By Kofi Akordor
Suddenly we all know the source of the problem and the solutions. We have been waiting for disaster to strike then everybody begins to do something to save a bad situation.
Last week, Accra, the nation’s capital, once again came under heavy floods that claimed lives and property. The politicians were as usual busy doing what they know best — putting the blame where it should be and making promises — a process they are likely to repeat next year, since nature’s ways cannot be controlled.
We all know why even the slightest drizzle can cause flooding in certain parts of Accra but we have failed to act sometimes for the sake of cheap politics. Accra in particular and for that matter most of our towns and cities have problems of choked drains, poorly constructed roads and irresponsible construction of structures on watercourses. All these have something to do with human nature, which could be summed up in one word — indiscipline.
As had been the routine, government officials, while touring the disaster areas in the city, kept on warning those who had defied building regulations to obstruct the free flow of rainwater, thus causing the floods. They also did not have kind words for officials of the Town and Country Planning Department for sometimes looking the other way while these illegal structures were being erected in a haphazard manner all over the city.
Officials of the Town and Country Planning Department will also tell you that they sometimes bend the rules because of phone calls from powerful voices or notes in the handwriting of people in powerful positions in government.
We are in a crisis so the government must respond accordingly. We have been told an inter-ministerial committee has been set up to identify and demolish buildings and structures on watercourses to prevent further floods. That is well said, what about the implementation? The solution also goes beyond the demolition of a few buildings.
We all know the history of demolitions and decongestions in the country. Attempts in the past to decongest the city or dismantle illegal structures were sabotaged either through opportunism or political expediency.
In 2005 or so, Mr Stanley Nii Adjiri-Blankson, the then Metropolitan Chief Executive of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), did a wonderful job by decongesting the Central Business District of Accra with amazing alacrity. Residents who applauded the exercise testified that for once they could move freely on the pavements of Makola without winding their way through a dense forest of street hawkers. Motorists, including taxi and tro-tro drivers, were able to transport their passengers without any hindrance and apart from the street hawkers who had been uprooted from their strongholds, every other Ghanaian was pleased that Accra had regained its lost glory and dignity as the nation’s capital.
Just as Adjiri-Blankson’s decongestion and demolition squad was gathering steam and bracing up for more exercises in other parts of the capital, the political propaganda machinery went into motion discrediting the whole exercise. The story was that, the government was out to take food from the mouths of the ordinary people after they had voted the New Patriotic Party (NPP) into power.
Unfortunately for Nii Adjiri-Blankson, there was a forthcoming by-election at the Odododiodoo Constituency in the heart of Ga Mashie, which was already a bad zone for the NPP. You can call it blackmail. And it worked. On the orders of some heavyweights in the party, the decongestive exercise was stopped and the madness returned to the streets of Accra. We were told the exercise would be repackaged with a human face (whatever that means) and ever since, Adjiri-Blankson managed to stay clear from controversy until his party bowed out of office. The NPP lost the Odododiodoo by-election anyway.
In 2007, an exercise was initiated with a lot of fanfare to demolish 25 unauthorised buildings built on land belonging to the Ghana Water Company Limited and which lie in the Weija Dam watercourses. After three houses went down, the human rights activists and those who read politics into everything went into action. The exercise came to an abrupt end. These two examples illustrate our frustration as a nation whenever we want to tackle a purely national problem.
The truth is, we are reaping the results of years of indiscipline and inaction. We are all talking today because we are still picking the dead and counting our losses. Let the sun dry up the flood waters and, we, like the vulture, shall go back to our evil ways.
We have building regulations that we do not adhere to, thus allowing structures to sprout at any empty space in our cities and towns, not necessarily on the blind side of the city authorities. Our poorly designed and constructed drains are reeling under garbage that blocks the free flow of water during heavy rains.
Warnings such as; ‘Stop Work and Produce Permit’ do not have meaning any longer. Most often, work never stops, not because a permit has been produced or the structure is located on an approved site. The maxim ‘man must live’ always holds sway and with a phone call here and a brief note there, watercourses have been turned into residential areas.
Accra has become flood-prone because over the years, several residential areas have developed without proper layout and those tasked to ensure that the right thing is done will tell you that they have been frustrated in their work by politicians and other powerful persons who should have known better.
It is the expectation of every Ghanaian that the inter-ministerial task force will discharge its mandate without fear or favour. Politicising every national issue should be discarded. That is why it is welcome news that two prominent politicians — Mr Peter Mac Manu, National Chairman of the NPP, and Mr Yaw Boateng-Gyan, Deputy National Organiser of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) — have called for a non-partisan approach to the decongestive exercise. Not only that. There are many other important matters that could be handled better in the national interest without undue heavy politicisation.
For now, we can only compare our case to that of the vulture, which always pledges to build a house after the first raindrops. We should aim at preventing disaster instead of making repairs after the harm has been done.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
Kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
PARTY SOLIDARITY AND NATIONAL INTEREST (JUNE 23, 2009)
IT started a few years ago when busloads of party supporters were transported to the courts whenever former ministers and functionaries of the previous National Democratic Congress (NDC) government were to make an appearance on various charges.
We saw it during the infamous Quality Grain trial. Heavy party presence was always felt during the trial of the former First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, and others over the divestiture and purchase of the Nsawam Cannery and during the trial and conviction of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
Similarly, an ‘invitation’ extended to former President J. J. Rawlings by National Security to come and assist in certain investigations saw hundreds of NDC supporters besieging the premises of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
In all cases, the conclusion was that the personalities who were either on trial or had been invited for questioning were victims of political persecution or victimisation. That opened the gates for a new phenomenon to creep into our political culture. That is, any attempt to question the conduct of a former public office holder with clear identifiable political leaning is a victim who is being sacrificed on behalf of the political party he/she belongs to and must, therefore, be seen as such and given party support.
While the NDC played the game very well to draw public sympathy for the “cruel and inconsiderate” actions of the government under the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the Kufuor administration was always on the defensive trying to convince Ghanaians that its actions were purely in the public interest and there was nothing vindictive about the cases that were before the law courts or under investigation.
Whether this worked in favour of the NDC or not is another matter. However, the NPP suffered greatly when, in one of those moments of indiscretion, Mr J. H. Mensah, a stalwart of the NPP, stated publicly that by the time they had finished jailing top functionaries of the NDC, the party would not be able to stand on its feet again. That naturally gave strength to the NDC to raise its voice to the highest decibel, shouting political persecution anytime any of its former ministers or party functionaries was mentioned in connection with any malfeasance.
Whether we like it or not, a party that had been threatened with extinction was always the winner whenever one of its members was being dragged to the courts. At least that was the case in the eyes of a gullible public that lacked the ability to make fair and independent judgement.
The order has changed and the NPP is now in opposition. Having taken a cue from the NDC strategy, the NPP is always quick to complain of harassment and persecution.
In their case too, and just as Mr Mensah’s overzealous and careless statement strengthened the NDC’s case of persecution, the early days of the Mills administration, during which the security apparatus faltered in executing some of its mandate, created in the minds of a section of the people, especially NPP fanatics, that the NDC was out to outdo the NPP in political vindictiveness.
That was why even those former public office holders, who genuinely knew that they had not fulfilled the conditions to take home official vehicles and other state property, were quick to react with complaints of political persecution. For a party that is still nursing wounds that were inflicted on it by its painful defeat in the last elections, it is easy for its officers to attract sympathy from disillusioned supporters whenever the signals are given.
So it came to pass that when Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, the former Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs, was invited by the BNI to answer certain questions, the response from certain hard-core party supporters, including former ministers and current Members of Parliament, was to besiege the premises of the BNI because one of them who happened to be the most powerful person, apart from former President J.A. Kufuor, was, as it may be described, under ‘captivity’ by the enemy.
The matter of Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, the former Information Minister, is another clear case in which heroes could be made out of people who, otherwise, would only be seen as having genuine questions to answer. The arms, ears and eyes of National Security are very powerful.
Surely, that national apparatus had foreknowledge of Mr Asamoah-Boateng’s travel and, therefore, could have alerted him about the impending invitation to him. National Security could even have made a public announcement to that effect. If that had been done, Mr Asamoah-Boateng would have been seen as somebody trying to run away from justice if he had been arrested at the airport about to board an aircraft.
Suddenly, the persecution chorus has reached a crescendo of amazing cadences because we failed to do certain basic things. All further explanations in a quicksand manner only add to the murky waters and give voice to people who otherwise should have been silent.
In our part of the world, nobody could discount political persecution or vindictiveness. All governments that come to power, including those which imposed themselves on the people through illegal means, always find nothing good about their predecessors. They always inherit empty coffers and collapsed economies. Incidentally, their lifestyles sometimes surpass those of their predecessors and they ultimately go home with bigger articulated trucks filled with ‘spoils’ of war.
That is why we should be able to separate party and government from the national interest. Even though a party may have a big support base, those who actually benefit from the activities are the front liners — the national, regional, constituency and ward executives in that descending order and those who are privileged to be close to them.
In same way we can say that for the government, it is the principal officers, from the President and the Vice President, ministers of state, metropolitan, municipal and district chief executives, to those who, through their linkages and connections, found themselves in certain public positions who are in government.
As for the rest of us, we are the citizens of this country who have ceded our power to our party leaders, especially when that party forms the government and the principal officers of the government, to do what is best for us. We are at their mercy after we have stood for hours in the tropical sun or a heavy downpour to cast the ballot to elect our President.
It is, therefore, naïve, bordering on foolhardiness, for ordinary members of a party to troop to the police station or the courts in sympathy with a former minister who is being questioned for wrongdoing or for amassing wealth through illegal means while in public office. Why should I subject myself to such humiliation?
What many Ghanaians, including those party fanatics, should know is that this country called Ghana is where it is today, still poor in the midst of abundant resources, because of the actions and inaction of politicians who begged us for our mandate but turned round to fill their pockets.
Our children continue to squat under trees for their lessons while we drive on muddy, pothole-filled roads because some politicians have colluded with faceless contractors to misuse our national resources for their personal aggrandisement.
