AUTHOR'S NOTE: THIS ARTICEL WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NATION ON SUNDAY
In a bid to be abreast of the times in this era of a very fast growing rate in science and technology, most service providers, ranging from mobile phone network providers to banks and other money institutions, always have new ideas to maximize the effectiveness of their services.
With mobile phone operators, they do everything possible to make sure they provide services which will be deemed to be the best by their subscribers. This appears to be the best marketing strategy.
One service provider that does not want to lag behind in terms of service delivery is the Malawi Posts Corporation (MPC). Considering that money sent through the telegram system takes a bit long to reach the recipient, MPC introduced one of the fastest ways of sending and receiving money branded FastCash Money Transfer.
The whole procedure can only take five minutes and the recipient will be brandishing the hard cash afterwards. The demands of the process are not very involving. In fact the one sending you the money can just tell you to go and collect the money the moment he finishes processing sending procedures.
With no strings attached, the process is a very convenient way of sending and receiving money. But much as the system is very convenient, it sometimes plays tricks with the recipients. This is largely due to the system itself and then the issue of power blackouts.
Sometimes you may go to the Post Office with the aim of receiving the money that has been sent to you only to be told that the information that you have been given is not correct.
For instance, the Postmaster will tell you that the ID number that you have been given does not match with any number on the computers. You insist that the sender of the money repeated the number several times to make sure you did not copy the wrong number and the postmaster – to help you? – advises you to come probably an hour later.
Yet you are supposed to use the money just now. So what is the essence of FastCash Money Transfer if one can not retrieve his money as soon as possible?
This is what happened to a certain colleague of mine. He was supposed to use the money for transport to a certain place where he had been invited for an interview but he could not get his money instantly.
The following day the young man went to the Post Office again to collect his monies but he was told that there was a power blackout and that the computers which contained all the information could hardly operate because there was no standby generator.
One wonders why MPC decided to introduce this ‘fast’ way of transferring money even in Post Offices where they have no alternatives in terms of power.
If MPC knew that the operation would be useless in cases of power blackouts, they should have mounted standby generators which would come into use in cases of blackouts.
It goes without saying that before a company introduces a service system, it first of all considers all the shortfalls of the system. I wonder whether MPC looked at the demerits of this system of transferring money in Post Offices that do not have standby generators.
It also appears that the implementation of the system has not been maximized because of the fact that computers sometimes fail to recognize certain information at first and then recognize the same information later..
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
On Minubis Seating Capacity
When early last year government made a directive that all minibuses operating on the roads of Malawi should start carrying a maximum of three passengers per seat, smiles flitted across the faces of many Malawians who commute to and from different places using public transport.
On the other hand, it was a directive that aroused so much apprehension within the transport industry up to reaching a point where minibus operators decided to pack their vehicles in their garages and refused to take them to the roads for a week or so.
Government was mostly concerned about the peril that the lives of Malawians using public transport, minibuses in this case, were exposed to. With four passengers occupying one seat, road accidents were a dime a dozen and they were difficult to control, usually because the vehicles were overloaded. In simple terms, it is very difficult for a driver to swerve back into the road an overloaded vehicle that has deviated from the road than a ‘lightly-packed’ one.
In another instance, if passengers are packed like sardines, almost with no breathing space, chances of survival in an accident are very minimal. This is because they are already under panic and any mishap is likely to cause more havoc as they will be scrambling for space through which they can escape.
Government put all these dangers under a microscope and finally ordered that passengers’ lives should no longer be put in danger without cause. And the decree has had practical positive results since it was implemented.
But now the journey to the much-abhorred past is almost complete: minibus operators have reverted to the old system of carrying four passengers per seat, and like before February last year, the victim remains the poor Malawian who cannot afford to acquire a personal vehicle, and subsequently turns to public transport.
And the paradox of the whole thing is that this usually happens in the presence of traffic police officers. No wonder they have recently been declared the most corrupt entity of government.
All the conductor or the drive of the minibus that is carrying four passengers per seat has to do at a traffic police check-point is palm-grease the officer/s and the trip continues without much as hard work. This is done at the expense of the lives of passengers who are usually gagged by the conduct of the law enforcers since the conductor or the driver will not hear the passengers’ pleas because he has already dealt with the “biggest impediment”.
Sad to not also is the fact that while carrying four passengers per seat, instead of three, some minibus drivers over-speed as though they are carrying bales of clothes.
The avaricious desire to make more money in the “four-seat” lucrative minibus-transport business becomes the prevailing passion such that they instantly begin to yearn for another trip the moment the minibus starts off.
Although the fear for one’s life is the dominant image when it comes to minibus seating capacity, comfort too needs to be at the centre of consideration. It is very disheartening for a passenger to travel a journey of more than 100 kilometers on a worn-out minibus that is not even fit to be on the road.
Yet this is the very same minibus whose driver and conductor demand that three passengers per seat are not enough, but four. The passenger has no flicker of comfort and the whole journey becomes a burden on them.
Well, one might argue that on the part of worn-out, unfit minibuses, every passenger has the right which minibus to board. But the problem comes when one is in a hurry and wants to meet a deadline and they find that the next minibus to leave the terminal is the worn-out one. Do they have any choice in this case other than to jump onto the unfit vehicle? This is because minibus operators have their own special arrangement on which minibus is supposed to leave next.
But perhaps the blame has to be shifted onto the Road Traffic Directorate for issuing Certificates of Fitness (Cof) to vehicles that are not worth to operate on the roads of Malawi.
All in all, it is a clear fact that the prohibited seating plan in back in town. Minibus operators have reverted to the old system of carrying four passengers per seat despite government having abolished it last year, and traffic police officers are within the whole system and lack professionalism.
Of course, it should not be generalized here because there are others who are very competent and have no craving for bribes of whatever sort. Such officers need a pat on their backs.
But still more, reverting to the abolished system of carrying four passengers per seat in minibuses should not have been the case now. We were supposed to be moving forward in all aspects, not backtracking.
There are many issues that government needs to tackle now and the issue of minibuses carrying four passengers per seat should have been a dead letter now, but since it has resurfaced, government should have no option than to revisit it before it expands out of reach. Government needs to act quickly; the journey to the past is here again!
On the other hand, it was a directive that aroused so much apprehension within the transport industry up to reaching a point where minibus operators decided to pack their vehicles in their garages and refused to take them to the roads for a week or so.
Government was mostly concerned about the peril that the lives of Malawians using public transport, minibuses in this case, were exposed to. With four passengers occupying one seat, road accidents were a dime a dozen and they were difficult to control, usually because the vehicles were overloaded. In simple terms, it is very difficult for a driver to swerve back into the road an overloaded vehicle that has deviated from the road than a ‘lightly-packed’ one.
In another instance, if passengers are packed like sardines, almost with no breathing space, chances of survival in an accident are very minimal. This is because they are already under panic and any mishap is likely to cause more havoc as they will be scrambling for space through which they can escape.
Government put all these dangers under a microscope and finally ordered that passengers’ lives should no longer be put in danger without cause. And the decree has had practical positive results since it was implemented.
But now the journey to the much-abhorred past is almost complete: minibus operators have reverted to the old system of carrying four passengers per seat, and like before February last year, the victim remains the poor Malawian who cannot afford to acquire a personal vehicle, and subsequently turns to public transport.
And the paradox of the whole thing is that this usually happens in the presence of traffic police officers. No wonder they have recently been declared the most corrupt entity of government.
All the conductor or the drive of the minibus that is carrying four passengers per seat has to do at a traffic police check-point is palm-grease the officer/s and the trip continues without much as hard work. This is done at the expense of the lives of passengers who are usually gagged by the conduct of the law enforcers since the conductor or the driver will not hear the passengers’ pleas because he has already dealt with the “biggest impediment”.
Sad to not also is the fact that while carrying four passengers per seat, instead of three, some minibus drivers over-speed as though they are carrying bales of clothes.
The avaricious desire to make more money in the “four-seat” lucrative minibus-transport business becomes the prevailing passion such that they instantly begin to yearn for another trip the moment the minibus starts off.
Although the fear for one’s life is the dominant image when it comes to minibus seating capacity, comfort too needs to be at the centre of consideration. It is very disheartening for a passenger to travel a journey of more than 100 kilometers on a worn-out minibus that is not even fit to be on the road.
Yet this is the very same minibus whose driver and conductor demand that three passengers per seat are not enough, but four. The passenger has no flicker of comfort and the whole journey becomes a burden on them.
Well, one might argue that on the part of worn-out, unfit minibuses, every passenger has the right which minibus to board. But the problem comes when one is in a hurry and wants to meet a deadline and they find that the next minibus to leave the terminal is the worn-out one. Do they have any choice in this case other than to jump onto the unfit vehicle? This is because minibus operators have their own special arrangement on which minibus is supposed to leave next.
