‘Fixing potholes and Eskom is not our job’, says SA Tourism

Following the backlash on SA Tourism’s proposed sponsorship of English premiership club Tottenham Hotspur, a furious acting chief executive Themba Khumalo has vowed to deal with the individual who “maliciously prematurely leaked confidential documents” to the media.

Spur’s media leak – ‘un-African’

He accused the person or people who leaked the information of being “un-South African” and someone who should “be isolated”.

He said “the intent of the leak was not to aid economic recovery of the country.”

Khumalo came out defiantly in defense of the sponsorship yesterday and firmly stated they were “conditionally” forging ahead with the “high-impact initiative” which would yield R88 billion in international spending on the local economy.

“In terms of the ramifications, we have got internal processes we need to follow in terms of identifying how the leak occurred,” he said.

“Documents discussed inside of a board environment are confidential and it’s a breach of the board charter and conditions of employment to leak documents outside of due process.

“So, the applicable processes will be followed and should the actor of the leak be identified, the relevant remedies will be made available to the board to address.”

Tourism not responsible for the energy crisis and potholes

After the story broke in Daily Maverick on Wednesday it was met with wide criticism.

However, Khumalo said if the details and trajectories of the deal were understood, he believed the reception and reaction would be different.

ALSO READ:Maselspoort Resort incident ‘an embarrassment to government and tourism’, says Sisulu

“Let me look straight into camera and say this to all South Africans: The money invested intourismis not the same money required for energy. “It’s not the same amount of money required for potholes. There are other departments dedicated and are given the mandate by legislation.

“Our legislated mandate is not about that. Our legislative mandate is about persuading international people to travel to the country and spend money in our economy. And [that] is what we will stick to.

Whether it is through this initiative or any other. “But this is what we are mandated to do, what we’re paid to do, and what we will continue to do until we are told otherwise.”

Bad timing

Political commentator Dr John Molepo agreed with Khumalo and said this was a “spend-money-to-make-money opportunity”, however, while it was a good marketing strategy, the timing was “unwarranted”.

humalo said the “envisaged deal is not asking the fiscus to introduce new money into our budget and it makes sense commercially”.

He said tourism generated about three percent of SA’s gross domestic product, down from 6.4% pre-Covid, and “we’re tapping into a global fan base to help meet the target visitor numbers of 21 million by 2030”.

Political analyst Dr Mcebisi Ndletyana said the criticism and outbursts were misdirected and departments mandated to fix the social ills and concerns should be held responsible for their lack of service delivery.

“The economy depends on a number of things and tourism is one of them, even in [a] crisis something should keep it afloat.”

Meanwhile, North-West University’s Prof Peet van der Merwe said the amount of money for the proposed three-year deal could have been better used for other tourism purposes.

“Reports about the abundance of crime and lack of safety in SA may deter visitors,” he said. “If government wants to do something progressive for the tourism sector, they should start addressing these issues.

“This will lure to more tourists to South Africa in the long term, rather than spending a heap of money on one single tourism aspect while people are still afraid to visit.”

AfriForum manager of sport and youth Ronald Peters said not enough time, energy and funds were spent to develop sports on home soil.

“These funds can especially be used to help talented young people in difficult circumstances to develop skills in order to escape their circumstances,” he added.

Political economy analyst Daniel Silke said maybe a “state of emergency for energy might direct funds into that sector as a priority and the only reason to support it”.