Our national capital, Accra, is an eyesore compared to others (spare me the comparison between some African countries) because people given the mandate to take certain decisions have failed in that regard but made sure they went home with a good chunk of our national wealth. The traffic lights in Accra and other places are not functioning not because we lack the resources. Our young men and women are leaving in droves for destinations they hardly know; not because they enjoy separating from their relatives and friends.
Our schools are overcrowded, our health facilities are poorly equipped and manned, and in most cases have become transit camps for the final destination, our public servants continue to cry for living wages to no avail. These and many other problems confronting this nation are the result of the ineptitude of our political leaders who always cry ‘No Fund’, but are able to save enough to live in opulence. Some could even afford a vacation in foreign lands but whenever the trumpet is sounded for accountability, they quickly invoke the persecution theory to attract sympathy.
Mr Mpiani was a very powerful person who did not leave office poorer. He commanded executive powers almost comparable to what the Constitution gave to the President of the Republic. He presided over several national projects and programmes which involved huge sums of national revenue. These include the Ghana @ 50 Celebrations and the construction of the Jubilee Mansion.
In all cases, his responses to queries about the monies involved when he appeared before Parliament, our House of Representatives, were at best snobbish.
You cannot talk to the Americans, the British, the French, the Japanese or citizens of any of those countries making perfect movement in the right direction when questioned about how you are expending their national revenue and expect a multitude of party supporters to be chanting war songs threatening the Office of Accountability for demanding from you an account of how you disburse state funds.
This can only happen in a land where the people do not know what they want and, therefore, can be fooled and swindled by those they claim are their chosen messiahs and heroes. Take the Jubilee Mansion, for example. In the beginning, it was to cost the nation US$45 million, with part grant of US$30 million from the Government of India. We have crossed the US$100 million mark and the completion of the project is nowhere in sight.
There is something called variation in the construction industry. This refers to an additional cost arising either out of minor additions or certain minor things that were overlooked in the original design or contract.
But tell me, where on earth, can the cost of the variation be more than double the cost of the original project? So nobody should offer an explanation for this, when it is the poor people of this country who are going to pay the excess amount?
We have always been mentioning countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Thailand and all other emerging economies which could not have reached where they are today, if they had allowed their public office holders to walk away without being made to account for the national wealth placed in their custody.
By all means, people should not suffer because they have served in a particular government. There must be due diligence when probing public officials whether active or previous. The rights of individuals must be recognised and respected as prescribed by law or as enshrined in our national constitution.
As much as possible, nothing should be done to give any semblance of political persecution or vindictiveness in matters that are of national interest. We should be careful not to make heroes out of people who have greatly contributed to our impoverishment and forced us deeper into underdevelopment.
Those who stood between us and our forward march to glory should not be shielded in any way. We should not give a second laugh to people who exploited our collective authority vested in them to deny us our right to good life.
We cannot move forward and join those galloping ahead of us if we continue to allow public office holders to mix in the crowd with their booty. The grains must be separated from the chaff and in executing this assignment, there should not be room for mistakes or compromise.
Party supporters must also know that it is in their own interest to push forward the national interest instead of pandering to the whims and caprices of a few former ministers. If Ghana has good roads, good medical facilities, good educational facilities and other social infrastructure in place, the country will be good for everybody, not a few party or government supporters.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
We saw it during the infamous Quality Grain trial. Heavy party presence was always felt during the trial of the former First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, and others over the divestiture and purchase of the Nsawam Cannery and during the trial and conviction of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
Similarly, an ‘invitation’ extended to former President J. J. Rawlings by National Security to come and assist in certain investigations saw hundreds of NDC supporters besieging the premises of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
In all cases, the conclusion was that the personalities who were either on trial or had been invited for questioning were victims of political persecution or victimisation. That opened the gates for a new phenomenon to creep into our political culture. That is, any attempt to question the conduct of a former public office holder with clear identifiable political leaning is a victim who is being sacrificed on behalf of the political party he/she belongs to and must, therefore, be seen as such and given party support.
While the NDC played the game very well to draw public sympathy for the “cruel and inconsiderate” actions of the government under the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the Kufuor administration was always on the defensive trying to convince Ghanaians that its actions were purely in the public interest and there was nothing vindictive about the cases that were before the law courts or under investigation.
Whether this worked in favour of the NDC or not is another matter. However, the NPP suffered greatly when, in one of those moments of indiscretion, Mr J. H. Mensah, a stalwart of the NPP, stated publicly that by the time they had finished jailing top functionaries of the NDC, the party would not be able to stand on its feet again. That naturally gave strength to the NDC to raise its voice to the highest decibel, shouting political persecution anytime any of its former ministers or party functionaries was mentioned in connection with any malfeasance.
Whether we like it or not, a party that had been threatened with extinction was always the winner whenever one of its members was being dragged to the courts. At least that was the case in the eyes of a gullible public that lacked the ability to make fair and independent judgement.
The order has changed and the NPP is now in opposition. Having taken a cue from the NDC strategy, the NPP is always quick to complain of harassment and persecution.
In their case too, and just as Mr Mensah’s overzealous and careless statement strengthened the NDC’s case of persecution, the early days of the Mills administration, during which the security apparatus faltered in executing some of its mandate, created in the minds of a section of the people, especially NPP fanatics, that the NDC was out to outdo the NPP in political vindictiveness.
That was why even those former public office holders, who genuinely knew that they had not fulfilled the conditions to take home official vehicles and other state property, were quick to react with complaints of political persecution. For a party that is still nursing wounds that were inflicted on it by its painful defeat in the last elections, it is easy for its officers to attract sympathy from disillusioned supporters whenever the signals are given.
So it came to pass that when Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, the former Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs, was invited by the BNI to answer certain questions, the response from certain hard-core party supporters, including former ministers and current Members of Parliament, was to besiege the premises of the BNI because one of them who happened to be the most powerful person, apart from former President J.A. Kufuor, was, as it may be described, under ‘captivity’ by the enemy.
The matter of Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, the former Information Minister, is another clear case in which heroes could be made out of people who, otherwise, would only be seen as having genuine questions to answer. The arms, ears and eyes of National Security are very powerful.
Surely, that national apparatus had foreknowledge of Mr Asamoah-Boateng’s travel and, therefore, could have alerted him about the impending invitation to him. National Security could even have made a public announcement to that effect. If that had been done, Mr Asamoah-Boateng would have been seen as somebody trying to run away from justice if he had been arrested at the airport about to board an aircraft.
Suddenly, the persecution chorus has reached a crescendo of amazing cadences because we failed to do certain basic things. All further explanations in a quicksand manner only add to the murky waters and give voice to people who otherwise should have been silent.
In our part of the world, nobody could discount political persecution or vindictiveness. All governments that come to power, including those which imposed themselves on the people through illegal means, always find nothing good about their predecessors. They always inherit empty coffers and collapsed economies. Incidentally, their lifestyles sometimes surpass those of their predecessors and they ultimately go home with bigger articulated trucks filled with ‘spoils’ of war.
That is why we should be able to separate party and government from the national interest. Even though a party may have a big support base, those who actually benefit from the activities are the front liners — the national, regional, constituency and ward executives in that descending order and those who are privileged to be close to them.
In same way we can say that for the government, it is the principal officers, from the President and the Vice President, ministers of state, metropolitan, municipal and district chief executives, to those who, through their linkages and connections, found themselves in certain public positions who are in government.
As for the rest of us, we are the citizens of this country who have ceded our power to our party leaders, especially when that party forms the government and the principal officers of the government, to do what is best for us. We are at their mercy after we have stood for hours in the tropical sun or a heavy downpour to cast the ballot to elect our President.
It is, therefore, naïve, bordering on foolhardiness, for ordinary members of a party to troop to the police station or the courts in sympathy with a former minister who is being questioned for wrongdoing or for amassing wealth through illegal means while in public office. Why should I subject myself to such humiliation?
What many Ghanaians, including those party fanatics, should know is that this country called Ghana is where it is today, still poor in the midst of abundant resources, because of the actions and inaction of politicians who begged us for our mandate but turned round to fill their pockets.
Our children continue to squat under trees for their lessons while we drive on muddy, pothole-filled roads because some politicians have colluded with faceless contractors to misuse our national resources for their personal aggrandisement.
Our national capital, Accra, is an eyesore compared to others (spare me the comparison between some African countries) because people given the mandate to take certain decisions have failed in that regard but made sure they went home with a good chunk of our national wealth. The traffic lights in Accra and other places are not functioning not because we lack the resources. Our young men and women are leaving in droves for destinations they hardly know; not because they enjoy separating from their relatives and friends.
Our schools are overcrowded, our health facilities are poorly equipped and manned, and in most cases have become transit camps for the final destination, our public servants continue to cry for living wages to no avail. These and many other problems confronting this nation are the result of the ineptitude of our political leaders who always cry ‘No Fund’, but are able to save enough to live in opulence. Some could even afford a vacation in foreign lands but whenever the trumpet is sounded for accountability, they quickly invoke the persecution theory to attract sympathy.
Mr Mpiani was a very powerful person who did not leave office poorer. He commanded executive powers almost comparable to what the Constitution gave to the President of the Republic. He presided over several national projects and programmes which involved huge sums of national revenue. These include the Ghana @ 50 Celebrations and the construction of the Jubilee Mansion.
In all cases, his responses to queries about the monies involved when he appeared before Parliament, our House of Representatives, were at best snobbish.
You cannot talk to the Americans, the British, the French, the Japanese or citizens of any of those countries making perfect movement in the right direction when questioned about how you are expending their national revenue and expect a multitude of party supporters to be chanting war songs threatening the Office of Accountability for demanding from you an account of how you disburse state funds.
This can only happen in a land where the people do not know what they want and, therefore, can be fooled and swindled by those they claim are their chosen messiahs and heroes. Take the Jubilee Mansion, for example. In the beginning, it was to cost the nation US$45 million, with part grant of US$30 million from the Government of India. We have crossed the US$100 million mark and the completion of the project is nowhere in sight.
There is something called variation in the construction industry. This refers to an additional cost arising either out of minor additions or certain minor things that were overlooked in the original design or contract.