But perhaps the blame has to be shifted onto the Road Traffic Directorate for issuing Certificates of Fitness (Cof) to vehicles that are not worth to operate on the roads of Malawi.
All in all, it is a clear fact that the prohibited seating plan in back in town. Minibus operators have reverted to the old system of carrying four passengers per seat despite government having abolished it last year, and traffic police officers are within the whole system and lack professionalism.
Of course, it should not be generalized here because there are others who are very competent and have no craving for bribes of whatever sort. Such officers need a pat on their backs.
But still more, reverting to the abolished system of carrying four passengers per seat in minibuses should not have been the case now. We were supposed to be moving forward in all aspects, not backtracking.
There are many issues that government needs to tackle now and the issue of minibuses carrying four passengers per seat should have been a dead letter now, but since it has resurfaced, government should have no option than to revisit it before it expands out of reach. Government needs to act quickly; the journey to the past is here again!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
More Should be Done on Foreign Exploiters
Minister of Labour Yunus Mussa’s warning to foreign investors who are exploiting indigenous workers should obviously have promised some light at the end of the tunnel for the indigenous workers, and above all, most if not all Malawians who are aware of the kind of exploitation that local Malawians undergo at the hands of the foreign investors.
His observation that some foreigners who are issued with Trade and Temporary Employment Permits (TEPs) come into the country as investors, only to up end being traders, is also timely.
But this is just the inception of a long and big task and the real fact hinges on what step the ministry is going to take next, now that the observations have been made.
In Malawi, we have been very much used to mere rhetorical speeches by the authorities and the trend has become a moral axiom, such that even if the speeches seldom translate into fruition, everything appears to be taken as normal. Threats are issued, memorandums of understanding signed, yet afterwards, no tangible change is seen on the ground.
It is an inevitable fact that President Bingu wa Mutharika’s first and primary priority is to steer this country out of the jaws of poverty to prosperity. He has repeated this now and then and in his capacity as the leader of this country, he has put into place calculated measures that will help him realize his dream; a dream that is supposed to be shared by all Malawians.
Any country’s success stems from the fact that its citizens are living comfortable lives so that they help in the development of their country as a whole. The citizens also need to live lives that are free from disease.
The president has always made certain that Malawians are not exploited by anyone in whatever way, yet from facts, this appears to be mere rhetorical speech which but appears to be taken seriously by some authorities as envisaged from what Mussa has done.
Mutharika has not hesitated to chase away cash crop buyers who want to exploit poor farmers who work tirelessly on their fields just to earn some little bucks. The president’s desire has always been that farmers and, of course, all Malawians in different occupations should reap what they deserve instead of some fellows capitalizing on something that they never toiled for.
It is clear that Malawi is one country whose bilateral connections with other countries are so strong that foreigners can easily enter into the country and start operating any kind of business they desire.
However, this is not the case in most African countries, where most of them have defined businesses that may be done by foreigners while some other businesses are reserved for the natives.
For example, in Ghana, foreigners are not allowed to operate small-scale businesses at the expense of locals. But this is so prevalent in Malawi such that locals succumb to the pressure and finally give up. Hence, they fail to develop their lives in their own country.
Foreigners have reached the point of even operating small businesses like restaurants and small retail shops whose capital cannot even exceed K50, 000. This is so sad! I must be understood here; I do not intend to mean that foreigners should not be allowed to operate businesses in Malawi.
All I mean is that they should perhaps deal in big businesses which will bring forex into the country; for what does the nation benefit from foreign traders operating restaurants in the suburban areas of our country?
These are businesses that are supposed to be operated by locals, but when these foreigners come onto the scene, they tramp over the locals to such an extent that the locals fail to cope with the pressure and finally just give up.
For the improvement of their lives, native Malawians need to be given the first priority as far as the welfare of their lives is concerned. Lives of Malawians cannot improve if they are not allowed to have a chance of operating small-scale businesses in their own country.
After all, government has always been committed to giving locals loans under the Malawi Rural Development Fund (Mardef) so that local Malawians should engage in small-scale businesses for the betterment of their lives. The natives fail to prosper in the small-scale businesses because they compete against foreigners who import cheaper goods from their home countries.
It is not my aim to precipitate hatred between Malawians and foreigners, but rather to truly assess a very crucial, yet delicate issue, that is neglected by many. Many people, including government, know what local Malawians in small-scale businesses go through, but they deliberately ignore everything, while they have the power to act.
Let us face facts here: what should Malawians trade in if the small-scale businesses are being done by foreigners? One would expect the foreigners only to trade in big businesses like wholesale shops, manufacturing industries and to be contractors, just to mention a few.
Government can do something about the increasing number of foreigners operating small businesses in this country because this is exploitation just wearing a new face. The fight against poverty cannot be successful unless native Malawians who should develop this country have a chance of operating small-scale businesses.
This is an issue that needs to be confronted and examined with a sober mind; otherwise, we will wake to a rude awakening one day to find that no Malawians can be found operating any kind of business in their own country.
His observation that some foreigners who are issued with Trade and Temporary Employment Permits (TEPs) come into the country as investors, only to up end being traders, is also timely.
But this is just the inception of a long and big task and the real fact hinges on what step the ministry is going to take next, now that the observations have been made.
In Malawi, we have been very much used to mere rhetorical speeches by the authorities and the trend has become a moral axiom, such that even if the speeches seldom translate into fruition, everything appears to be taken as normal. Threats are issued, memorandums of understanding signed, yet afterwards, no tangible change is seen on the ground.
It is an inevitable fact that President Bingu wa Mutharika’s first and primary priority is to steer this country out of the jaws of poverty to prosperity. He has repeated this now and then and in his capacity as the leader of this country, he has put into place calculated measures that will help him realize his dream; a dream that is supposed to be shared by all Malawians.
Any country’s success stems from the fact that its citizens are living comfortable lives so that they help in the development of their country as a whole. The citizens also need to live lives that are free from disease.
The president has always made certain that Malawians are not exploited by anyone in whatever way, yet from facts, this appears to be mere rhetorical speech which but appears to be taken seriously by some authorities as envisaged from what Mussa has done.
Mutharika has not hesitated to chase away cash crop buyers who want to exploit poor farmers who work tirelessly on their fields just to earn some little bucks. The president’s desire has always been that farmers and, of course, all Malawians in different occupations should reap what they deserve instead of some fellows capitalizing on something that they never toiled for.
It is clear that Malawi is one country whose bilateral connections with other countries are so strong that foreigners can easily enter into the country and start operating any kind of business they desire.
However, this is not the case in most African countries, where most of them have defined businesses that may be done by foreigners while some other businesses are reserved for the natives.
For example, in Ghana, foreigners are not allowed to operate small-scale businesses at the expense of locals. But this is so prevalent in Malawi such that locals succumb to the pressure and finally give up. Hence, they fail to develop their lives in their own country.
Foreigners have reached the point of even operating small businesses like restaurants and small retail shops whose capital cannot even exceed K50, 000. This is so sad! I must be understood here; I do not intend to mean that foreigners should not be allowed to operate businesses in Malawi.
All I mean is that they should perhaps deal in big businesses which will bring forex into the country; for what does the nation benefit from foreign traders operating restaurants in the suburban areas of our country?
These are businesses that are supposed to be operated by locals, but when these foreigners come onto the scene, they tramp over the locals to such an extent that the locals fail to cope with the pressure and finally just give up.
For the improvement of their lives, native Malawians need to be given the first priority as far as the welfare of their lives is concerned. Lives of Malawians cannot improve if they are not allowed to have a chance of operating small-scale businesses in their own country.
After all, government has always been committed to giving locals loans under the Malawi Rural Development Fund (Mardef) so that local Malawians should engage in small-scale businesses for the betterment of their lives. The natives fail to prosper in the small-scale businesses because they compete against foreigners who import cheaper goods from their home countries.
It is not my aim to precipitate hatred between Malawians and foreigners, but rather to truly assess a very crucial, yet delicate issue, that is neglected by many. Many people, including government, know what local Malawians in small-scale businesses go through, but they deliberately ignore everything, while they have the power to act.
Let us face facts here: what should Malawians trade in if the small-scale businesses are being done by foreigners? One would expect the foreigners only to trade in big businesses like wholesale shops, manufacturing industries and to be contractors, just to mention a few.
Government can do something about the increasing number of foreigners operating small businesses in this country because this is exploitation just wearing a new face. The fight against poverty cannot be successful unless native Malawians who should develop this country have a chance of operating small-scale businesses.
This is an issue that needs to be confronted and examined with a sober mind; otherwise, we will wake to a rude awakening one day to find that no Malawians can be found operating any kind of business in their own country.
