A House of contrast

At least the right to think for oneself has not been completely smothered with regard to some areas of parliamentary discussion. Opposition Labour speakers contrasting with each other more than they did with the government side gave interesting and healthy evidence of that in a debate on a motion covering, among other things, renewal of the emphytheusis of the Casino Maltese premises in Valletta for a mere pittance, and a discussion in the European and Foreign Affairs Committee which included whether there should be references to God and to Christianity in the preamble to the European Constitution.

The government proposed, and without blinking or shuddering at the deed shoved through with the strength of its parliamentary majority (a) to renew the lease for 50 years, and (b) to do so at a ground-rent of Lm3,000 annually, revisable every five years at five per cent. In the three-day debate in the House, government members, as usual, sang with one voice. As might have been anticipated, though I did not expect parliamentary secretary Dr Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici to sink to that level as well, the government side attempted to field Opposition criticism with references to similar resolutions whereby Labour governments passed land on to the Labour Party.

Opposition members, on their part, spoke with one voice in criticising the 'revised' ground rent, barely doubled over that set at the turn of the 20th century. But they did so on quite separate scales with different tonalities as to whether the government should continue to allow the Casino Maltese the use of the old Knights' Treasury site in the best spot of Republic Street, and regarding the club itself.

The most profound and heartfelt rendering of the praises to the club came from within the Opposition. A member gave a detailed background, including references to distinguished visitors to the Casino Maltese in Valletta. Parliamentary Secretary Mifsud Bonnici, in his winding up on the motion, which he had piloted, reiterated this point. Among others the Queen, Emperor Hirohito of Japan and Garibaldi were mentioned.

I should think that to the extent we continue to count such visits as historical, particularly that of Garibaldi (and followers like Francesco Crispi), the whole point is that they came to Malta - and not that they met Maltese dignitaries at the Casino Maltese. Presumably they met some of them elsewhere as well, but so what? Should the places which the Pope visited and met Maltese citizens, dignitaries or not, on his two visits qualify for some generous subvention from the state - that is, the pocket of the Maltese people?

Also from within the Opposition there came harsh accusations too. That the Casino Maltese is elitist was by far the mildest. Others included that charges that the club was a Nationalist hotbed, had in the past included Fascists among its members, and similar stuff. But the contrast that truly struck me was not contained in extravagant arguments, whether seeking to praise or to bury the Casino Maltese. It related to the use of the prime premises in Valletta.

Main opposition spokespersons, while strongly criticising the conditions of the renewal, and also holding that the Casino Maltese should broaden its activities to include some national and cultural content, opined that it should continue to use the premises in Republic Street. Perhaps more than their own deep beliefs they were reflecting a position said to have been taken in the parliamentary group.

Whether there had been such a formal, minuted decision or an informal one, or informal decision or not, I believe only one member - Carmelo Abela - asked specifically if the government had considered granting alternative property to the Casino Maltese so that the building it currently occupied could be converted for use by Parliament.

It is of little relevance that this humble columnist and one-time parliamentarian had made that suggestion on Monday morning. In a contribution to The Times I had happened to comment on the government's ridiculous, I now go on to say shameful, proposal, after a preliminary discussion of the draft motion in the Audit committee of the House, but before the full debate on the motion began in the House that evening.

It is surprising, though, that not many parliamentarians seem to be fazed by the expensive absurdity of eventually embarking on a multi-million project to build new premises to house our elected representatives with suitable offices for the Speaker, ministers, parliamentary secretaries, the Leader of the Opposition and backbenchers, when the building that hosts the Casino Maltese could be utilised in a few months' time, freeing space in the present House of Representatives premises within the Palace.

The Casino Maltese, towards which I do not feel any ill-feeling should be directed, could be given alternative premises, in the context of a sensible observation by Evarist Bartolo (Labour) that the administration should have a strategy for the historic buildings in its possession.

The government, though, saw things very differently, through the representative eyes of Parliamentary Secretary Mifsud Bonnici. In the process the gentleman, normally one of the cleverer among the newer crop of MPs and appointees to high office, produced a remarkable non sequitur. The Casino Maltese, he said in his winding-up, was the oldest, or at least one of the oldest, clubs in Malta, having been set up around 150 years ago.

So? By what tenuous logic should it follow that the club must be given a new 50-year lease at Lm3,000, rising by up to 5% every five years, on premises worth several million liri (Maltese, that is), which would go cheap if rented out at Lm100,000, and which could be used to save the public exchequer untold cost on a project to relocate the House of Representatives? Many of our village band clubs boast a much older origin than the Casino Maltese, a comparison I use purely in the context of the government's expensive folly, and to belittle it. By the same logic should they be given massive handouts out of public funds?

The parliamentary secretary sank further in the morass of the argumentation he seemed committed to make for the Cabinet. The government, he said, had decided to renew the emphyteusis of the Casino Maltese because it considered it (to be) part of Maltese history, whose membership included many illustrious personalities.

So? Are not the people of Cottonera, Valletta and others who suffered terrible bombing, death, destruction, deprivation, during the last war, also part of Malta's history, though the headstones on their tombs may not show them to be dignitaries? What makes one a dignitary, anyway? What makes history?

I feel sad that Dr Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici had to go into the parliamentary record with such a bad motion, and irrelevant arguments. Sad that someone who writes so cogently had to paint his intervention blacker with another bad non sequitur. He concluded that he "objectively" felt that the Casino Maltese served a useful purpose and that its emphyteusis should therefore be renewed on the terms proposed by the government.

I feel sadder still that the Opposition did not make a proper and justified meal out of the affair. Contrasting individual views could have been encompassed in a common minimal stand that the ground-rent was ridiculously low, and a commitment that, when back in office, Labour would review the arrangement. That might have generated chagrin among those of Labour sympathies within the Casino Maltese, or who could be inclined to switch to Labour in the next general election. But is it only votes that count?

Even if that were so, adding - as a further common stand - that a Labour government would explore how the premises could be used to save millions for the Maltese people as a whole, while a decent alternative location would be found for the 1,200-member Casino Maltese club could have struck thinking majority with the reasonableness of the Opposition.

To each his own.