But tell me, where on earth, can the cost of the variation be more than double the cost of the original project? So nobody should offer an explanation for this, when it is the poor people of this country who are going to pay the excess amount?
We have always been mentioning countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Thailand and all other emerging economies which could not have reached where they are today, if they had allowed their public office holders to walk away without being made to account for the national wealth placed in their custody.
By all means, people should not suffer because they have served in a particular government. There must be due diligence when probing public officials whether active or previous. The rights of individuals must be recognised and respected as prescribed by law or as enshrined in our national constitution.
As much as possible, nothing should be done to give any semblance of political persecution or vindictiveness in matters that are of national interest. We should be careful not to make heroes out of people who have greatly contributed to our impoverishment and forced us deeper into underdevelopment.
Those who stood between us and our forward march to glory should not be shielded in any way. We should not give a second laugh to people who exploited our collective authority vested in them to deny us our right to good life.
We cannot move forward and join those galloping ahead of us if we continue to allow public office holders to mix in the crowd with their booty. The grains must be separated from the chaff and in executing this assignment, there should not be room for mistakes or compromise.
Party supporters must also know that it is in their own interest to push forward the national interest instead of pandering to the whims and caprices of a few former ministers. If Ghana has good roads, good medical facilities, good educational facilities and other social infrastructure in place, the country will be good for everybody, not a few party or government supporters.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Party solidarity and national interest
By Kofi Akordor
IT started a few years ago when busloads of party supporters were transported to the courts whenever former ministers and functionaries of the previous National Democratic Congress (NDC) government were to make an appearance on various charges.
We saw it during the infamous Quality Grain trial. Heavy party presence was always felt during the trial of the former First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, and others over the divestiture and purchase of the Nsawam Cannery and during the trial and conviction of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
Similarly, an ‘invitation’ extended to former President J. J. Rawlings by National Security to come and assist in certain investigations saw hundreds of NDC supporters besieging the premises of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
In all cases, the conclusion was that the personalities who were either on trial or had been invited for questioning were victims of political persecution or victimisation. That opened the gates for a new phenomenon to creep into our political culture. That is, any attempt to question the conduct of a former public office holder with clear identifiable political leaning is a victim who is being sacrificed on behalf of the political party he/she belongs to and must, therefore, be seen as such and given party support.
While the NDC played the game very well to draw public sympathy for the “cruel and inconsiderate” actions of the government under the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the Kufuor administration was always on the defensive trying to convince Ghanaians that its actions were purely in the public interest and there was nothing vindictive about the cases that were before the law courts or under investigation.
Whether this worked in favour of the NDC or not is another matter. However, the NPP suffered greatly when, in one of those moments of indiscretion, Mr J. H. Mensah, a stalwart of the NPP, stated publicly that by the time they had finished jailing top functionaries of the NDC, the party would not be able to stand on its feet again. That naturally gave strength to the NDC to raise its voice to the highest decibel, shouting political persecution anytime any of its former ministers or party functionaries was mentioned in connection with any malfeasance.
Whether we like it or not, a party that had been threatened with extinction was always the winner whenever one of its members was being dragged to the courts. At least that was the case in the eyes of a gullible public that lacked the ability to make fair and independent judgement.
The order has changed and the NPP is now in opposition. Having taken a cue from the NDC strategy, the NPP is always quick to complain of harassment and persecution. In their case too, and just as Mr Mensah’s overzealous and careless statement strengthened the NDC’s case of persecution, the early days of the Mills administration, during which the security apparatus faltered in executing some of its mandate, created in the minds of a section of the people, especially NPP fanatics, that the NDC was out to outdo the NPP in political vindictiveness.
That was why even those former public office holders, who genuinely knew that they had not fulfilled the conditions to take home official vehicles and other state property, were quick to react with complaints of political persecution. For a party that is still nursing wounds that were inflicted on it by its painful defeat in the last elections, it is easy for its officers to attract sympathy from disillusioned supporters whenever the signals are given.
So it came to pass that when Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, the former Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs, was invited by the BNI to answer certain questions, the response from certain hard-core party supporters, including former ministers and current Members of Parliament, was to besiege the premises of the BNI because one of them who happened to be the most powerful person, apart from former President J. A. Kufuor, was, as it may be described, under ‘captivity’ by the enemy.
The matter of Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, the former Information Minister, is another clear case in which heroes could be made out of people who, otherwise, would only be seen as having genuine questions to answer. The arms, ears and eyes of National Security are very powerful. Surely, that national apparatus had foreknowledge of Mr Asamoah-Boateng’s travel and, therefore, could have alerted him about the impending invitation to him. National Security could even have made a public announcement to that effect. If that had been done, Mr Asamoah-Boateng would have been seen as somebody trying to run away from justice if he had been arrested at the airport about to board an aircraft.
Suddenly, the persecution chorus has reached a crescendo of amazing cadences because we failed to do certain basic things. All further explanations in a quicksand manner only add to the murky waters and give voice to people who otherwise should have been silent.
In our part of the world, nobody could discount political persecution or vindictiveness. All governments that come to power, including those which imposed themselves on the people through illegal means, always find nothing good about their predecessors. They always inherit empty coffers and collapsed economies. Incidentally, their lifestyles sometimes surpass those of their predecessors and they ultimately go home with bigger articulated trucks filled with ‘spoils’ of war.
To convince the public that they are a better bunch of people, they need to paint members of the previous administration black and through that also cover their inadequacies and deficiencies. Notwithstanding that, it should be accepted that members of previous governments are not angels and, therefore, they could be called upon for their stewardship when the need arises.
That is why we should be able to separate party and government from the national interest. Even though a party may have a big support base, those who actually benefit from the activities are the front liners — the national, regional, constituency and ward executives in that descending order and those who are privileged to be close to them.
In same way we can say that for the government, it is the principal officers, from the President and the Vice President, ministers of state, metropolitan, municipal and district chief executives, to those who, through their linkages and connections, found themselves in certain public positions who are in government.
As for the rest of us, we are the citizens of this country who have ceded our power to our party leaders, especially when that party forms the government and the principal officers of the government, to do what is best for us. We are at their mercy after we have stood for hours in the tropical sun or a heavy downpour to cast the ballot to elect our President.
It is, therefore, naïve, bordering on foolhardiness, for ordinary members of a party to troop to the police station or the courts in sympathy with a former minister who is being questioned for wrongdoing or for amassing wealth through illegal means while in public office. Why should I subject myself to such a humiliation?
What many Ghanaians, including those party fanatics, should know is that this country called Ghana is where it is today, still poor in the midst of abundant resources, because of the actions and inaction of politicians who begged us for our mandate but turned round to fill their pockets.
Our children continue to squat under trees for their lessons while we drive on muddy, pothole-filled roads because some politicians have colluded with faceless contractors to misuse our national resources for their personal aggrandisement.
Our national capital, Accra, is an eyesore compared to others (spare me the comparison between some African countries) because people given the mandate to take certain decisions have failed in that regard but made sure they went home with a good chunk of our national wealth. The traffic lights in Accra and other places are not functioning not because we lack the resources. Our young men and women are leaving in droves for destinations they hardly know; not because they enjoy separating from their relatives and friends.
Our schools are overcrowded, our health facilities are poorly equipped and manned, and in most cases have become transit camps for the final destination, our public servants continue to cry for living wages to no avail. These and many other problems confronting this nation are the result of the ineptitude of our political leaders who always cry ‘No Fund’, but are able to save enough to live in opulence. Some could even afford a vacation in foreign lands but whenever the trumpet is sounded for accountability, they quickly invoke the persecution theory to attract sympathy.
Mr Mpiani was a very powerful person, who did not live office poorer. He commanded executive powers almost comparable to what the Constitution gave to the President of the Republic. He presided over several national projects and programmes which involved huge sums of national revenue. These include the Ghana @ 50 Celebrations and the construction of the Jubilee Mansion.
In all cases, his responses to queries about the monies involved when he appeared before Parliament, our House of Representatives, were at best snobbish. You cannot talk to the Americans, the British, the French, the Japanese or citizens of any of those countries making perfect movement in the right direction when questioned about how you are expending their national revenue and expect a multitude of party supporters to be chanting war songs threatening the Office of Accountability for demanding from you an account of how you disburse state funds.
This can only happen in a land where the people do not know what they want and, therefore, can be fooled and swindled by those they claim are their chosen messiahs and heroes. Take the Jubilee Mansion, for example. In the beginning, it was to cost the nation US$45 million, with part grant of US$30 million from the Government of India. We have crossed the US$100 million mark and the completion of the project is nowhere in sight.
There is something called variation in the construction industry. This refers to an additional cost arising either out of minor additions or certain minor things that were overlooked in the original design or contract. But tell me, where on earth, can the cost of the variation be more than double the cost of the original project? So nobody should offer an explanation for this, when it is the poor people of this country who are going to pay the excess amount?
We have always been mentioning countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Thailand and all other emerging economies which could not have reached where they are today, if they had allowed their public office holders to walk away without being made to account for the national wealth placed in their custody.
By all means, people should not suffer because they have served in a particular government. There must be due diligence when probing public officials whether active or previous. The rights of individuals must be recognised and respected as prescribed by law or as enshrined in our national constitution.
We cannot move forward and join those galloping ahead of us if we continue to allow public office holders to mix in the crowd with their booty. The grains must be separated from the chaff and in executing this assignment, there should not be room for mistakes or compromise.
Party supporters must also know that it is in their own interest to push forward the national interest instead of pandering to the whims and caprices of a few former ministers. If Ghana has good roads, good medical facilities, good educational facilities and other social infrastructure in place, the country will be good for everybody, not to a few party or government supporters.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
IT started a few years ago when busloads of party supporters were transported to the courts whenever former ministers and functionaries of the previous National Democratic Congress (NDC) government were to make an appearance on various charges.
We saw it during the infamous Quality Grain trial. Heavy party presence was always felt during the trial of the former First Lady, Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, and others over the divestiture and purchase of the Nsawam Cannery and during the trial and conviction of Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, former Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana National Petroleum Company (GNPC).