Clear the Subsidy Mess
Although the farm input subsidy coupons have already started being distributed, it seems there are still some anomalies in the programme. Up to now, to a certain extent, the programme appears to have brought so many divisions, doubts and complications among Malawians.
Since the good gesture came onto the scene, it has been rocked with corruption and mismanagement subsequently ending up benefiting the wrong people while those for whom it was meant cry foul. Of course, it is likely that every new system that is being introduced may involve some anomalies, but these anomalies are supposed to be a stepping-stone for the betterment of the system.
Hence, it is not normal to observe that four years or so after the subsidy programme was introduced, complaints from different quarters continue coming out as regards management of the system.
At one point, the clergy in Blantyre were given coupons which they were supposed to distribute to their faithful. Obviously, this should not be one of the objectives of the programme. It is clear that there are rules that govern the programme and no one would expect to find a rule that stipulates that the faithful are supposed to benefit from the programme.
If it is there, then it is totally misplaced! The whole thing appeared to be just a political move aimed at wooing the support of the faithful since that was prior to the last general elections. Otherwise, there is no other argument that can justify such an action.
But was whoever gave the clergy the coupons double-sure that they would be duly distributed to the faithful? The only problem in Malawi is that everything that is being done by, about or for politicians becomes political even if it was not naturally political at the onset.
That is why politics sometimes dominates events that have nothing to do with the same. Religious activities are politicized; funeral ceremonies are politicized; development programmes are politicized; everything in Malawi falls under politics.
Last year Bob Khamisa was accused of giving coupons to UDF’s Phillip Bwanali and the former minister was stripped of his position after the scandal was uncovered. But what would happen if the truth about Khamisa’s action remained underlying? Obviously it would be as though nothing happened at all!
And it should be the case that Khamisa was not the only one who was involved in that kind of scam. In fact it was revealed that cabinet ministers had been given a certain number of coupons which they were at liberty to give to whoever they desired.
It is obvious that those cabinet ministers who had estates used the coupons to buy subsidized farm inputs (which were meant for the poor) for their cash crops while the needy Malawian somewhere continued basking in the agony of poverty precipitated by hunger.
This should really be pathetic! Such is the irony of the farm input subsidy programme. Sometimes the richest has access to the same while the poorest continues crying foul.
Another big problem which has rocked the farm input subsidy programme is that of ghost villagers. It has been observed several times that village headmen include on the list of beneficiaries names of villagers who are non-existent, with the aim of embezzling farm input subsidy coupons which they would sell afterwards.
This is a very serious problem because it is theft by all means and must be dealt with as such. It is significant that everyone including traditional leaders and politicians and the clergy know who is supposed to benefit from the subsidized farm inputs.
If what government said at the very onset of the programme is anything to go by, the poor people are the ones who are supposed to benefit from the programme, (not politicians, village headmen or the clergy).
There are many other anomalies in the programme which cannot be exhausted. Somewhere some needy Malawians who were supposed to benefit from government’s subsidized farm inputs failed to do so because the inputs had run out at selling depots while the coupons were still with the beneficiaries who but never benefited.
This automatically begs the question of where the farm inputs, especially fertilizer, had gone when the quantity sold was supposed to be proportional to the number of coupons produced.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon government to clear the mess that is rocking the programme. It will smack of negligence and laxity on the part of government when Malawians see that the mess that was there when the subsidy programme was just being introduced is still there up to now, especially considering that President Bingu wa Mutharika admitted that the mess is indeed there.
Since the good gesture came onto the scene, it has been rocked with corruption and mismanagement subsequently ending up benefiting the wrong people while those for whom it was meant cry foul. Of course, it is likely that every new system that is being introduced may involve some anomalies, but these anomalies are supposed to be a stepping-stone for the betterment of the system.
Hence, it is not normal to observe that four years or so after the subsidy programme was introduced, complaints from different quarters continue coming out as regards management of the system.
At one point, the clergy in Blantyre were given coupons which they were supposed to distribute to their faithful. Obviously, this should not be one of the objectives of the programme. It is clear that there are rules that govern the programme and no one would expect to find a rule that stipulates that the faithful are supposed to benefit from the programme.
If it is there, then it is totally misplaced! The whole thing appeared to be just a political move aimed at wooing the support of the faithful since that was prior to the last general elections. Otherwise, there is no other argument that can justify such an action.
But was whoever gave the clergy the coupons double-sure that they would be duly distributed to the faithful? The only problem in Malawi is that everything that is being done by, about or for politicians becomes political even if it was not naturally political at the onset.
That is why politics sometimes dominates events that have nothing to do with the same. Religious activities are politicized; funeral ceremonies are politicized; development programmes are politicized; everything in Malawi falls under politics.
Last year Bob Khamisa was accused of giving coupons to UDF’s Phillip Bwanali and the former minister was stripped of his position after the scandal was uncovered. But what would happen if the truth about Khamisa’s action remained underlying? Obviously it would be as though nothing happened at all!
And it should be the case that Khamisa was not the only one who was involved in that kind of scam. In fact it was revealed that cabinet ministers had been given a certain number of coupons which they were at liberty to give to whoever they desired.
It is obvious that those cabinet ministers who had estates used the coupons to buy subsidized farm inputs (which were meant for the poor) for their cash crops while the needy Malawian somewhere continued basking in the agony of poverty precipitated by hunger.
This should really be pathetic! Such is the irony of the farm input subsidy programme. Sometimes the richest has access to the same while the poorest continues crying foul.
Another big problem which has rocked the farm input subsidy programme is that of ghost villagers. It has been observed several times that village headmen include on the list of beneficiaries names of villagers who are non-existent, with the aim of embezzling farm input subsidy coupons which they would sell afterwards.
This is a very serious problem because it is theft by all means and must be dealt with as such. It is significant that everyone including traditional leaders and politicians and the clergy know who is supposed to benefit from the subsidized farm inputs.
If what government said at the very onset of the programme is anything to go by, the poor people are the ones who are supposed to benefit from the programme, (not politicians, village headmen or the clergy).
There are many other anomalies in the programme which cannot be exhausted. Somewhere some needy Malawians who were supposed to benefit from government’s subsidized farm inputs failed to do so because the inputs had run out at selling depots while the coupons were still with the beneficiaries who but never benefited.
This automatically begs the question of where the farm inputs, especially fertilizer, had gone when the quantity sold was supposed to be proportional to the number of coupons produced.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon government to clear the mess that is rocking the programme. It will smack of negligence and laxity on the part of government when Malawians see that the mess that was there when the subsidy programme was just being introduced is still there up to now, especially considering that President Bingu wa Mutharika admitted that the mess is indeed there.
Debate: Was DPP Right to Fire Mkandawire?
No, the decision was ill-timed
BY ANANIYA ALICK PONJE
News that ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Director of Political Affairs Harry Mkandawire’s had been fired from the party must not have come as any new to many Malawians who were keenly observing the path on which he was treading. And his subsequent decision to form a pressure group christened Northern Region Fora must not have come as a surprise to most people, including the party itself.
This should be the case because, out of the blue, Mkandawire got the courage to challenge his boss, President Bingu wa Mutharika on ‘some of Mutharika’s decisions on quota system, local government elections, Muhlako wa Ahlomwe, public appointments and separation of powers’.
It must be the case that Mkandawire quite well knew that his ‘scathing’ remarks would not go down well with the president and he must have already known all possible repercussions that would fall on him in the wake of his challenge. Of course, one might argue that there is no need to bring the president in as far as the issue of firing Mkandawire is concerned; but the fact of the matter remains that those who presided over Mkandawire’s hearing could not have done anything apart from that which would please the head of state.
On the other hand, soon after the disciplinary hearing where Mkandawire was the centre of attention, it was reported that top DPP officials who were there during the hearing said that whatever had transpired there was an internal matter, (not meant for public consumption).
I should believe that if such was the case, and since Mkandawire himself as well confirmed that what had transpired during the disciplinary hearing was an intra-party matter, then Mkandawire was not fired during the hearing. He was fired later, and there should have been someone who precipitated the decision. In this case, the president cannot be ruled out.
One thing that looms large is that Mkandawire must have intentions to ‘break away’ from the party long ago but only waited for an opportune time to arise. In other words, he was waiting for a scapegoat and truly it came in the name of ‘Mutharika’s blunders’ which have been condemned by many. It may be right to suggest that his pressure group was never formed recently; rather it must have been there even before his ‘scathing’ letter to the president and it only come out ‘formally’ now.
There is something peculiar about Mkandawire: since President Mutharika ascended onto the throne of power, no party member has come in the open to criticize his (Mutharika’s) decisions even where it was clear that some members had misgivings.
