Give praise where it’s due

However, the media knows that schools remaining closed because of incomplete repairs is a guaranteed annual story. If there was any year when it didn’t happen, then everyone from minister to bricklayer would be guaranteed fulsome praises. But it never happens, which seems to suggest that the Education Ministry learns nothing from past mistakes. Nor has anything changed under Mrs Manning. We are not aware, for example, that having over 20-plus schools closed for the new academic year is a record low.

What Dr Saith’s comment in fact reveals is the typical mindset of our politicians, who feel that they should be praised for doing what they are supposed to do. However, the provision of basic services, from water to electricity to road repairs, should not be cause for commendations. Citizens may appreciate it, but the fact is that if our leaders were truly efficient, such matters would not even merit comment. It is only because this is manifestly not the case that, on the rare occasions that the people in charge do demonstrate efficiency, it is indeed considered worthy of praise. Dr Saith, however, apparently does not see this as a sign of backwardness.

Mrs Manning also revealed stereotypical political colours as she gave a list of reasons why the 20 or so schools were not opened on schedule. The schools to be repaired were so old that proper cost estimates couldn’t be made. When the estimates were made, they were higher than expected. The number of schools to be repaired was increased. This meant that the two-month time period was inadequate. And so on.

All of these reasons are no doubt true. But it is Mrs Manning’s first reason which is revealing — that many of the schools were so old that they required major structural works. Here is a problem which bedevils every government ministry — a lack of basic maintenance. For reasons surpassing understanding, the Government does not see it necessary to hire professional building supervisors whose sole function would be to maintain all State structures.

It is almost axiomatic that the money spent to hire such persons, and the outlay for continual repairs, would be both cheaper and more efficient than the present system. It would certainly avoid the mad scramble the Education Ministry makes every year to repair schools on time and, more importantly, it would prevent school buildings from deteriorating to the point described by Mrs Manning.

We realise, of course, that this deterioration is not Mrs Manning’s fault. But this brings us to our last point. Mrs Manning recently stated that she is not to blame for the myriad problems in the education system. But if as Education Minister she refuses to accept responsibility for what goes wrong under her tenure, then she hardly accepts praise for whatever goes right. Dr Saith should have realised this for himself. But perhaps it just makes political sense for Government Ministers to praise the Prime Minister’s wife.