Similarly, an ‘invitation’ extended to former President J. J. Rawlings by National Security to come and assist in certain investigations saw hundreds of NDC supporters besieging the premises of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI).
In all cases, the conclusion was that the personalities who were either on trial or had been invited for questioning were victims of political persecution or victimisation. That opened the gates for a new phenomenon to creep into our political culture. That is, any attempt to question the conduct of a former public office holder with clear identifiable political leaning is a victim who is being sacrificed on behalf of the political party he/she belongs to and must, therefore, be seen as such and given party support.
While the NDC played the game very well to draw public sympathy for the “cruel and inconsiderate” actions of the government under the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the Kufuor administration was always on the defensive trying to convince Ghanaians that its actions were purely in the public interest and there was nothing vindictive about the cases that were before the law courts or under investigation.
Whether this worked in favour of the NDC or not is another matter. However, the NPP suffered greatly when, in one of those moments of indiscretion, Mr J. H. Mensah, a stalwart of the NPP, stated publicly that by the time they had finished jailing top functionaries of the NDC, the party would not be able to stand on its feet again. That naturally gave strength to the NDC to raise its voice to the highest decibel, shouting political persecution anytime any of its former ministers or party functionaries was mentioned in connection with any malfeasance.
Whether we like it or not, a party that had been threatened with extinction was always the winner whenever one of its members was being dragged to the courts. At least that was the case in the eyes of a gullible public that lacked the ability to make fair and independent judgement.
The order has changed and the NPP is now in opposition. Having taken a cue from the NDC strategy, the NPP is always quick to complain of harassment and persecution. In their case too, and just as Mr Mensah’s overzealous and careless statement strengthened the NDC’s case of persecution, the early days of the Mills administration, during which the security apparatus faltered in executing some of its mandate, created in the minds of a section of the people, especially NPP fanatics, that the NDC was out to outdo the NPP in political vindictiveness.
That was why even those former public office holders, who genuinely knew that they had not fulfilled the conditions to take home official vehicles and other state property, were quick to react with complaints of political persecution. For a party that is still nursing wounds that were inflicted on it by its painful defeat in the last elections, it is easy for its officers to attract sympathy from disillusioned supporters whenever the signals are given.
So it came to pass that when Mr Kwadwo Mpiani, the former Chief of Staff and Minister for Presidential Affairs, was invited by the BNI to answer certain questions, the response from certain hard-core party supporters, including former ministers and current Members of Parliament, was to besiege the premises of the BNI because one of them who happened to be the most powerful person, apart from former President J. A. Kufuor, was, as it may be described, under ‘captivity’ by the enemy.
The matter of Mr Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, the former Information Minister, is another clear case in which heroes could be made out of people who, otherwise, would only be seen as having genuine questions to answer. The arms, ears and eyes of National Security are very powerful. Surely, that national apparatus had foreknowledge of Mr Asamoah-Boateng’s travel and, therefore, could have alerted him about the impending invitation to him. National Security could even have made a public announcement to that effect. If that had been done, Mr Asamoah-Boateng would have been seen as somebody trying to run away from justice if he had been arrested at the airport about to board an aircraft.
Suddenly, the persecution chorus has reached a crescendo of amazing cadences because we failed to do certain basic things. All further explanations in a quicksand manner only add to the murky waters and give voice to people who otherwise should have been silent.
In our part of the world, nobody could discount political persecution or vindictiveness. All governments that come to power, including those which imposed themselves on the people through illegal means, always find nothing good about their predecessors. They always inherit empty coffers and collapsed economies. Incidentally, their lifestyles sometimes surpass those of their predecessors and they ultimately go home with bigger articulated trucks filled with ‘spoils’ of war.
To convince the public that they are a better bunch of people, they need to paint members of the previous administration black and through that also cover their inadequacies and deficiencies. Notwithstanding that, it should be accepted that members of previous governments are not angels and, therefore, they could be called upon for their stewardship when the need arises.
That is why we should be able to separate party and government from the national interest. Even though a party may have a big support base, those who actually benefit from the activities are the front liners — the national, regional, constituency and ward executives in that descending order and those who are privileged to be close to them.
In same way we can say that for the government, it is the principal officers, from the President and the Vice President, ministers of state, metropolitan, municipal and district chief executives, to those who, through their linkages and connections, found themselves in certain public positions who are in government.
As for the rest of us, we are the citizens of this country who have ceded our power to our party leaders, especially when that party forms the government and the principal officers of the government, to do what is best for us. We are at their mercy after we have stood for hours in the tropical sun or a heavy downpour to cast the ballot to elect our President.
It is, therefore, naïve, bordering on foolhardiness, for ordinary members of a party to troop to the police station or the courts in sympathy with a former minister who is being questioned for wrongdoing or for amassing wealth through illegal means while in public office. Why should I subject myself to such a humiliation?
What many Ghanaians, including those party fanatics, should know is that this country called Ghana is where it is today, still poor in the midst of abundant resources, because of the actions and inaction of politicians who begged us for our mandate but turned round to fill their pockets.
Our children continue to squat under trees for their lessons while we drive on muddy, pothole-filled roads because some politicians have colluded with faceless contractors to misuse our national resources for their personal aggrandisement.
Our national capital, Accra, is an eyesore compared to others (spare me the comparison between some African countries) because people given the mandate to take certain decisions have failed in that regard but made sure they went home with a good chunk of our national wealth. The traffic lights in Accra and other places are not functioning not because we lack the resources. Our young men and women are leaving in droves for destinations they hardly know; not because they enjoy separating from their relatives and friends.
Our schools are overcrowded, our health facilities are poorly equipped and manned, and in most cases have become transit camps for the final destination, our public servants continue to cry for living wages to no avail. These and many other problems confronting this nation are the result of the ineptitude of our political leaders who always cry ‘No Fund’, but are able to save enough to live in opulence. Some could even afford a vacation in foreign lands but whenever the trumpet is sounded for accountability, they quickly invoke the persecution theory to attract sympathy.
Mr Mpiani was a very powerful person, who did not live office poorer. He commanded executive powers almost comparable to what the Constitution gave to the President of the Republic. He presided over several national projects and programmes which involved huge sums of national revenue. These include the Ghana @ 50 Celebrations and the construction of the Jubilee Mansion.
In all cases, his responses to queries about the monies involved when he appeared before Parliament, our House of Representatives, were at best snobbish. You cannot talk to the Americans, the British, the French, the Japanese or citizens of any of those countries making perfect movement in the right direction when questioned about how you are expending their national revenue and expect a multitude of party supporters to be chanting war songs threatening the Office of Accountability for demanding from you an account of how you disburse state funds.
This can only happen in a land where the people do not know what they want and, therefore, can be fooled and swindled by those they claim are their chosen messiahs and heroes. Take the Jubilee Mansion, for example. In the beginning, it was to cost the nation US$45 million, with part grant of US$30 million from the Government of India. We have crossed the US$100 million mark and the completion of the project is nowhere in sight.
There is something called variation in the construction industry. This refers to an additional cost arising either out of minor additions or certain minor things that were overlooked in the original design or contract. But tell me, where on earth, can the cost of the variation be more than double the cost of the original project? So nobody should offer an explanation for this, when it is the poor people of this country who are going to pay the excess amount?
We have always been mentioning countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Thailand and all other emerging economies which could not have reached where they are today, if they had allowed their public office holders to walk away without being made to account for the national wealth placed in their custody.
By all means, people should not suffer because they have served in a particular government. There must be due diligence when probing public officials whether active or previous. The rights of individuals must be recognised and respected as prescribed by law or as enshrined in our national constitution.
We cannot move forward and join those galloping ahead of us if we continue to allow public office holders to mix in the crowd with their booty. The grains must be separated from the chaff and in executing this assignment, there should not be room for mistakes or compromise.
Party supporters must also know that it is in their own interest to push forward the national interest instead of pandering to the whims and caprices of a few former ministers. If Ghana has good roads, good medical facilities, good educational facilities and other social infrastructure in place, the country will be good for everybody, not to a few party or government supporters.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Istanbul, a city on two continents
By Kofi Akordor
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness”
Taking inspiration in these elevating words of Mark Twain, an American author, I did not hesitate when I was offered to visit Turkey, the only country that has part of it in Europe and another in Asia. Already, there is something in our local parlance like ‘Travel and see’. In other words, it is always good to venture out of your traditional habitat so that you experience what is happening in other places. It is likely you may learn something new and probably through interaction, impart to your hosts, something about yourself and your country.
Istanbul, which is the commercial capital of the Republic of Turkey, is a mega city by all definitions, stretching 120 kilometres in length, 50 kilometres in width and being home to over 20 million people. It has a history dating back to ancient times and it is a melting point of different religions, histories and layers of civilisation. It has many historical places of interest such as mosques, museums, palaces and basilicas to prove that.
My interest, however, as someone coming from Ghana, a country labelled developing, was in modern Istanbul, which, for four days, hosted businessmen and women and representatives of corporate institutions from all over the world. Among them were trade and business delegations from several African countries including Malawi, Kenya, Uganda, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Namibia and Mozambique.
What struck me on arrival at the Ataturk International Airport was that Turkey may not, after all, be one of the so-called developing countries. This modern, large and busy airport complex was named after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey.
Some years ago, a group of countries in Africa, Asia and South America were placed in one country and labelled under-developed countries. Most of these countries were just emerging from colonialism or occupation and, therefore, had no stable economies or political systems. Most of these countries also belonged to the Third World, thus not part of the geopolitics of either Western Europe or the United States of America.
There were protestations from most of these countries that the term ‘under-developed’ was derogatory, hence the new term ‘developing’ which was coined for them and became the internationally accepted description for some of the poorest countries of the world.
Today, it is strange and totally misleading for some of these countries to continue to be branded as developing countries and in true fact, some are more developed and have greater prospects of developing faster than some of the so-called developed countries. It is in such group that one could find Turkey, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, India and Iran. All sub-Saharan African countries, with the exception of Republic of South Africa, are still at the bottom and the earlier they accept the fact that their once stable mates among the developing world have left them and are now being described as emerging economies, the better it may open the eyes of their leaders to the realities of the day.