If at all some party officials wanted to attack the president, they would only do so ‘in hiding’ while “speaking on strict condition of anonymity”. The issue of ‘succession blues’ in the ruling party is a perfect example. Many top party officials are essentially not happy with how it is being handled, especially now that the party should be strategizing on who should be its torchbearer some 2014, but on-one has come in the open to express their concerns.
But Mkandawire defied all odds and took the president to task. He failed to play bootlicking politics; it was against his conscience to do so and he had to do all it would take to clear his conscience. Now the rest is history: he is no longer part of the ruling party, for he fell out with the president despite what he, himself, called ‘constructive criticism’.
Now, people are asking: was the ruling party right to fire Mkandawire? And the extension of the question would be: was the ruling party right to fire Mkandawire because of his ‘constructive criticism?’ So far, some people have analyzed the Mkandawire saga and have found that DPP’s decision to get rid of Mkandawire from the party is the best any party would take on a ‘rebel’ like Mkandawire.
Others believe that the party has made the worst mistake ever and that the decision itself is entirely ill-timed. It is my desire to join the bandwagon of those that feel DPP’s decision to fire Mkandawire was ill-timed and of course, the worst mistake the party has ever made. The party has made many blunders before, but this one is standing out, especially this time when it (seems) to be sailing in troubled waters.
It is clear that there are numerous cracks in the party and Mkandawire’s case is just a tip of the iceberg. The first pointer of cracks in the ruling party began to show when Mutharika condemned his cabinet ministers for ‘failing to concentrate on development projects, but only positioning themselves for the party’s presidency for 2014’. The president’s remarks never came out of a vacuum.
There was tension within the party as Raphael Tenthani pointed out in his article titled ‘Succession blues’. Instead of ministers concentrating on development projects, they were busy eyeing Bingu’s seat. That is why the ruling party should have been concentrating on ‘rebuilding’ itself instead of firing its members for positive criticism.
In fact, a strong message has been sent from the centre: there is no democracy in the party and it lacks tolerance because these two aspects entail the accommodation of dissenting views.
In any democratic dispensation, there is need for tolerance and accommodating dissenting views. Hence the ruling party’s decision to fire Mkandawire is a double blow to its future.
I believe that Mkandawire has massive support from whoever is concerned (what more with the many adverts about his Northern Region Fora that appear in the papers) and this means that by firing him from the DPP, the party has alienated itself from all Mkandawire’s supporters and this should be very dangerous this time than never before.
His pressure group does not comprise himself alone; there are many others involved. If the party retained Mkandawire, it would win the ‘sympathy’ of other members of the group. But now, following the firing of the group’s torchbearer, his group is very likely to mount more pressure on Mutharika’s government than if Mkandawire remained in the party.
In fact without the firing of Mkandawire, the group might have been left underlying but now it has come out and obviously it is going to receive massive support from all those who are against Mutharika’s policies, at least for now. Of course, the possibility that Mkandawire is being financed by some individuals or stakeholders that are not happy with Mutharika’s way of governance, cannot be entirely ruled out.
Above everything, the ruling party should now be strategizing on what to do to ‘rebuild’ itself as now it is clear that there are divisions within it. It should have come out and do a number of things that would assure Malawians that the party is really democratic; like by accommodating dissenting views of its members, like those raised by Harry Mkandawire.
It should not have fired him now that the party appears to be treading on a bumpy road. Perhaps Bingu no longer cares about the future of his party now that he is quite aware that he is in the last phase of his stay at the palace. Maybe he feels that this is the best time he can wield his powers to the utmost because it may not be necessary for ‘the works of his hands’ to speak for him.
If this is His Excellency’s line of thinking, then he is making a big mistake. The legacy of his party is his own legacy and its failure will be attributed to him just as the MCP’s and the UDF’s failures are being attributed to their presidents. This is why I believe the president can do something about the mistake his party made by firing Mkandawire.
Mutharika will be judged by what he has destroyed; and not what he built. And should his party fail in the 2014 elections because of problems like the firing of Mkandawire, Mutharika will be haunted till his last breath.
Yes, he exceeded limits
By Hardson Chamasowa
When the media broke the news that ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Director of Political Affairs Harry Mkandawire had written a very critical letter to president Bingu wa Mutharika in which he accused the Malawi leader of a number of things, many Malawians were waiting with bated breaths for what would befall Mkandawire.
It became obvious to many that such a letter would not fail to incur the displeasure of the party, at large, and the president, himself. It was a letter which some argue was filled with the blinding truth while others feel it lacked honorific aspects and was a very upsetting kind of open defiance to the head of state.
In fact, DPP’s Publicity Secretary Hetherwick Ntaba was quoted as saying that “Mkandawire went too far; he exceeded the limits.” Above all, it is DPP’s decision to fire Mkandawire that has aroused the attention of some critics from different corners of this country. People doubt the presence of democracy in the party and argue that it does not give room for criticism for it considers any opposing view as rebellion.
In a situation like that of Mkandawire, people need to sideline the preconceived ideas they have about the ruling party and allow reason to govern every critique. Malawi attained multiparty democracy as one way of liberating itself from the chains of oppression which found ground in the autocratic rule of one party leadership.
The consolidation of multiparty democracy gave birth to various human rights encompassing with it many other distinguished classes of freedoms of which one is the freedom of expression. This freedom implies that every citizen of this nation is entitled to his or her opinion. The problem rotating in different personalities is that they fail to realize the limitations to the rights they proudly posses.
Every agent of human rights is required to first ask himself if he is entitled to a particular right before reacting to it. If the agent is entitled to the right, they should then find out the extent to which they are to exercise their right and finally acknowledge that they are not violating somebody’s right when they are exercising their right.
I bet Mkandawire found it unnecessary to abide by the limitations of his human rights when he enjoyed his freedom of expression on October 17. He put pen to paper and experienced the art of weaving words into long loops that criticized Mutharika’s involvement in the Mulhako wa Alhomwe; his stand on quota system which Mkandawire thought (or still thinks) has the potential to divide the country; failure to hold local government elections; abuse of the rule of law; suspicious public appointments and the separation of powers.
Many can hail Mkandawire for pointing out that the President is flouting the constitution for ruling without councilors and functioning assemblies. He may as well be applauded for suggesting that the President is masterminding tribalism and for his opinion that the President also seems to favour the Shire Highlands region in his appointments but it is the channel through which he decided to express himself that has outdone all the points which he raised.
His courage to confront the President and address his weaknesses is a welcome development in a democratic government like ours as it is one way of sustaining our democracy which cost blood of innumerable innocent people.
However, he did not follow the right protocol. He was the director of the party’s political affairs and if he really had passion of controlling the image of the party he would summon the president to the party’s executive committee.
The fact that Bingu is the head of the party means that all allegations against him are automatically the party’s internal issues. By turning such issues into public consumption, it is right to point out that Mkandawire’s aim was to damage the image of the party and the president and at the same time registering as a mere spy and not a true member of the party. That is why it is my view that Mkandawire deserved dismissal.
We can not blame DPP for expelling him out of the party because every party has its rules and regulations and any breach of any rule entices a punishment depending on the nature of the offence. It is obvious that Mkandawire offended the party’s provisions.
And it pleased the authorities to fire him; and so they did! His reaction had the potential of influencing divisions in the party and therefore uncalled for. The expulsion can well be described as a democratic action and a true reflection of DPP as a democratic party since Mkandawire was kicked out of the party for the reason that he abused his democratic freedom of expression by exercising his rights without drawing boundaries.
What Mkandawire did is what is known as open defiance. It is not wrong to criticize the failures of a leader especially in a democratic country like ours but Mkandawire’s approach appears to have intended purposes.
The news of his expulsion from the party closely followed (or preceded) his announcement that he had founded a pressure group called Northern Region Fora. This development did not come in good faith; it only signifies that all along Mkandawire had that in mind. When his letter got leaked by the media, reports have it that he did not show any sign of shock, simply showing that it was a planned escapade.
Reasoning from his background, Mkandawire wanted to bring confusion among the members of the party which would entice internal rebellion which would entail the party’s downfall in the 2014 elections.
His colleagues have been grilling his motive behind operating outside the party, ignoring procedures to be used when presenting grievances or opposing views. The extreme mischief of the former DPP official is found in Mzimba West constituency where its residents got shocked at his reaction to a loss of seat in the 2009 parliamentary elections.
Mkandawire repossessed vehicle tyres he had given to a chief during the campaign season. Referring to this undesirable background, it can not be illogical to conclude that Mkandawire did not have passion for the party, because of what the loss that he experienced in the 19 May elections.
