Roaming dotishness

So this was not a wild and reckless act and not caring about taxpayers’ money, but an honest mistake.

What should happen is we should learn from this, and the permanent secretary, who controls this vote, should ensure that the roaming facility for every public servant, including ministers, has a limited amount, which shuts off when it reaches that limit — to prevent further deliberate or accidental misuse.

The only person who should have full use of roaming whenever he/she travels would be the Prime Minister because, regardless of whether there is an acting Prime Minister or not, he/she must be accessible all the time.

Which brings into context the totally ridiculous comments made by even present ministers to defend foolishness — that the roaming cost of $59,000 in four days is justified as “the government business must go on.” When politicians try to defend and justify “dotishness” it causes the public to lose faith and confidence, as such an excuse is nothing short of irresponsibility by someone who holds high office and borders on a “never see come see” attitude.

So if a minister goes to China for three weeks, are the ministers are saying that a roaming bill of several hundred thousand dollars would be justified as “the government business must go on?” And to those who want to defend this, please note that whenever any minister departs the country, his/her portfolio, authority and responsibilities are handed over to another minister, so there is no justification for stating that the minister abroad is required to continue liaising and to be in contact 24/07 with his/ her ministry to keep it effective.

So there is nothing so critical that requires a minister to have roaming constantly while abroad, especially when they spend most of their time in a high-end conference room or hotel that has Wi-Fi.

Note that ministers in previous governments have said little about this, as the same practice of unlimited roaming was in effect.

So instead of witch-hunting the Tourism Minister, or trying to defend foolishness, this situation should be seen as an opportunity to get things right. That is how a young nation develops.

It certainly cannot develop if people who support a political party, and who hold strategic positions, use the opportunity to give confidential data to their political friends, such as extracting confidential information from a telecommunication provider, inclusive of phone bills, and giving the bills to their political allies, as political affiliation means more to some than professionalism in their workplace.

Hopefully, one day we would all see beyond politics and try to get it right.

GARY GRIFFITH via email