The truth is, Istanbul has become a symbol of Turkey’s phenomenal transformation over the last 20 years. The city has a vast road network of asphaltic dual carriageways, flyovers, trams, metro bus lanes and underground tubes to ferry the millions of commuters to and from their destinations. Unlike in my country where traffic lights do not work, the vast city of Istanbul does not suffer that fate because the lights are powered by solar panels, something which was suggested here but was, in a nonchalant manner, brushed aside. In the midst of that jungle of concrete and steel, the planners of Istanbul and most other Turkish cities have generous space for gardens to bring man and nature together. In fact, Istanbul is a blend of human ingenuity and natural landscape to give it a special beauty.
Istanbul is located strategically where Europe, Asia and Africa meet and the Strait of Bosphorus, which links the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, divides the city into two, one on the European side and the other on the Asian side. It is, therefore, the only city that occupies two continents — Asia and Europe. This gives it an advantage as a major trading centre attracting companies and merchants from all over the world. The two sides are linked by two suspension bridges over the Bosphorus, which carry large volumes of traffic between European and Asian Istanbul.
Turkey itself has gradually become a major industrial and manufacturing country. It is the sixth largest producer of cement in the world, the ninth highest earner in tourism; it is second to China in textile production, it has a large jewellery industry and cumulatively, the 15th largest economy in the world, though the country cannot boast having one of the world’s richest gold mines.
It has a large chocolate industry but is not rated among cocoa producers on this planet. It has the second largest jewellery factory in the whole world even though it cannot boast the production of gold, diamond or any other precious minerals.
It produces vintage furniture for export when its timber resources do not come near that of Ghana. We have decided to sell our raw timber for a pittance at the expense of our ecosystem, while our governments take delight in importing furniture to furnish their offices and homes.
Ghana and other African countries will be deluding themselves in thinking that the ‘developing’ tag fits them and the emerging countries such as Turkey that are knocking hard at the doorsteps of the developed world.
Turkey imports very little vehicles because most of the major auto firms have their plants there. This has favoured their entrepreneurs to establish their own manufacturing plants. It also produces agricultural machinery, boats, electronics and light aircraft.
Turkey did not reach where it is now by chance or by accident. It took a visionary and well-focused leadership, leading the way for a committed and dedicated people who know what they want and how to get it. Sometimes it is strange that almost all the traffic lights in Accra, the national capital, do not work, and we do not feel any dent on our pride as a people. Even the one at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) intersection, which welcomes visitors, does not work for days. Can’t we adopt the solar panel system at least for our traffic lights?
Shall we call for a new political leadership which will run this country on business lines for results? Shall we tell our political leaders to stop counting their spoils of war even before they enter office? We have too much to sustain us and it is time we did away with the excuses. Ghana should not be where it is today. We must move forward, of course in the right direction.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness”
Taking inspiration in these elevating words of Mark Twain, an American author, I did not hesitate when I was offered to visit Turkey, the only country that has part of it in Europe and another in Asia. Already, there is something in our local parlance like ‘Travel and see’. In other words, it is always good to venture out of your traditional habitat so that you experience what is happening in other places. It is likely you may learn something new and probably through interaction, impart to your hosts, something about yourself and your country.
Istanbul, which is the commercial capital of the Republic of Turkey, is a mega city by all definitions, stretching 120 kilometres in length, 50 kilometres in width and being home to over 20 million people. It has a history dating back to ancient times and it is a melting point of different religions, histories and layers of civilisation. It has many historical places of interest such as mosques, museums, palaces and basilicas to prove that.
My interest, however, as someone coming from Ghana, a country labelled developing, was in modern Istanbul, which, for four days, hosted businessmen and women and representatives of corporate institutions from all over the world. Among them were trade and business delegations from several African countries including Malawi, Kenya, Uganda, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Namibia and Mozambique.
What struck me on arrival at the Ataturk International Airport was that Turkey may not, after all, be one of the so-called developing countries. This modern, large and busy airport complex was named after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey.
Some years ago, a group of countries in Africa, Asia and South America were placed in one country and labelled under-developed countries. Most of these countries were just emerging from colonialism or occupation and, therefore, had no stable economies or political systems. Most of these countries also belonged to the Third World, thus not part of the geopolitics of either Western Europe or the United States of America.
There were protestations from most of these countries that the term ‘under-developed’ was derogatory, hence the new term ‘developing’ which was coined for them and became the internationally accepted description for some of the poorest countries of the world.
Today, it is strange and totally misleading for some of these countries to continue to be branded as developing countries and in true fact, some are more developed and have greater prospects of developing faster than some of the so-called developed countries. It is in such group that one could find Turkey, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, India and Iran. All sub-Saharan African countries, with the exception of Republic of South Africa, are still at the bottom and the earlier they accept the fact that their once stable mates among the developing world have left them and are now being described as emerging economies, the better it may open the eyes of their leaders to the realities of the day.
The truth is, Istanbul has become a symbol of Turkey’s phenomenal transformation over the last 20 years. The city has a vast road network of asphaltic dual carriageways, flyovers, trams, metro bus lanes and underground tubes to ferry the millions of commuters to and from their destinations. Unlike in my country where traffic lights do not work, the vast city of Istanbul does not suffer that fate because the lights are powered by solar panels, something which was suggested here but was, in a nonchalant manner, brushed aside. In the midst of that jungle of concrete and steel, the planners of Istanbul and most other Turkish cities have generous space for gardens to bring man and nature together. In fact, Istanbul is a blend of human ingenuity and natural landscape to give it a special beauty.
Istanbul is located strategically where Europe, Asia and Africa meet and the Strait of Bosphorus, which links the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, divides the city into two, one on the European side and the other on the Asian side. It is, therefore, the only city that occupies two continents — Asia and Europe. This gives it an advantage as a major trading centre attracting companies and merchants from all over the world. The two sides are linked by two suspension bridges over the Bosphorus, which carry large volumes of traffic between European and Asian Istanbul.
Turkey itself has gradually become a major industrial and manufacturing country. It is the sixth largest producer of cement in the world, the ninth highest earner in tourism; it is second to China in textile production, it has a large jewellery industry and cumulatively, the 15th largest economy in the world, though the country cannot boast having one of the world’s richest gold mines.
It has a large chocolate industry but is not rated among cocoa producers on this planet. It has the second largest jewellery factory in the whole world even though it cannot boast the production of gold, diamond or any other precious minerals.
It produces vintage furniture for export when its timber resources do not come near that of Ghana. We have decided to sell our raw timber for a pittance at the expense of our ecosystem, while our governments take delight in importing furniture to furnish their offices and homes.
Ghana and other African countries will be deluding themselves in thinking that the ‘developing’ tag fits them and the emerging countries such as Turkey that are knocking hard at the doorsteps of the developed world.
Turkey imports very little vehicles because most of the major auto firms have their plants there. This has favoured their entrepreneurs to establish their own manufacturing plants. It also produces agricultural machinery, boats, electronics and light aircraft.
Turkey did not reach where it is now by chance or by accident. It took a visionary and well-focused leadership, leading the way for a committed and dedicated people who know what they want and how to get it. Sometimes it is strange that almost all the traffic lights in Accra, the national capital, do not work, and we do not feel any dent on our pride as a people. Even the one at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) intersection, which welcomes visitors, does not work for days. Can’t we adopt the solar panel system at least for our traffic lights?
Shall we call for a new political leadership which will run this country on business lines for results? Shall we tell our political leaders to stop counting their spoils of war even before they enter office? We have too much to sustain us and it is time we did away with the excuses. Ghana should not be where it is today. We must move forward, of course in the right direction.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
ISTANBUL: A CITY ON TWO CONTINENTS (JUNE 16, 2009)
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness”
Taking inspiration in these elevating words of Mark Twain, an American author, I did not hesitate when I was offered the opportunity to visit Turkey, the only country that has part of it in Europe and another in Asia.
Already, there is something in our local parlance like ‘Travel and see’. In other words, it is always good to venture out of your traditional habitat so that you experience what is happening in other places. It is likely you may learn something new and probably through interaction, impart to your hosts, something about yourself and your country.
Istanbul, which is the commercial capital of the Republic of Turkey, is a mega city by all definitions, stretching 120 kilometres in length, 50 kilometres in width and being home to over 20 million people.
It has a history dating back to ancient times and it is a melting point of different religions, histories and layers of civilisation. It has many historical places of interest such as mosques, museums, palaces and basilicas to prove that.
My interest, however, as someone coming from Ghana, a country labelled developing, was in modern Istanbul, which, for four days, hosted businessmen and women and representatives of corporate institutions from all over the world. Among them were trade and business delegations from several African countries including Malawi, Kenya, Uganda, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Namibia and Mozambique.
What struck me on arrival at the Ataturk International Airport was that Turkey may not, after all, be one of the so-called developing countries. This modern, large and busy airport complex was named after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey.
Some years ago, a group of countries in Africa, Asia and South America were placed in one country and labelled under-developed countries. Most of these countries were just emerging from colonialism or occupation and, therefore, had no stable economies or political systems. Most of these countries also belonged to the Third World, thus not part of the geopolitics of either Western Europe or the United States of America.
There were protestations from most of these countries that the term ‘under-developed’ was derogatory, hence the new term ‘developing’ which was coined for them and became the internationally accepted description for some of the poorest countries of the world.
Today, it is strange and totally misleading for some of these countries to continue to be branded as developing countries and in true fact, some are more developed and have greater prospects of developing faster than some of the so-called developed countries. It is in such group that one could find Turkey, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, India and Iran.
All sub-Saharan African countries, with the exception of Republic of South Africa, are still at the bottom and the earlier they accept the fact that their once stable mates among the developing world have left them and are now being described as emerging economies, the better it may open the eyes of their leaders to the realities of the day.
The truth is, Istanbul has become a symbol of Turkey’s phenomenal transformation over the last 20 years. The city has a vast road network of asphaltic dual carriageways, flyovers, trams, metro bus lanes and underground tubes to ferry the millions of commuters to and from their destinations.