Forming a pressure group is not that bad when the genesis of the idea has cream grounds. After all, the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Alliance for Democracy (AFORD) began as pressure groups and transformed into strong political parties because they were formed on sound grounds whose common aim was to dismantle power from Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda. Similarly, Mkandawire’s pressure group would otherwise be recommended if it was not a product of inconvenience.
There are enough reasons to prove that the existence of his Northern Region Fora is an instrument to use in opposing the policies of the DPP and the party officials must have been brave enough to nip him in the bud. His conduct has proven he is not a right member to keep in the DPP as he was always busy damaging the image of the party and searched for various means of seeking political sympathy from the people of this nation.
Thus, I maintain my stand on the matter, that DPP’s decision to sack Mkandawire is the best every party that is concerned about its future would take on any member who rebels against it.
That was the only remedy for Mkandawire and nothing would have worked better than getting rid of him. He showed that he was not a genuine member of the party and such a person had to be treated as such. Simply put, he had to be shown the exit door, whatever the case.
BY ANANIYA ALICK PONJE
News that ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Director of Political Affairs Harry Mkandawire’s had been fired from the party must not have come as any new to many Malawians who were keenly observing the path on which he was treading. And his subsequent decision to form a pressure group christened Northern Region Fora must not have come as a surprise to most people, including the party itself.
This should be the case because, out of the blue, Mkandawire got the courage to challenge his boss, President Bingu wa Mutharika on ‘some of Mutharika’s decisions on quota system, local government elections, Muhlako wa Ahlomwe, public appointments and separation of powers’.
It must be the case that Mkandawire quite well knew that his ‘scathing’ remarks would not go down well with the president and he must have already known all possible repercussions that would fall on him in the wake of his challenge. Of course, one might argue that there is no need to bring the president in as far as the issue of firing Mkandawire is concerned; but the fact of the matter remains that those who presided over Mkandawire’s hearing could not have done anything apart from that which would please the head of state.
On the other hand, soon after the disciplinary hearing where Mkandawire was the centre of attention, it was reported that top DPP officials who were there during the hearing said that whatever had transpired there was an internal matter, (not meant for public consumption).
I should believe that if such was the case, and since Mkandawire himself as well confirmed that what had transpired during the disciplinary hearing was an intra-party matter, then Mkandawire was not fired during the hearing. He was fired later, and there should have been someone who precipitated the decision. In this case, the president cannot be ruled out.
One thing that looms large is that Mkandawire must have intentions to ‘break away’ from the party long ago but only waited for an opportune time to arise. In other words, he was waiting for a scapegoat and truly it came in the name of ‘Mutharika’s blunders’ which have been condemned by many. It may be right to suggest that his pressure group was never formed recently; rather it must have been there even before his ‘scathing’ letter to the president and it only come out ‘formally’ now.
There is something peculiar about Mkandawire: since President Mutharika ascended onto the throne of power, no party member has come in the open to criticize his (Mutharika’s) decisions even where it was clear that some members had misgivings.
If at all some party officials wanted to attack the president, they would only do so ‘in hiding’ while “speaking on strict condition of anonymity”. The issue of ‘succession blues’ in the ruling party is a perfect example. Many top party officials are essentially not happy with how it is being handled, especially now that the party should be strategizing on who should be its torchbearer some 2014, but on-one has come in the open to express their concerns.
But Mkandawire defied all odds and took the president to task. He failed to play bootlicking politics; it was against his conscience to do so and he had to do all it would take to clear his conscience. Now the rest is history: he is no longer part of the ruling party, for he fell out with the president despite what he, himself, called ‘constructive criticism’.
Now, people are asking: was the ruling party right to fire Mkandawire? And the extension of the question would be: was the ruling party right to fire Mkandawire because of his ‘constructive criticism?’ So far, some people have analyzed the Mkandawire saga and have found that DPP’s decision to get rid of Mkandawire from the party is the best any party would take on a ‘rebel’ like Mkandawire.
Others believe that the party has made the worst mistake ever and that the decision itself is entirely ill-timed. It is my desire to join the bandwagon of those that feel DPP’s decision to fire Mkandawire was ill-timed and of course, the worst mistake the party has ever made. The party has made many blunders before, but this one is standing out, especially this time when it (seems) to be sailing in troubled waters.
It is clear that there are numerous cracks in the party and Mkandawire’s case is just a tip of the iceberg. The first pointer of cracks in the ruling party began to show when Mutharika condemned his cabinet ministers for ‘failing to concentrate on development projects, but only positioning themselves for the party’s presidency for 2014’. The president’s remarks never came out of a vacuum.
There was tension within the party as Raphael Tenthani pointed out in his article titled ‘Succession blues’. Instead of ministers concentrating on development projects, they were busy eyeing Bingu’s seat. That is why the ruling party should have been concentrating on ‘rebuilding’ itself instead of firing its members for positive criticism.
In fact, a strong message has been sent from the centre: there is no democracy in the party and it lacks tolerance because these two aspects entail the accommodation of dissenting views.
In any democratic dispensation, there is need for tolerance and accommodating dissenting views. Hence the ruling party’s decision to fire Mkandawire is a double blow to its future.
I believe that Mkandawire has massive support from whoever is concerned (what more with the many adverts about his Northern Region Fora that appear in the papers) and this means that by firing him from the DPP, the party has alienated itself from all Mkandawire’s supporters and this should be very dangerous this time than never before.
His pressure group does not comprise himself alone; there are many others involved. If the party retained Mkandawire, it would win the ‘sympathy’ of other members of the group. But now, following the firing of the group’s torchbearer, his group is very likely to mount more pressure on Mutharika’s government than if Mkandawire remained in the party.
In fact without the firing of Mkandawire, the group might have been left underlying but now it has come out and obviously it is going to receive massive support from all those who are against Mutharika’s policies, at least for now. Of course, the possibility that Mkandawire is being financed by some individuals or stakeholders that are not happy with Mutharika’s way of governance, cannot be entirely ruled out.
Above everything, the ruling party should now be strategizing on what to do to ‘rebuild’ itself as now it is clear that there are divisions within it. It should have come out and do a number of things that would assure Malawians that the party is really democratic; like by accommodating dissenting views of its members, like those raised by Harry Mkandawire.
It should not have fired him now that the party appears to be treading on a bumpy road. Perhaps Bingu no longer cares about the future of his party now that he is quite aware that he is in the last phase of his stay at the palace. Maybe he feels that this is the best time he can wield his powers to the utmost because it may not be necessary for ‘the works of his hands’ to speak for him.
If this is His Excellency’s line of thinking, then he is making a big mistake. The legacy of his party is his own legacy and its failure will be attributed to him just as the MCP’s and the UDF’s failures are being attributed to their presidents. This is why I believe the president can do something about the mistake his party made by firing Mkandawire.
Mutharika will be judged by what he has destroyed; and not what he built. And should his party fail in the 2014 elections because of problems like the firing of Mkandawire, Mutharika will be haunted till his last breath.
Yes, he exceeded limits
By Hardson Chamasowa
When the media broke the news that ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Director of Political Affairs Harry Mkandawire had written a very critical letter to president Bingu wa Mutharika in which he accused the Malawi leader of a number of things, many Malawians were waiting with bated breaths for what would befall Mkandawire.
It became obvious to many that such a letter would not fail to incur the displeasure of the party, at large, and the president, himself. It was a letter which some argue was filled with the blinding truth while others feel it lacked honorific aspects and was a very upsetting kind of open defiance to the head of state.
In fact, DPP’s Publicity Secretary Hetherwick Ntaba was quoted as saying that “Mkandawire went too far; he exceeded the limits.” Above all, it is DPP’s decision to fire Mkandawire that has aroused the attention of some critics from different corners of this country. People doubt the presence of democracy in the party and argue that it does not give room for criticism for it considers any opposing view as rebellion.
In a situation like that of Mkandawire, people need to sideline the preconceived ideas they have about the ruling party and allow reason to govern every critique. Malawi attained multiparty democracy as one way of liberating itself from the chains of oppression which found ground in the autocratic rule of one party leadership.
The consolidation of multiparty democracy gave birth to various human rights encompassing with it many other distinguished classes of freedoms of which one is the freedom of expression. This freedom implies that every citizen of this nation is entitled to his or her opinion. The problem rotating in different personalities is that they fail to realize the limitations to the rights they proudly posses.
Every agent of human rights is required to first ask himself if he is entitled to a particular right before reacting to it. If the agent is entitled to the right, they should then find out the extent to which they are to exercise their right and finally acknowledge that they are not violating somebody’s right when they are exercising their right.
I bet Mkandawire found it unnecessary to abide by the limitations of his human rights when he enjoyed his freedom of expression on October 17. He put pen to paper and experienced the art of weaving words into long loops that criticized Mutharika’s involvement in the Mulhako wa Alhomwe; his stand on quota system which Mkandawire thought (or still thinks) has the potential to divide the country; failure to hold local government elections; abuse of the rule of law; suspicious public appointments and the separation of powers.
