In numerous articles in the Advertiser the final sentences are either “the Advertiser is awaiting comment from the Ekurhuleni Metro”, or “the Advertiser is still waiting for a response from the metro”.
Strangely, these are invariably applied to articles where the metro has not been “active” (proactive/reactive?) in doing its job.
The question is, does the metro ever eventually have a comment (a worthwhile one!)?
One thing for sure, the problem still persists.
Surely the main function of the metro spokesperson is to supply official comment on what’s going on, especially to the press. We obviously would like to know what’s happening (or is this information covered by some obscure official secrets clause!).
No response means I/we jump to the conclusion that the metro hasn’t a cooking clue what’s happening, or the metro has no funds due to misappropriation, or there are no competent people around to fix the problem.
I know it is politically incorrect for a (truthful) comment like “we haven’t been doing the necessary maintenance since being in charge because cadres’ well being comes first and foremost”.
Or how about just admitting the metro does not understand what maintenance is?
Obviously, when consultants are called in and give recommendations like all water pipes on the East Rand are 40 plus years old, have not been adequately maintained over the years and now require replacement it becomes the ratepayers problem.
This is the case with other critical infrastructure: roads, traffic lights and street lights.
It’s not just the coach that needs to go, we need a whole new team to take us forward. We can’t keep paying ever increasing amounts for no return.