Unlike in my country where traffic lights do not work, the vast city of Istanbul does not suffer that fate because the lights are powered by solar panels, something which was suggested here but was, in a nonchalant manner, brushed aside.
In the midst of that jungle of concrete and steel, the planners of Istanbul and most other Turkish cities have generous space for gardens to bring man and nature together. In fact, Istanbul is a blend of human ingenuity and natural landscape to give it a special beauty.
Istanbul is located strategically where Europe, Asia and Africa meet and the Strait of Bosphorus, which links the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, divides the city into two, one on the European side and the other on the Asian side. It is, therefore, the only city that occupies two continents — Asia and Europe.
This gives it an advantage as a major trading centre attracting companies and merchants from all over the world. The two sides are linked by two suspension bridges over the Bosphorus, which carry large volumes of traffic between European and Asian Istanbul.
Turkey itself has gradually become a major industrial and manufacturing country. It is the sixth largest producer of cement in the world, the ninth highest earner in tourism; it is second to China in textile production, it has a large jewellery industry and cumulatively, the 15th largest economy in the world, though the country cannot boast having one of the world’s richest gold mines.
It has a large chocolate industry but is not rated among cocoa producers on this planet. It has the second largest jewellery factory in the whole world even though it cannot boast the production of gold, diamond or any other precious minerals.
It produces vintage furniture for export when its timber resources do not come near that of Ghana. We have decided to sell our raw timber for a pittance at the expense of our ecosystem, while our governments take delight in importing furniture to furnish their offices and homes.
Ghana and other African countries will be deluding themselves in thinking that the ‘developing’ tag fits them and the emerging countries such as Turkey that are knocking hard at the doorsteps of the developed world.
Turkey imports very little vehicles because most of the major auto firms have their plants there. This has favoured their entrepreneurs to establish their own manufacturing plants. It also produces agricultural machinery, boats, electronics and light aircraft.
Turkey did not reach where it is now by chance or by accident. It took a visionary and well-focused leadership, leading the way for a committed and dedicated people who know what they want and how to get it.
Sometimes it is strange that almost all the traffic lights in Accra, the national capital, do not work, and we do not feel any dent on our pride as a people.
Even the one at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) intersection, which welcomes visitors, does not work for days. Can’t we adopt the solar panel system at least for our traffic lights?
Shall we call for a new political leadership which will run this country on business lines for results? Shall we tell our political leaders to stop counting their spoils of war even before they enter office? We have too much to sustain us and it is time we did away with the excuses. Ghana should not be where it is today. We must move forward, of course in the right direction.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Taking inspiration in these elevating words of Mark Twain, an American author, I did not hesitate when I was offered the opportunity to visit Turkey, the only country that has part of it in Europe and another in Asia.
Already, there is something in our local parlance like ‘Travel and see’. In other words, it is always good to venture out of your traditional habitat so that you experience what is happening in other places. It is likely you may learn something new and probably through interaction, impart to your hosts, something about yourself and your country.
Istanbul, which is the commercial capital of the Republic of Turkey, is a mega city by all definitions, stretching 120 kilometres in length, 50 kilometres in width and being home to over 20 million people.
It has a history dating back to ancient times and it is a melting point of different religions, histories and layers of civilisation. It has many historical places of interest such as mosques, museums, palaces and basilicas to prove that.
My interest, however, as someone coming from Ghana, a country labelled developing, was in modern Istanbul, which, for four days, hosted businessmen and women and representatives of corporate institutions from all over the world. Among them were trade and business delegations from several African countries including Malawi, Kenya, Uganda, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Namibia and Mozambique.
What struck me on arrival at the Ataturk International Airport was that Turkey may not, after all, be one of the so-called developing countries. This modern, large and busy airport complex was named after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey.
Some years ago, a group of countries in Africa, Asia and South America were placed in one country and labelled under-developed countries. Most of these countries were just emerging from colonialism or occupation and, therefore, had no stable economies or political systems. Most of these countries also belonged to the Third World, thus not part of the geopolitics of either Western Europe or the United States of America.
There were protestations from most of these countries that the term ‘under-developed’ was derogatory, hence the new term ‘developing’ which was coined for them and became the internationally accepted description for some of the poorest countries of the world.
Today, it is strange and totally misleading for some of these countries to continue to be branded as developing countries and in true fact, some are more developed and have greater prospects of developing faster than some of the so-called developed countries. It is in such group that one could find Turkey, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, India and Iran.
All sub-Saharan African countries, with the exception of Republic of South Africa, are still at the bottom and the earlier they accept the fact that their once stable mates among the developing world have left them and are now being described as emerging economies, the better it may open the eyes of their leaders to the realities of the day.
The truth is, Istanbul has become a symbol of Turkey’s phenomenal transformation over the last 20 years. The city has a vast road network of asphaltic dual carriageways, flyovers, trams, metro bus lanes and underground tubes to ferry the millions of commuters to and from their destinations.
Unlike in my country where traffic lights do not work, the vast city of Istanbul does not suffer that fate because the lights are powered by solar panels, something which was suggested here but was, in a nonchalant manner, brushed aside.
In the midst of that jungle of concrete and steel, the planners of Istanbul and most other Turkish cities have generous space for gardens to bring man and nature together. In fact, Istanbul is a blend of human ingenuity and natural landscape to give it a special beauty.
Istanbul is located strategically where Europe, Asia and Africa meet and the Strait of Bosphorus, which links the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, divides the city into two, one on the European side and the other on the Asian side. It is, therefore, the only city that occupies two continents — Asia and Europe.
This gives it an advantage as a major trading centre attracting companies and merchants from all over the world. The two sides are linked by two suspension bridges over the Bosphorus, which carry large volumes of traffic between European and Asian Istanbul.
Turkey itself has gradually become a major industrial and manufacturing country. It is the sixth largest producer of cement in the world, the ninth highest earner in tourism; it is second to China in textile production, it has a large jewellery industry and cumulatively, the 15th largest economy in the world, though the country cannot boast having one of the world’s richest gold mines.
It has a large chocolate industry but is not rated among cocoa producers on this planet. It has the second largest jewellery factory in the whole world even though it cannot boast the production of gold, diamond or any other precious minerals.
It produces vintage furniture for export when its timber resources do not come near that of Ghana. We have decided to sell our raw timber for a pittance at the expense of our ecosystem, while our governments take delight in importing furniture to furnish their offices and homes.
Ghana and other African countries will be deluding themselves in thinking that the ‘developing’ tag fits them and the emerging countries such as Turkey that are knocking hard at the doorsteps of the developed world.
Turkey imports very little vehicles because most of the major auto firms have their plants there. This has favoured their entrepreneurs to establish their own manufacturing plants. It also produces agricultural machinery, boats, electronics and light aircraft.
Turkey did not reach where it is now by chance or by accident. It took a visionary and well-focused leadership, leading the way for a committed and dedicated people who know what they want and how to get it.
Sometimes it is strange that almost all the traffic lights in Accra, the national capital, do not work, and we do not feel any dent on our pride as a people.
Even the one at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA) intersection, which welcomes visitors, does not work for days. Can’t we adopt the solar panel system at least for our traffic lights?
Shall we call for a new political leadership which will run this country on business lines for results? Shall we tell our political leaders to stop counting their spoils of war even before they enter office? We have too much to sustain us and it is time we did away with the excuses. Ghana should not be where it is today. We must move forward, of course in the right direction.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
THE PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE BOARD'S VERDICT (JUNE 9, 2009)
WHAT began as one of those political intrigues came to an end after the Parliamentary Service Board (PSB) met and came to a conclusion: That the former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Begyina Sekyi Hughes, should return all items that did not belong to him to where they belong.
It started when the former Speaker was accused of sweeping clean his official residence of everything, including curtains, rugs, cooking utensils, furniture and electrical fittings.
The former Speaker countered that he acted according to an arrangement to clear the official residence of whatever he came to meet. As would be expected, there were protestations with political undertones which tried to impute political motives instead of the serious moral and ethical issues raised.
A parliamentary select committee under the Minority Leader, Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, was tasked to do what was the logical thing – to investigate the allegations and report back to the Parliamentary Service Board. Even though parts of the report were leaked to the media earlier, it was not until Tuesday, May 25, 2009 that the PSB met to deliberate and take a decision on the report.
From what came out of the committee’s investigation and the board’s decision, the former Speaker definitely went beyond his limits. The committee came across no evidence that the former Speaker was entitled to most of the items he took away. He was, therefore, given one week from Tuesday, May 25, 2009 to return the items.
According to Mr Alban Bagbin, the Majority Leader, there was no justification for what Mr Sekyi Hughes did, because two previous Speakers – Mr Justice D.F. Annan and Mr Peter Ala Adjetey (both deceased) — did not conduct themselves in the same manner when they were leaving office. It is on record that Mr Adjetey spent his years as Speaker in his own house while Mr Justice Annan went to ‘perch’ with his wife after going on retirement.
Mr Sekyi Hughes could have avoided coming to that embarrassing end if he had been circumspect before coming to the conclusion that the items in the official residence were his for the taking. He should not have been in so much a hurry to dislodge the residence of the items. He could have sought authorisation or confirmation in black and white from the PSB before taking a decision. That could have saved everybody, including members of the Mills administration and the previous one, any unnecessary confrontations.
The position of Speaker, even though it has its political connotations, is a national one and, therefore, should not in any way be subjected to public ridicule or the person holding that position should not suffer any dishonour.
This matter could still have been handled in a more matured manner without too much public attention, but again we chose to play a political game with such a serious matter by running to the media for solace when they can offer none.
The response of Mr Sekyi Hughes to the directive of the PSB was quite strange. A day after the PSB directed the former Speaker to return all items he took away; a letter was issued by his solicitors, Zoy, Akyea & Co., addressed to the Secretary to the PSB, which said Mr Hughes was “no longer interested in the items he took away from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The letter went on; “Accordingly, for the sake of good governance, the integrity of the high office he previously occupied and in good conscience, our client states categorically that he is no longer interested in the items he took from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide.”