Many can hail Mkandawire for pointing out that the President is flouting the constitution for ruling without councilors and functioning assemblies. He may as well be applauded for suggesting that the President is masterminding tribalism and for his opinion that the President also seems to favour the Shire Highlands region in his appointments but it is the channel through which he decided to express himself that has outdone all the points which he raised.
His courage to confront the President and address his weaknesses is a welcome development in a democratic government like ours as it is one way of sustaining our democracy which cost blood of innumerable innocent people.
However, he did not follow the right protocol. He was the director of the party’s political affairs and if he really had passion of controlling the image of the party he would summon the president to the party’s executive committee.
The fact that Bingu is the head of the party means that all allegations against him are automatically the party’s internal issues. By turning such issues into public consumption, it is right to point out that Mkandawire’s aim was to damage the image of the party and the president and at the same time registering as a mere spy and not a true member of the party. That is why it is my view that Mkandawire deserved dismissal.
We can not blame DPP for expelling him out of the party because every party has its rules and regulations and any breach of any rule entices a punishment depending on the nature of the offence. It is obvious that Mkandawire offended the party’s provisions.
And it pleased the authorities to fire him; and so they did! His reaction had the potential of influencing divisions in the party and therefore uncalled for. The expulsion can well be described as a democratic action and a true reflection of DPP as a democratic party since Mkandawire was kicked out of the party for the reason that he abused his democratic freedom of expression by exercising his rights without drawing boundaries.
What Mkandawire did is what is known as open defiance. It is not wrong to criticize the failures of a leader especially in a democratic country like ours but Mkandawire’s approach appears to have intended purposes.
The news of his expulsion from the party closely followed (or preceded) his announcement that he had founded a pressure group called Northern Region Fora. This development did not come in good faith; it only signifies that all along Mkandawire had that in mind. When his letter got leaked by the media, reports have it that he did not show any sign of shock, simply showing that it was a planned escapade.
Reasoning from his background, Mkandawire wanted to bring confusion among the members of the party which would entice internal rebellion which would entail the party’s downfall in the 2014 elections.
His colleagues have been grilling his motive behind operating outside the party, ignoring procedures to be used when presenting grievances or opposing views. The extreme mischief of the former DPP official is found in Mzimba West constituency where its residents got shocked at his reaction to a loss of seat in the 2009 parliamentary elections.
Mkandawire repossessed vehicle tyres he had given to a chief during the campaign season. Referring to this undesirable background, it can not be illogical to conclude that Mkandawire did not have passion for the party, because of what the loss that he experienced in the 19 May elections.
Forming a pressure group is not that bad when the genesis of the idea has cream grounds. After all, the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Alliance for Democracy (AFORD) began as pressure groups and transformed into strong political parties because they were formed on sound grounds whose common aim was to dismantle power from Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda. Similarly, Mkandawire’s pressure group would otherwise be recommended if it was not a product of inconvenience.
There are enough reasons to prove that the existence of his Northern Region Fora is an instrument to use in opposing the policies of the DPP and the party officials must have been brave enough to nip him in the bud. His conduct has proven he is not a right member to keep in the DPP as he was always busy damaging the image of the party and searched for various means of seeking political sympathy from the people of this nation.
Thus, I maintain my stand on the matter, that DPP’s decision to sack Mkandawire is the best every party that is concerned about its future would take on any member who rebels against it.
That was the only remedy for Mkandawire and nothing would have worked better than getting rid of him. He showed that he was not a genuine member of the party and such a person had to be treated as such. Simply put, he had to be shown the exit door, whatever the case.
Debate: Was Mzamo's Behaviour in the BBA House Wrong?
Yes, it is an embarrassment to the nation
By Ayami Mkwanda
ON 11 November this year, women members of the Malawi Council of Churches (MCC) petitioned the government of Malawi over Big Brother Africa Revolution representative, Mzamose Chibambo, arguing that her sex ‘escapades’ in the house do not reflect the true image of a Malawian woman.
The group met the Minister of Gender, Women and Child Development, Patricia Kaliati in Lilongwe. The chairperson of MCC, Agnes Mkoko, said Mzamo’s behaviour is not portraying Malawi well as a God-fearing nation. So the group asked government to be sending representatives who are morally upright that would not bring the country shame through despicable behaviour.
This has come at a time when there has been a controversial debate on how Mzamo carries out herself in the reality show-house. Right from the beginning, Mzamo has shown some traits that are arguably contested as being un-Malawian. Here is a young Malawian woman who drinks like fish, smokes like a chimney, wears scantily like a beauty-pageant contestant; and above all, allegedly had sex live on television.
Summing up all this, one wonders whether her behaviour truly reflects the country’s overall morality. It is an open secret that morals in Malawi are fast decaying but still, this is not enough reason to forget who Malawians really are on the moral standpoint.
Malawians, and the majority of them are, to a larger extent, well-behaved people who relish in respect, obedience, sharing, harmony, fearing God and unity. If we happen to see cases of immorality escalating then it is because we are living in an era when technology has brought its evils upon us.
To argue that the small percentage of immorality we are witnessing countrywide mirrors the entire population’s moral decay is unfair. Mzamo may just represent this small percentage of immorality. Therefore, to say she portrays the whole trend in the country then that is a fallacy (but rather her bad behaviour will have a wrong portrayal of Malawi).
I would therefore like to totally disagree with all those who back Mzamo on the premise that even many Malawians are not morally upright people themselves. What do they mean when they say that what Mzamo did in the house (by having sex with Lionel) is also what people of Malawi do but only that the setting is different; meaning Malawians do it in secluded places and at night?
Although Malawi does not have a written code of ethics, we know for sure which conducts are regarded as “normal”, “right”, “good”, “permissible” and “desirable”. The opposite is true. So deriving a conclusion from the above, people should not take advantage of the unwritten code of ethics to justify that it is difficult to classify Malawian behaviour.
Everyone who is Malawian knows the “taboos” and other dos and don’ts in the country, only that we are choosing to ignore them by hiding behind the façade of westernization and modernization. It is unfortunate that our BBA representative behaves the way she does because she is our representative on an international level.
What people forget is that even one person can damage the reputation of a country, provided they are exposed like Mzamo. We should not forget that foreigners deem Malawians as honest, hardworking and intelligent people because they saw individual Malawians portraying those traits.
Did they come to Malawi and conduct their research? Absolutely not! It was a simple encounter in faraway lands that people of other countries came to build a positive image of Malawi.
So when people are downplaying the bad behaviour of Mzamo in the house by christening it as a technique and strategy to survive in the house, then they are in a way accepting her wayward behaviour in public as something to be proud of. Why trivialize a very serious matter like this when we all know the gospel truth that what is bad is bad?
I subscribe to a philosophical view that there is no relativism or subjectivity to morality (here morality should mean what is totally acceptable by convention as right, good and permissible).
I believe that any moralist in the country is lamenting the way Mzamo has carried herself out so far. It is true that Mzamo has traveled a lot and stayed in England and South Africa, both of which are developed countries that partly cherish the behaviour of Mzamo like smoking, drinking and dressing scantily.
As Malawians, we should be reminded that it is immoral for a woman to dress in a way that her feminine sensitive parts should be exposed. We should also take note that although women in Malawi smoke, it is not to the level and magnitude of Mzamo.
Mzamo is such a girl who seems to me as a train without control. With her sorry and despicable behaviour in the house, I do not celebrate her but instead pity her. How can I celebrate a person who brings shame on herself and the nation with such inspiring gusto?
What is there to celebrate when a person who was supposed to preach to the world about our good reputable image is raping the very image she is supposed to protect?
To my understanding and expectation, Mzamo was like our ambassador to the world who would show the world who Malawians are by simply conducting herself in a way that is in line with our image. Still, like I have already said, let us not admit that we are a morally corrupt nation, because we are not; but instead we should feel sorry for the immoral acts that have beset us.
As a nation, you do not stand on the anti-hill and shout, “what Mzamo is doing is what we also do”, lest we tarnish our impeccable record and image to the outside world. When someone is going astray let us not follow them; instead we should advise them so that they can take a good road. Like good citizens let us not clap hands for bad acts, whether they be done in public or secret.
A wrong is a wrong no matter the circumstances and context; it does not matter whether you are strategizing your survival in the Big Brother House or you are at home.
The problem of celebrating immorality is equivalent to celebrating failure. When a person succeeds in life by using crooked or dubious means, we must not celebrate it.
If a person fails and you tell them they have passed, then you are writing their doom. It is always good for a failure to reap the fruits of their labour and not the opposite. Likewise, only good people deserve good things; that is the law of nature.
