Dear Editor,

Across the island a quiet but growing frustration grips citizens. It is not triggered by hurricanes, roadblocks, or wage disputes, but by an all-too-familiar experience: calling a government agency and hearing nothing — no voice, no guidance, no answer. E-mails fare no better. Hours and days pass, and the silence remains.

This silence is more than an inconvenience. It is a symptom of a deeper dysfunction; a culture within some public agencies that permits poor communication and unresponsiveness to persist without consequence. In an age when information is instantaneous and customer service expectations are rising, such gaps are no longer excusable. There must be a renewed commitment to service, starting with something as basic as answering the telephone.

Government agencies should be required to monitor their phone lines consistently. If there are technical difficulties or staff shortages, the public must be informed immediately through websites, social media pages, and automated responses. The current practice of letting phone lines ring endlessly, with no explanation or follow-up, is unacceptable and deeply disrespectful to citizens who depend on these services.

What we often call poor customer service is, in fact, a direct contributor to national inefficiency. Delays in passport collection, permit approvals, or official documentation often begin with an unanswered call or an ignored e-mail. These small failures multiply and result in public distrust and frustration.

Citizens are then advised to “be patient” and “follow the process”. But how can one follow a process that is inaccessible? And how can we claim to be serious about public sector reform when so many of our institutions fail at the simplest task — communication? This failure also undermines our capacity to compete. As private entities enter the space, offering faster, more efficient services, there is often public concern that the government is being edged out. Yet the true threat to public service is not private competition, it is internal complacency.

There are, however, clear steps we can take to restore faith and improve performance.

First, government agencies should display live service updates on their platforms when telephone or online systems are down. This demonstrates transparency and respects the time of those trying to make contact. Second, agencies should implement automated callback systems. These would record missed calls and assign them for follow-up, ensuring no enquiry is left unanswered due to staff unavailability. Third, a strict standard for responding to e-mails should be adopted. A 48-hour response window is reasonable, and performance against this benchmark should be tracked and reported. Fourth, agencies must train staff across roles so that operations do not halt when one team member is on leave or unavailable. Flexibility is critical in service-oriented institutions. Fifth, real-time customer feedback tools should be introduced to allow users to rate their service experiences and highlight deficiencies. This would offer real data for continuous improvement. Finally, each agency should publish quarterly reports outlining its service performance, including response times and customer satisfaction ratings. These reports should be shared publicly. Transparency fosters accountability, and accountability strengthens trust.

None of these suggestions require revolutionary change. They require will. The will to treat citizens not as burdens to be managed, but as clients to be served with efficiency, professionalism, and courtesy. Until that will emerges, we can expect the silence to continue. And in that silence lies the true voice of public dissatisfaction.

When the next complaint surfaces, or a private alternative is applauded for doing what the public system could not, we must not be surprised. The issue did not begin with competition, it began with a phone that kept ringing and no one answered.

Leroy Fearon Jr

Educator

leroyfearon85@gmail.com