The former Speaker’s solicitors in their letter invited the board to “arrange for the collection of the items from his private residence in Accra, at your earliest convenience, on agreed time schedule”.
Does it mean that the former Speaker was acting on the directives of the PSB or he was surrendering what he considered to be his lawful property because the public so wish? That cannot come from a person who has shown remorse for his actions that have embarrassed many high office holders.
To avoid such incidents in future, it should be prescribed in black and white that certain categories of public office holders who are privileged to live and enjoy at the expense of the poor taxpayer do not extend their largesse beyond their tenure. Though every servant must be rewarded for his/her services, an opportunity to serve the public should not be seen as a licence to rape our national economy. Modesty and the willingness to serve are very important.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
It started when the former Speaker was accused of sweeping clean his official residence of everything, including curtains, rugs, cooking utensils, furniture and electrical fittings.
The former Speaker countered that he acted according to an arrangement to clear the official residence of whatever he came to meet. As would be expected, there were protestations with political undertones which tried to impute political motives instead of the serious moral and ethical issues raised.
A parliamentary select committee under the Minority Leader, Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, was tasked to do what was the logical thing – to investigate the allegations and report back to the Parliamentary Service Board. Even though parts of the report were leaked to the media earlier, it was not until Tuesday, May 25, 2009 that the PSB met to deliberate and take a decision on the report.
From what came out of the committee’s investigation and the board’s decision, the former Speaker definitely went beyond his limits. The committee came across no evidence that the former Speaker was entitled to most of the items he took away. He was, therefore, given one week from Tuesday, May 25, 2009 to return the items.
According to Mr Alban Bagbin, the Majority Leader, there was no justification for what Mr Sekyi Hughes did, because two previous Speakers – Mr Justice D.F. Annan and Mr Peter Ala Adjetey (both deceased) — did not conduct themselves in the same manner when they were leaving office. It is on record that Mr Adjetey spent his years as Speaker in his own house while Mr Justice Annan went to ‘perch’ with his wife after going on retirement.
Mr Sekyi Hughes could have avoided coming to that embarrassing end if he had been circumspect before coming to the conclusion that the items in the official residence were his for the taking. He should not have been in so much a hurry to dislodge the residence of the items. He could have sought authorisation or confirmation in black and white from the PSB before taking a decision. That could have saved everybody, including members of the Mills administration and the previous one, any unnecessary confrontations.
The position of Speaker, even though it has its political connotations, is a national one and, therefore, should not in any way be subjected to public ridicule or the person holding that position should not suffer any dishonour.
This matter could still have been handled in a more matured manner without too much public attention, but again we chose to play a political game with such a serious matter by running to the media for solace when they can offer none.
The response of Mr Sekyi Hughes to the directive of the PSB was quite strange. A day after the PSB directed the former Speaker to return all items he took away; a letter was issued by his solicitors, Zoy, Akyea & Co., addressed to the Secretary to the PSB, which said Mr Hughes was “no longer interested in the items he took away from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The letter went on; “Accordingly, for the sake of good governance, the integrity of the high office he previously occupied and in good conscience, our client states categorically that he is no longer interested in the items he took from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide.”
The former Speaker’s solicitors in their letter invited the board to “arrange for the collection of the items from his private residence in Accra, at your earliest convenience, on agreed time schedule”.
Does it mean that the former Speaker was acting on the directives of the PSB or he was surrendering what he considered to be his lawful property because the public so wish? That cannot come from a person who has shown remorse for his actions that have embarrassed many high office holders.
To avoid such incidents in future, it should be prescribed in black and white that certain categories of public office holders who are privileged to live and enjoy at the expense of the poor taxpayer do not extend their largesse beyond their tenure. Though every servant must be rewarded for his/her services, an opportunity to serve the public should not be seen as a licence to rape our national economy. Modesty and the willingness to serve are very important.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
A nation on another wild goose chase
By Kofi Akordor
ONE of the things the Kufuor administration did to our educational system was to introduce a reform which started and ended with changes in name and duration. The former junior secondary school (JSS) became junior high school (JHS) while the senior secondary school (SSS) became senior high school (SHS)). As part of that reform, the duration of the former SSS, now SHS was extended from three to four years.
I had earlier discussed this subject in an article published in the October 16,2007 issue of this column, with the headline : Our children or guinea pigs?, and made the argument that just changing names and extending the duration of the educational system without corresponding improvement and expansion in infrastructure, improving upon the quality of teaching and making the service conditions of teachers better will not bring about the desired results.
Today, the problem has come back to confront us, as a new national debate has started as to whether the four-year SHS should be maintained or we should go back to the three-year duration, an agenda the National Democratic Congress pledged to pursue if it should win the elections.
When new educational reforms were introduced in 1987, the argument was made that the new system will emphasise practical and employable skills to make the young graduates more useful to themselves and society even at the JSS level.The idea was to reduce the number of school drop-outs so that those who could not continue on the academic ladder could find something useful doing.
The new reforms, therefore envisaged the provision of well-equipped workshops to train pupils in skills such as masonry, carpentry, painting, plumbing, batik, tie-dye and many others. The programme, however, started on a faulty note. There were no workshops. Where there were workshops, there were no tools. Above all, there were not enough teachers for the vocational skills. Call it an old system with a new name.
The second major object of that reform was to reduce the number of years pupils spent in school from the original 17 years before one could enter a tertiary institution to 12 years. The system never considered the number of JSS graduates who will battle for admission to the SSS annually.The old system had the advantage of allowing a gradual distribution of the pupils through the Common Entrance Examination until the last batch reaches Standard Seven where they sat for the Middle School Leaving Certificate Examination (MSLCE) and continued with their education or went into apprenticeship from there.
By this time, the original number on roll might have reduced drastically to lessen any pressure on the second cycle schools.
Performance at the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) have never been encouraging and various reasons have been assigned for that, and the least that should engage our precious time is the duration of the programme. But we took the shortest route to the solution by simply changing the names of the schools and added another year to the SSS programme, and expect that will do the magic.
Another debate has started and we should expect all sorts of arguments in favour of either the three-year system or the four-year duration. One of such arguments made by the Conference of Heads of Assisted Secondary Schools (CHASS) was that the three-year system only favours the very brilliant students. That sounds quite weird, especially from people who are themselves experienced teachers. The example they gave to buttress their point was that out of the 130,000 students who wrote the West Africa Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) last year, only 20 had eight As. So in the opinion of CHASS, the three-year SHS only benefited 20 brilliant students in 2008. If this country could only produce 20 brilliant students in a whole year, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the system, and cannot be solved with an additional one year.
The National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) is fully committed to the three-year system. NAGRAT’s position is that more funds should be committed to the development and improvement of infrastructure. Unlike NAGRAT which is trying to identify the realities on the ground, CHASS which is better positioned to appreciate the decay in facilities in the public schools are only imagining things.
No educational system, no matter how well-intentioned and fashioned, can function properly if the essential ingredients in the system are not adequate. The truth is that basic facilities for our schools are lacking. Talk of decent classroom accommodation, learning materials, well-motivated and disciplined teachers, and most of the public schools do not come near the grade.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for pupils from the public schools to enter any of the prestigious second cycle schools. Naturally, students from the public schools will find it difficult to enter the tertiary institutions. Given their poor and sordid circumstance, if you give students in these schools even 10 years, they will still not be able to make the grade. That is why those parents who can afford it are sending their children to private schools, while some engage private teachers to give additional tuition to their children.
What will an additional year to do a pupil who is in a deprived school, without the full complement of teachers, and only has a tree as roof over his head.
The 12-member committee that has been constituted to revisit the matter will only add to our financial burden without bringing out anything new that will solve the problem. The budget for the so-called national forum can benefit a deprived school in a more positive way. Professor Jophus Anamuah-Mensah, the Chairman of the committee which drafted the 2001 report on the country’s educational reforms, was right when he declared that any fresh debate on the subject would be needless since his committee had already done a thorough job on the subject, and came to the conclusion that the three-year SHS should remain.
As a nation, we like committing resources to ventures that do not bring any worthy returns. Why should a high profile committee spend days, weeks and who knows, months, just to deliberate on whether the duration of a school system should be three or four years? Will that bring the classrooms our children so much need? Will that bring the much-needed textbooks? Will it transform our teachers into a core of dedicated and disciplined workers who will be committed to their profession?
Most of the people who are demanding extra years for the SHS may not be conversant with the conditions of schools in the country. A child in an empty classroom will not make any gains no matter the number of years he spends in that classroom. That same child will turn into a genius in an improved environment. That is what must engage our attention. The future of our children cannot continue to be toyed with at the whims and caprices of governments. The number of years will not count so far as the facilities are not in place.
ONE of the things the Kufuor administration did to our educational system was to introduce a reform which started and ended with changes in name and duration. The former junior secondary school (JSS) became junior high school (JHS) while the senior secondary school (SSS) became senior high school (SHS)). As part of that reform, the duration of the former SSS, now SHS was extended from three to four years.
I had earlier discussed this subject in an article published in the October 16,2007 issue of this column, with the headline : Our children or guinea pigs?, and made the argument that just changing names and extending the duration of the educational system without corresponding improvement and expansion in infrastructure, improving upon the quality of teaching and making the service conditions of teachers better will not bring about the desired results.
Today, the problem has come back to confront us, as a new national debate has started as to whether the four-year SHS should be maintained or we should go back to the three-year duration, an agenda the National Democratic Congress pledged to pursue if it should win the elections.
When new educational reforms were introduced in 1987, the argument was made that the new system will emphasise practical and employable skills to make the young graduates more useful to themselves and society even at the JSS level.The idea was to reduce the number of school drop-outs so that those who could not continue on the academic ladder could find something useful doing.
The new reforms, therefore envisaged the provision of well-equipped workshops to train pupils in skills such as masonry, carpentry, painting, plumbing, batik, tie-dye and many others. The programme, however, started on a faulty note. There were no workshops. Where there were workshops, there were no tools. Above all, there were not enough teachers for the vocational skills. Call it an old system with a new name.