Our problem as a nation should not be celebrating vices as virtues, shame as glory, failure as success, defeat as victory and cowardice as courage. This will bring the country down. Rather we should always be courageous to criticize bad things for the betterment of the motherland.
The problem is, many people who are hypnotized by the idea of Mzamo winning the money do not see or read the shameful tactics she is using until so far (if what she does endears her to the viewers).
If her behaviour is not rebuked severely, surely, we are unconsciously declaring publicly that what matters in life is to achieve victory or goals through book, crook or hook.
No, it is her winning strategy
By ANANIYA ALICK PONJE
As Malawi’s Big Brother representative Mzamose Chibambo is there in the house in South Africa fighting not to be nominated or simply not to be evicted once she has been nominated, most of her countrymen back home are busy castigating her for what they have labeled “her unMalawian behaviour”.
Some have even reached the point of revealing that they are eagerly waiting for the day she would arrive back home where she belongs. Mzamo has been castigated from right to left and back to front; simply for playing a game that she feels has the potential of propelling her to the end of the competition so that she can clinch the ultimate prize.
It is every housemate’s desire to win the prize and each of them has his/her own kind of strategy. And Mzamo’s strategy has been described as unMalawian by some who “have a highest regard for morality”.
When Malawi’s first Big Brother representative Zein went into the house, he had his own strategies and he never spent a more than a fortnight in there. Code too had his own formula and he came close to the end of the competition. Then came Hazel: she also had her own strategy and she reached the end of the competition, even though she failed to clinch the prize.
Mzamo as well has her own survival strategy and that is what she believes would reward her. And why so much fuss over her survival strategy when it is a game that she is playing for her survival, and no other individual’s survival.
One thing that should be put under consideration is the fact that Mzamo has not broken any of the Big Brother rules, which clearly implies that she is rightly within the game. All what she does is acceptable in the house; otherwise she would have faced some punishment from Big Brother, up to reaching the point of being booted out.
The problem is that most people who condemn Mzamo have set values which they want everyone to adopt. They want to brainwash everyone that kissing, boozing and having sex in the Big Brother house, is wrong. Much as it is good to uphold high levels of morality, the Big Brother house is not a place where such an aspect can be practical.
Life there is completely new and the housemates have no touch with the outside world. In fact some people reach the point of arguing that the housemates are not in touch with reality. I believe that the best way to uphold morality is by avoiding associating with aspects that ‘may’ to a certain extent be immoral in nature.
Malawi as a country allows its citizens to participate in the Big Brother show and everything that happens there has to be taken without much as choice. Perhaps the problem is that we are comparing Mzamo with Hazel.
Just because the latter liked cooking and ‘putting things in the house in order’, it does not mean that Mzamo should follow suit. Then the essence of the whole thing would be non-existent. Mzamo is Mzamo and she has to do things the way which suits her. She has to be herself and this is all what it means to be there.
Some people have reached the point of saying “Hazel was quite, did a lot of cooking and cleaning in the house and was pretty much reserved, while her successor is much more of an extrovert who drinks, smokes and swears”.
Yet the fact of the matter remains that they are two different women clearly sitting on two different sides of the spectrum. I fail to come to terms with what it means when one talks about ‘Malawian and unMalawian’ behaviour.
Of course, it is true that morality is something that has to be highly upheld in our country, but if one chooses not to as in the case of Mzamo, is there any legal provision that is being broken? I don’t think so. The moral aspect of a human being largely involves their own self and if they feel they are not committing a crime against themselves, then they are safe.
And therefore, if Mzamo feels what she is doing is not wrong, and she is confident it is a winning strategy, why castigate her when it is her game. There is so much hypocrisy in the numerous comments that have emanated from different quarters against Mzamo’s behaviour.
Malawi is a country that is rocked with many maladies which are but ignored. It appears many quarters have found the Mzamo scenario to be something that can easily push them into the limelight because they quite well know that it is being followed by many people and stakeholders.
Otherwise why hasn’t much been done on the numerous anomalies that we hear; like those of old men raping young girls, men having sex with livestock, child abuse and many more? Perhaps another question has to be asked: why don’t those who feel Mzamo’s behaviour is wrong resort to watching other programmes other than the Big Brother show.
The mere fact that they castigate Mzamo means that they watch the show; and frequently for that matter. There are many other channels that are offered by DStv which involve a lot of ‘moral tidings’. The main aim is to incorporate diversity so that everyone plumps for that which pleases them. No one is forced to watch the Big Brother show.
Some people have even reached the point of arguing that Mzamo’s behaviour may set a very bad precedent for their daughters. Every parent or guardian has their own way of controlling their children. I don’t think there is any parent out there who can allow their under-eighteen daughter to watch the Big Brother show.
In fact, there is a clear demarcation on who is and who is not supposed to watch the show in consideration of age. I am also against the view that girls who are above the age of 18 can copy something from Mzamo.
These are girls who can make their own sound decisions, and after such an age, they quite well know what is good or bad for them. If they do immoral things, it is not because they watched Mzamo, but because their mindsets have dictated it. There is another thing that I fail to come to terms with.
Opponents of Mzamo’s actions castigate her for allegedly having sex; kissing, and boozing in the house. It appears the strong part is the ‘having sex’ one. Yet Malawi’s second Big Brother representative Code Sangala allegedly had sex in the house, with a pregnant wife waiting for him at home, and no one came out to castigate him.
Are there moral values in Malawi that are designed specifically for men and others for women, such that what a man does may not be morally wrong when the same thing is considered morally wrong when done by a woman? Just like Minister of Gender, Women and Child Development, Hon. Patricia Kaliati observed, the only problem with Mzamo is that she is doing those things in full view of everyone, while it is of course, what most people do when they are in secluded places.
I have personally seen girls who drink and smoke heavily, yet they have never been condemned. So why Mzamo? Above everything, Mzamo is who she is and as one cartoon in The Nation pointed out, “is there such a thing as a typical Malawian woman?”
In other words is there some way in which we expect Malawian women to behave? Mzamo is just a free woman who is not restricted by any cultural or traditionalistic views of what it is to be a woman. This is exactly what I pointed out in one of my articles in The Daily Times. We should not be too much stuck in the past with so much stubbornness and tradition.
By Ayami Mkwanda
ON 11 November this year, women members of the Malawi Council of Churches (MCC) petitioned the government of Malawi over Big Brother Africa Revolution representative, Mzamose Chibambo, arguing that her sex ‘escapades’ in the house do not reflect the true image of a Malawian woman.
The group met the Minister of Gender, Women and Child Development, Patricia Kaliati in Lilongwe. The chairperson of MCC, Agnes Mkoko, said Mzamo’s behaviour is not portraying Malawi well as a God-fearing nation. So the group asked government to be sending representatives who are morally upright that would not bring the country shame through despicable behaviour.
This has come at a time when there has been a controversial debate on how Mzamo carries out herself in the reality show-house. Right from the beginning, Mzamo has shown some traits that are arguably contested as being un-Malawian. Here is a young Malawian woman who drinks like fish, smokes like a chimney, wears scantily like a beauty-pageant contestant; and above all, allegedly had sex live on television.
Summing up all this, one wonders whether her behaviour truly reflects the country’s overall morality. It is an open secret that morals in Malawi are fast decaying but still, this is not enough reason to forget who Malawians really are on the moral standpoint.
Malawians, and the majority of them are, to a larger extent, well-behaved people who relish in respect, obedience, sharing, harmony, fearing God and unity. If we happen to see cases of immorality escalating then it is because we are living in an era when technology has brought its evils upon us.
To argue that the small percentage of immorality we are witnessing countrywide mirrors the entire population’s moral decay is unfair. Mzamo may just represent this small percentage of immorality. Therefore, to say she portrays the whole trend in the country then that is a fallacy (but rather her bad behaviour will have a wrong portrayal of Malawi).
I would therefore like to totally disagree with all those who back Mzamo on the premise that even many Malawians are not morally upright people themselves. What do they mean when they say that what Mzamo did in the house (by having sex with Lionel) is also what people of Malawi do but only that the setting is different; meaning Malawians do it in secluded places and at night?
Although Malawi does not have a written code of ethics, we know for sure which conducts are regarded as “normal”, “right”, “good”, “permissible” and “desirable”. The opposite is true. So deriving a conclusion from the above, people should not take advantage of the unwritten code of ethics to justify that it is difficult to classify Malawian behaviour.
Everyone who is Malawian knows the “taboos” and other dos and don’ts in the country, only that we are choosing to ignore them by hiding behind the façade of westernization and modernization. It is unfortunate that our BBA representative behaves the way she does because she is our representative on an international level.
