this when the usual ceremonial tape has not even been severed yet.

The above objection is valid and applicable provided that the competent Maltese authority, when engaging Mr Piano, had done its homework thoroughly and with due diligence by preparing and drawing up the architect’s brief to accurately reflect user requirements for the building to function efficiently.

It is generally a universally accepted rule that a building designed to a specific objective (and more so when conceived by an architectural giant) be used for the specific end originally intended. We must keep in mind that construction is a highly costly business even more so when intended for a specialised and complicated use like a parliamentary building.

The idea that a new building, like a dress, can be adapted to suit the wearer is as absurd as it is generally impractical.

I am not going into the merits as to whether the new building can comfortably accommodate all the house members and their retinue. This is surely a political consideration that should have been given its due weight either in the brief or especially, importantly, in the appointment of the number of members to form and create a workable government.

The thought frequently crosses my mind that so many historic buildings with vast rooms that now stand empty and unoccupied (or partially occupied) could undoubtedly be put to some good and functional use to meet the nation’s various needs. By so doing there would be the added advantage that there will be an interest to keep the fabric at least in a good state of repair as no doubt intended by the original builders.

The greatest decision to be taken by politicians is whether to choose the person to fit the dress or the dress to fit the person. The latter obviously being the most rational and practical approach to adopt. Should anything then go amiss or awry it is also obvious that it will be completely the tailor’s fault either through incompetence, carelessness or both. If this happens to be the case, society, which had previously chosen the tailor, should throw him out and engage another one with proven ability to perform his professional services efficiently and conscientiously.

 An expensive piece of cloth touched by the scissors and afterwards abandoned is generally considered highly depreciated in value and appearance.

Edwin Calleja

Balzan