The second major object of that reform was to reduce the number of years pupils spent in school from the original 17 years before one could enter a tertiary institution to 12 years. The system never considered the number of JSS graduates who will battle for admission to the SSS annually.The old system had the advantage of allowing a gradual distribution of the pupils through the Common Entrance Examination until the last batch reaches Standard Seven where they sat for the Middle School Leaving Certificate Examination (MSLCE) and continued with their education or went into apprenticeship from there.
By this time, the original number on roll might have reduced drastically to lessen any pressure on the second cycle schools.
Performance at the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) have never been encouraging and various reasons have been assigned for that, and the least that should engage our precious time is the duration of the programme. But we took the shortest route to the solution by simply changing the names of the schools and added another year to the SSS programme, and expect that will do the magic.
Another debate has started and we should expect all sorts of arguments in favour of either the three-year system or the four-year duration. One of such arguments made by the Conference of Heads of Assisted Secondary Schools (CHASS) was that the three-year system only favours the very brilliant students. That sounds quite weird, especially from people who are themselves experienced teachers. The example they gave to buttress their point was that out of the 130,000 students who wrote the West Africa Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) last year, only 20 had eight As. So in the opinion of CHASS, the three-year SHS only benefited 20 brilliant students in 2008. If this country could only produce 20 brilliant students in a whole year, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the system, and cannot be solved with an additional one year.
The National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) is fully committed to the three-year system. NAGRAT’s position is that more funds should be committed to the development and improvement of infrastructure. Unlike NAGRAT which is trying to identify the realities on the ground, CHASS which is better positioned to appreciate the decay in facilities in the public schools are only imagining things.
No educational system, no matter how well-intentioned and fashioned, can function properly if the essential ingredients in the system are not adequate. The truth is that basic facilities for our schools are lacking. Talk of decent classroom accommodation, learning materials, well-motivated and disciplined teachers, and most of the public schools do not come near the grade.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for pupils from the public schools to enter any of the prestigious second cycle schools. Naturally, students from the public schools will find it difficult to enter the tertiary institutions. Given their poor and sordid circumstance, if you give students in these schools even 10 years, they will still not be able to make the grade. That is why those parents who can afford it are sending their children to private schools, while some engage private teachers to give additional tuition to their children.
What will an additional year to do a pupil who is in a deprived school, without the full complement of teachers, and only has a tree as roof over his head.
The 12-member committee that has been constituted to revisit the matter will only add to our financial burden without bringing out anything new that will solve the problem. The budget for the so-called national forum can benefit a deprived school in a more positive way. Professor Jophus Anamuah-Mensah, the Chairman of the committee which drafted the 2001 report on the country’s educational reforms, was right when he declared that any fresh debate on the subject would be needless since his committee had already done a thorough job on the subject, and came to the conclusion that the three-year SHS should remain.
As a nation, we like committing resources to ventures that do not bring any worthy returns. Why should a high profile committee spend days, weeks and who knows, months, just to deliberate on whether the duration of a school system should be three or four years? Will that bring the classrooms our children so much need? Will that bring the much-needed textbooks? Will it transform our teachers into a core of dedicated and disciplined workers who will be committed to their profession?
Most of the people who are demanding extra years for the SHS may not be conversant with the conditions of schools in the country. A child in an empty classroom will not make any gains no matter the number of years he spends in that classroom. That same child will turn into a genius in an improved environment. That is what must engage our attention. The future of our children cannot continue to be toyed with at the whims and caprices of governments. The number of years will not count so far as the facilities are not in place.
The Parliamentary service board's verdict
By Kofi Akordor
WHAT began as one of those political intrigues came to an end after the Parliamentary Service Board (PSB) met and came to a conclusion. That it was wrong for the former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Begyina Sekyi Hughes, to return all items that did not belong to him to where they belong. It started when the former Speaker was accused of sweeping clean his official residence of everything, including curtains, rugs, cooking utensils, furniture and electrical fittings.
The former Speaker countered that he acted according to an arrangement to clear the official residence of whatever he came to meet. As would be expected, there were protestations with political undertones which tried to impute political motives instead of the serious moral and ethical issues raised.
A parliamentary select committee under the Minority Leader, Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, was tasked to do what was the logical thing – to investigate the allegations and report back to the Parliamentary Service Board. Even though parts of the report were leaked to the media earlier, it was not until Tuesday, May 25, 2009 that the PSB met to deliberate and take a decision on the report.
From what came out of the committee’s investigation and the board’s decision, the former Speaker definitely went beyond his limits. The committee came across no evidence that the former Speaker was entitled to most of the items he took away. He was, therefore, given one week from Tuesday, May 25, 2009 to return the items.
According to Mr Alban Bagbin, the Majority Leader, there was no justification for what Mr Sekyi Hughes did, because two previous Speakers – Mr Justice D.F. Annan and Mr Peter Ala Adjetey (both deceased) did not conduct themselves in the same manner when they were leaving office.It is on record that Mr Adjetey spent his years as Speaker in his own house while Mr Justice Annan went to ‘perch’ with his wife after going on retirement.
Mr Sekyi Hughes could have avoided coming to that embarrassing end if he had been circumspect before coming to the conclusion that the items in the official residence were his for the taking. He should not have been in so much a hurry to dislodge the residence of the items. He could have sought authorisation or confirmation in black and white from the PSB before taking a decision. That could have saved everybody, including members of the Mills administration and the previous one, any unnecessary confrontations.
The position of Speaker, even though it has its political connotations, is a national one and, therefore, should not in any way be subjected to public ridicule or the person holding that position should not suffer any dishonour.
This matter could still have been handled in a more matured manner without too much public attention, but again we chose to play a political game with such a serious matter by running to the media for solace when they can offer none.
The response of Mr Sekyi Hughes to the directive of the PSB was quite strange. A day after the PSB directed the former Speaker to return all items he took away; a letter was issued by his solicitors, Zoy, Akyea & Co. addressed to the Secretary to the PSB which said Mr Hughes was “no longer interested in the items he took away from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The letter went on; “Accordingly, for the sake of good governance, the integrity of the high office he previously occupied and in good conscience, our client states categorically that he is no longer interested in the items he took from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The former Speaker’s solicitors in their letter invited the board to “arrange for the collection of the items from his private residence in Accra, at your earliest convenience, on agreed time schedule”.
Does it mean that the former Speaker was acting on the directives of the PSB or he was surrendering what he considered to be his lawful property because the public so wish? That cannot come from a person who has shown remorse for his actions that have embarrassed many high office holders.
To avoid such incidents in future, it should be prescribed in black and white that certain categories of public office holders who are privileged to live and enjoy at the expense of the poor taxpayer do not extend their largesse beyond their tenure. Though every servant must be reward for his/her services, an opportunity to serve the public should not be seen as a licence to rape our national economy. Modesty and the willingness to serve are very important.
WHAT began as one of those political intrigues came to an end after the Parliamentary Service Board (PSB) met and came to a conclusion. That it was wrong for the former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Ebenezer Begyina Sekyi Hughes, to return all items that did not belong to him to where they belong. It started when the former Speaker was accused of sweeping clean his official residence of everything, including curtains, rugs, cooking utensils, furniture and electrical fittings.
The former Speaker countered that he acted according to an arrangement to clear the official residence of whatever he came to meet. As would be expected, there were protestations with political undertones which tried to impute political motives instead of the serious moral and ethical issues raised.
A parliamentary select committee under the Minority Leader, Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, was tasked to do what was the logical thing – to investigate the allegations and report back to the Parliamentary Service Board. Even though parts of the report were leaked to the media earlier, it was not until Tuesday, May 25, 2009 that the PSB met to deliberate and take a decision on the report.
From what came out of the committee’s investigation and the board’s decision, the former Speaker definitely went beyond his limits. The committee came across no evidence that the former Speaker was entitled to most of the items he took away. He was, therefore, given one week from Tuesday, May 25, 2009 to return the items.
According to Mr Alban Bagbin, the Majority Leader, there was no justification for what Mr Sekyi Hughes did, because two previous Speakers – Mr Justice D.F. Annan and Mr Peter Ala Adjetey (both deceased) did not conduct themselves in the same manner when they were leaving office.It is on record that Mr Adjetey spent his years as Speaker in his own house while Mr Justice Annan went to ‘perch’ with his wife after going on retirement.
Mr Sekyi Hughes could have avoided coming to that embarrassing end if he had been circumspect before coming to the conclusion that the items in the official residence were his for the taking. He should not have been in so much a hurry to dislodge the residence of the items. He could have sought authorisation or confirmation in black and white from the PSB before taking a decision. That could have saved everybody, including members of the Mills administration and the previous one, any unnecessary confrontations.
The position of Speaker, even though it has its political connotations, is a national one and, therefore, should not in any way be subjected to public ridicule or the person holding that position should not suffer any dishonour.
This matter could still have been handled in a more matured manner without too much public attention, but again we chose to play a political game with such a serious matter by running to the media for solace when they can offer none.
The response of Mr Sekyi Hughes to the directive of the PSB was quite strange. A day after the PSB directed the former Speaker to return all items he took away; a letter was issued by his solicitors, Zoy, Akyea & Co. addressed to the Secretary to the PSB which said Mr Hughes was “no longer interested in the items he took away from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The letter went on; “Accordingly, for the sake of good governance, the integrity of the high office he previously occupied and in good conscience, our client states categorically that he is no longer interested in the items he took from the Speaker’s official residence, bona fide”.
The former Speaker’s solicitors in their letter invited the board to “arrange for the collection of the items from his private residence in Accra, at your earliest convenience, on agreed time schedule”.
Does it mean that the former Speaker was acting on the directives of the PSB or he was surrendering what he considered to be his lawful property because the public so wish? That cannot come from a person who has shown remorse for his actions that have embarrassed many high office holders.
To avoid such incidents in future, it should be prescribed in black and white that certain categories of public office holders who are privileged to live and enjoy at the expense of the poor taxpayer do not extend their largesse beyond their tenure. Though every servant must be reward for his/her services, an opportunity to serve the public should not be seen as a licence to rape our national economy. Modesty and the willingness to serve are very important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)