What people forget is that even one person can damage the reputation of a country, provided they are exposed like Mzamo. We should not forget that foreigners deem Malawians as honest, hardworking and intelligent people because they saw individual Malawians portraying those traits.
Did they come to Malawi and conduct their research? Absolutely not! It was a simple encounter in faraway lands that people of other countries came to build a positive image of Malawi.
So when people are downplaying the bad behaviour of Mzamo in the house by christening it as a technique and strategy to survive in the house, then they are in a way accepting her wayward behaviour in public as something to be proud of. Why trivialize a very serious matter like this when we all know the gospel truth that what is bad is bad?
I subscribe to a philosophical view that there is no relativism or subjectivity to morality (here morality should mean what is totally acceptable by convention as right, good and permissible).
I believe that any moralist in the country is lamenting the way Mzamo has carried herself out so far. It is true that Mzamo has traveled a lot and stayed in England and South Africa, both of which are developed countries that partly cherish the behaviour of Mzamo like smoking, drinking and dressing scantily.
As Malawians, we should be reminded that it is immoral for a woman to dress in a way that her feminine sensitive parts should be exposed. We should also take note that although women in Malawi smoke, it is not to the level and magnitude of Mzamo.
Mzamo is such a girl who seems to me as a train without control. With her sorry and despicable behaviour in the house, I do not celebrate her but instead pity her. How can I celebrate a person who brings shame on herself and the nation with such inspiring gusto?
What is there to celebrate when a person who was supposed to preach to the world about our good reputable image is raping the very image she is supposed to protect?
To my understanding and expectation, Mzamo was like our ambassador to the world who would show the world who Malawians are by simply conducting herself in a way that is in line with our image. Still, like I have already said, let us not admit that we are a morally corrupt nation, because we are not; but instead we should feel sorry for the immoral acts that have beset us.
As a nation, you do not stand on the anti-hill and shout, “what Mzamo is doing is what we also do”, lest we tarnish our impeccable record and image to the outside world. When someone is going astray let us not follow them; instead we should advise them so that they can take a good road. Like good citizens let us not clap hands for bad acts, whether they be done in public or secret.
A wrong is a wrong no matter the circumstances and context; it does not matter whether you are strategizing your survival in the Big Brother House or you are at home.
The problem of celebrating immorality is equivalent to celebrating failure. When a person succeeds in life by using crooked or dubious means, we must not celebrate it.
If a person fails and you tell them they have passed, then you are writing their doom. It is always good for a failure to reap the fruits of their labour and not the opposite. Likewise, only good people deserve good things; that is the law of nature.
Our problem as a nation should not be celebrating vices as virtues, shame as glory, failure as success, defeat as victory and cowardice as courage. This will bring the country down. Rather we should always be courageous to criticize bad things for the betterment of the motherland.
The problem is, many people who are hypnotized by the idea of Mzamo winning the money do not see or read the shameful tactics she is using until so far (if what she does endears her to the viewers).
If her behaviour is not rebuked severely, surely, we are unconsciously declaring publicly that what matters in life is to achieve victory or goals through book, crook or hook.
No, it is her winning strategy
By ANANIYA ALICK PONJE
As Malawi’s Big Brother representative Mzamose Chibambo is there in the house in South Africa fighting not to be nominated or simply not to be evicted once she has been nominated, most of her countrymen back home are busy castigating her for what they have labeled “her unMalawian behaviour”.
Some have even reached the point of revealing that they are eagerly waiting for the day she would arrive back home where she belongs. Mzamo has been castigated from right to left and back to front; simply for playing a game that she feels has the potential of propelling her to the end of the competition so that she can clinch the ultimate prize.
It is every housemate’s desire to win the prize and each of them has his/her own kind of strategy. And Mzamo’s strategy has been described as unMalawian by some who “have a highest regard for morality”.
When Malawi’s first Big Brother representative Zein went into the house, he had his own strategies and he never spent a more than a fortnight in there. Code too had his own formula and he came close to the end of the competition. Then came Hazel: she also had her own strategy and she reached the end of the competition, even though she failed to clinch the prize.
Mzamo as well has her own survival strategy and that is what she believes would reward her. And why so much fuss over her survival strategy when it is a game that she is playing for her survival, and no other individual’s survival.
One thing that should be put under consideration is the fact that Mzamo has not broken any of the Big Brother rules, which clearly implies that she is rightly within the game. All what she does is acceptable in the house; otherwise she would have faced some punishment from Big Brother, up to reaching the point of being booted out.
The problem is that most people who condemn Mzamo have set values which they want everyone to adopt. They want to brainwash everyone that kissing, boozing and having sex in the Big Brother house, is wrong. Much as it is good to uphold high levels of morality, the Big Brother house is not a place where such an aspect can be practical.
Life there is completely new and the housemates have no touch with the outside world. In fact some people reach the point of arguing that the housemates are not in touch with reality. I believe that the best way to uphold morality is by avoiding associating with aspects that ‘may’ to a certain extent be immoral in nature.
Malawi as a country allows its citizens to participate in the Big Brother show and everything that happens there has to be taken without much as choice. Perhaps the problem is that we are comparing Mzamo with Hazel.
Just because the latter liked cooking and ‘putting things in the house in order’, it does not mean that Mzamo should follow suit. Then the essence of the whole thing would be non-existent. Mzamo is Mzamo and she has to do things the way which suits her. She has to be herself and this is all what it means to be there.
Some people have reached the point of saying “Hazel was quite, did a lot of cooking and cleaning in the house and was pretty much reserved, while her successor is much more of an extrovert who drinks, smokes and swears”.
Yet the fact of the matter remains that they are two different women clearly sitting on two different sides of the spectrum. I fail to come to terms with what it means when one talks about ‘Malawian and unMalawian’ behaviour.
Of course, it is true that morality is something that has to be highly upheld in our country, but if one chooses not to as in the case of Mzamo, is there any legal provision that is being broken? I don’t think so. The moral aspect of a human being largely involves their own self and if they feel they are not committing a crime against themselves, then they are safe.
And therefore, if Mzamo feels what she is doing is not wrong, and she is confident it is a winning strategy, why castigate her when it is her game. There is so much hypocrisy in the numerous comments that have emanated from different quarters against Mzamo’s behaviour.
Malawi is a country that is rocked with many maladies which are but ignored. It appears many quarters have found the Mzamo scenario to be something that can easily push them into the limelight because they quite well know that it is being followed by many people and stakeholders.
Otherwise why hasn’t much been done on the numerous anomalies that we hear; like those of old men raping young girls, men having sex with livestock, child abuse and many more? Perhaps another question has to be asked: why don’t those who feel Mzamo’s behaviour is wrong resort to watching other programmes other than the Big Brother show.
The mere fact that they castigate Mzamo means that they watch the show; and frequently for that matter. There are many other channels that are offered by DStv which involve a lot of ‘moral tidings’. The main aim is to incorporate diversity so that everyone plumps for that which pleases them. No one is forced to watch the Big Brother show.
Some people have even reached the point of arguing that Mzamo’s behaviour may set a very bad precedent for their daughters. Every parent or guardian has their own way of controlling their children. I don’t think there is any parent out there who can allow their under-eighteen daughter to watch the Big Brother show.
In fact, there is a clear demarcation on who is and who is not supposed to watch the show in consideration of age. I am also against the view that girls who are above the age of 18 can copy something from Mzamo.
These are girls who can make their own sound decisions, and after such an age, they quite well know what is good or bad for them. If they do immoral things, it is not because they watched Mzamo, but because their mindsets have dictated it. There is another thing that I fail to come to terms with.
Opponents of Mzamo’s actions castigate her for allegedly having sex; kissing, and boozing in the house. It appears the strong part is the ‘having sex’ one. Yet Malawi’s second Big Brother representative Code Sangala allegedly had sex in the house, with a pregnant wife waiting for him at home, and no one came out to castigate him.
Are there moral values in Malawi that are designed specifically for men and others for women, such that what a man does may not be morally wrong when the same thing is considered morally wrong when done by a woman? Just like Minister of Gender, Women and Child Development, Hon. Patricia Kaliati observed, the only problem with Mzamo is that she is doing those things in full view of everyone, while it is of course, what most people do when they are in secluded places.
I have personally seen girls who drink and smoke heavily, yet they have never been condemned. So why Mzamo? Above everything, Mzamo is who she is and as one cartoon in The Nation pointed out, “is there such a thing as a typical Malawian woman?”
In other words is there some way in which we expect Malawian women to behave? Mzamo is just a free woman who is not restricted by any cultural or traditionalistic views of what it is to be a woman. This is exactly what I pointed out in one of my articles in The Daily Times. We should not be too much stuck in the past with so much stubbornness and tradition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)