May the spirit of openness continue!

THE Minister of Finance’s decision to report the state of the public kitty to the public on January 5, 2023 must be commended.

We hope and wish that this spirit will continue and that it will also spread to all of her colleagues.

One day she will bring better news.

For us farmers, it is now the turn of the Minister of Agriculture to tell us why the ministry has been making these wholesale and hurried transfers of officials to other ministries which could disrupt the provision of services to farmers.

We also need to know why the ministry has chosen to provide us with low quality fertilizer.

Now back to the Minister of Finance’s speech.

To those of us who were in the dark but have experienced manifestations of mismanagement of public funds, the speech was enlightening.

Most people would agree that things are indeed bleak.

The minister’s concern was also quite palpable.

She is right that the presentation of budgets had become a meaningless ritual characterised by perfunctory utterances in which ministers even contradicted themselves with supreme indifference.

Budgets had come to be blithely approved by MPs whose concern was only whether figures of their salaries and other perquisites had grown any fatter.

As set out in the minister’s speech, the financial problems we are facing will need a fairly well-rounded approach to be solved.

Policies will be fairly straightforward to formulate, and, hopefully, easier to pass through relevant institutions.

However, as always, the key to implementation and compliance with the policies will be people: officials and government service providers.

Practices of abuse and theft of public funds have become so entrenched among some in these groups that they are likely to be a source of a lot of frustration by their resistance against attempts to bring corruption and theft to an end.

Lots of courage and determination will be required; as will support of the public, cabinet colleagues, and anti-corruption public institutions.

My last point is one which should have really been stated first.

It is on the by now long-held view that, in order to develop Lesotho’s economy, the National Manpower Development Secretariat (NMBS) should provide scholarships to Basotho students intending to pursue studies in what this and previous governments define as priority areas.

As has been proposed by previous governments, and repeated in the minister’s speech, most people would find it quite sensible that the government should formulate a policy to provide scholarships to deserving children of needy Basotho, and ask parents who can afford to pay tuition for their children to do so.

However, a plea should be made for a serious reconsideration of a policy to fund only students who want to study professions, vocations and skills required by the market.

There are many reasons for this plea. Three can be stated briefly.

First, and most important, governments need to work towards construction of a happy and educated Basotho society, made up of citizens qualified in professions, and possess knowledge and intellectual abilities.

All are sources of a sense of personal development.

Second, largely because of a shortage of facilities and other resources at public tertiary institutions, professional disciplines are always oversubscribed and have to limit the number of students they take — proof that we lack capacity to accommodate all students who might wish to study professions, forcing some to pursue studies in more intellectual disciplines.

Third, students choose areas of study based on one of, at least, three considerations: their talents and intellectual aptitudes; their interests/curiosities; and their desire to follow certain professions.

In all cases, the choice of a discipline can be based on personal wish; it can be inspired by an individual’s sense of service to the community, or nation; or it can be inspired by an individual’s intention to pursue a career in what he, or she, defines as service to the community, or service to the nation; it can be based on a ‘calling’; and so on.

In some cases students choose more intellectual disciplines in order to prepare for studies of a profession, vocation, or skill.

It cannot be that the idea is to exclude from award of scholarships those who, for example, lack talent, or ability to study professions and vocations.

Neither can it be undesirable to government that students choose areas of study to satisfy their curiosity; choose disciplines to follow their callings; define needs of their communities and their country, and choose areas of study with a view to respond to what they see as community, or national, needs; and so on.

We need to avoid giving society an understanding that studies in certain disciplines arew unhelpful to development in general and to economic development in particular.

We need to avoid giving young people who possess certain talents and abilities an understanding that their talents have no place in development and in economic development.

The state’s responsibility is not over only those who study in priority subjects.

These queries can be elaborated on and more disadvantages can be mentioned of a policy to grant government scholarships only to students who want to pursue studies in disciplines that governments define as priority areas or only to those who want to receive training in vocations and skills required by the market and government.

An alternative proposal that the government might consider would be to continue to provide scholarships to all students from needy families admitted at tertiary institutions but attach a premium to studies in those areas that the government describes as priorities.

This premium could take one of many various forms that might be considered.

It will be important not only to set priority disciplines at tertiary level but to also ensure that, from early on, primary and secondary curricula begin to cultivate in students interest and ability to study in priority areas.

Motlatsi Thabane