The government's willingness to seek consensus with the clergy on the draft constitution has finally been rewarded by the latter`s abandonment of the discussions. I say “rewarded” because the electorate now knows that the clergy was never in the first place interested in consensus talks. That is why from the very onset, the clergy ensured that the discussions were intermittently bogged down in procedural wrangling. And as largely anticipated, after pulling out of the talks, they have vowed not to relent in their obstructionism of the country`s efforts in the promulgation of a new constitution.
Clearly, their actions are a testament to the fact that seeking consensus with a person so much consumed in conservatism and dogmatism can only be an exercise in futility. You see, since time immemorial the clergy has always been intolerant to emerging fountains of knowledge to the extent that many people fervently wished that the good Lord should deport the lock-step clergy to Hell for not listening and sometimes preaching and praying in “strange” tongues.
As early as the seventeenth century, some liberated clergy got the drift. They too started questioning the place of dogmas in the Christian church. The conservatives viewed as dissenters. But to the so many people who understood and embraced their preaching and teaching on nature, morality and theology, they were latitudinarians (derived from the words attitude and latitude). This is because they saw the import of allowing some freedom in attitude, beliefs, behavior and interpretation in religious matters. They sought to reconcile fundamental Christian ethics with the new rationality of Renaissance philosophy, science, and humanism. Because of the extent of their liberalism they were often condemned as atheists.
Many of us would have hoped that history would have provided the clergy with such important lessons. However, it looks like the vital historical lessons have never been learnt. It is painful today to see many of the clergy still clenched in the rigor mortis of dogmas. Their views on science are still antagonistic. They forget that in God`s own wisdom, human beings were abundantly blessed with knowledge with which to make human life more comfortable. Fortunately, such clergy are increasingly being isolated because no longer are the faithful a faith -fool lot.
Unlike in the yonder days, where dogmas where formulated (especially during the time of doctrinal controversy) in order to clarify the orthodox teaching in the face of emerging challenges, today’s world is sufficiently informed as to decide what is best in the interest of humanity. Like Horace (65-8BC), we wish to remind the clergy that much as they wish to drive out nature with a pitchfork, nature will constantly be running back. The best we can do is to take advantage of our God given knowledge to be able to live harmoniously with nature.
Even though I am extremely disappointed with a section of the clergy whose school of thought is far removed from the realities of today’s world, I am however cognizant of the fact that the law does not grant me the license with which to express my inner most feelings. In this regard, I have decided that I be sufficiently philanthropic as to reward them (clergy) with a pacifier. They could suck on it until the referendum exercise is dispensed with. In so doing, they will at least keep their mouths closed. In return they will immensely benefit from their silence. This is because they will have an ample time to re-work on their perception. I want to believe that they are not oblivious to the fact that the public has increasingly viewed them as purveyors of nothing more than crooked religious voodoo.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
THE YES TEAM MUST BE WARY OF THE JOHNNY-COME-LATELIES.
Despite the research findings by Synovate Research that seem to suggest that the No Team is currently drenched in torrential political rain accompanied with political crashing, the Yes Team cannot afford to sit on its laurels. If anything, this research finding should signal the beginning of a series of protracted campaigns to discount the heavy dose of misinformation purveyed by the No Team to ensure that draft constitution wins overwhelming support especially from the doubtful pockets of the expansive Rift Valley Province. With focus and clear strategy, it will be unsurprising for the draft constitution to receive unprecedented backing from the electorates in say Eldoret North constituency.
The Yes Team must strive to bring everybody on board, but in so doing, the Yes Team must be wary of the Johnny-come-latelies and the active portfolio strategists who are forced by circumstances to invest where political conditions seem favorable to them. This is because such elements are more often than not to bring in to the Yes Team shades of opinion that are unhealthy. For starters, some have already began suggesting that in order to bring everybody on board, there is need for the Yes Team to purge the draft constitution of its contentious clauses to make it more suitable for a pluralistic democracy. They opine that an addendum is the only way out of the seeming intractable constitutional difficulty. Prima facie, an addendum appears like some god send opportunity to solve this intractable constitutional difficulty.
However, a closer look at it reveals that engaging in such an exercise is akin to an additive inverse. This is because one man`s meat is another man`s poison. In other words, there are those of us with quite a number of contentious issues in the constitution. The fact that we have kept our cool should not be misconstrued to mean that we are completely satisfied with the provisions in the draft constitution. This then means that were we to isolate the contentious issues then almost every article and clause in the draft constitution will be forced to become an addendum. In my opinion, we have reached the ne plus ultra. From the foregoing, any move to re-open the draft will therefore serve the interest of those unwilling to promulgate a new constitution.
Suffice to say that we must at this stage elect to deal with actualities. We must therefore not be willing victims to either those suffering from accelerated political depreciation or those suffering from political acceleration stress.
Already, Moi; the self professed political professor (emeritus) opines that the country is better served with the current constitution and that we only need minimum constitutional amendments to make it even better. How on earth can one seek consensus with such a person? Like Moi, key political players from the expansive Rift Valley Province are cunningly hiding under the churches’ cloak to achieve their selfish political desires. They have elected to use freedom of speech not so much to express their wants but to conceal them.
As for the grand coalition government, it must not shy away from saying that the draft constitution is a government project. It is. It became a project of the coalition government (read as the people of Kenya) the day it (the coalition Government) pledged to the citizenry that it will deliver a new constitution.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
The Yes Team must strive to bring everybody on board, but in so doing, the Yes Team must be wary of the Johnny-come-latelies and the active portfolio strategists who are forced by circumstances to invest where political conditions seem favorable to them. This is because such elements are more often than not to bring in to the Yes Team shades of opinion that are unhealthy. For starters, some have already began suggesting that in order to bring everybody on board, there is need for the Yes Team to purge the draft constitution of its contentious clauses to make it more suitable for a pluralistic democracy. They opine that an addendum is the only way out of the seeming intractable constitutional difficulty. Prima facie, an addendum appears like some god send opportunity to solve this intractable constitutional difficulty.
However, a closer look at it reveals that engaging in such an exercise is akin to an additive inverse. This is because one man`s meat is another man`s poison. In other words, there are those of us with quite a number of contentious issues in the constitution. The fact that we have kept our cool should not be misconstrued to mean that we are completely satisfied with the provisions in the draft constitution. This then means that were we to isolate the contentious issues then almost every article and clause in the draft constitution will be forced to become an addendum. In my opinion, we have reached the ne plus ultra. From the foregoing, any move to re-open the draft will therefore serve the interest of those unwilling to promulgate a new constitution.
Suffice to say that we must at this stage elect to deal with actualities. We must therefore not be willing victims to either those suffering from accelerated political depreciation or those suffering from political acceleration stress.
Already, Moi; the self professed political professor (emeritus) opines that the country is better served with the current constitution and that we only need minimum constitutional amendments to make it even better. How on earth can one seek consensus with such a person? Like Moi, key political players from the expansive Rift Valley Province are cunningly hiding under the churches’ cloak to achieve their selfish political desires. They have elected to use freedom of speech not so much to express their wants but to conceal them.
As for the grand coalition government, it must not shy away from saying that the draft constitution is a government project. It is. It became a project of the coalition government (read as the people of Kenya) the day it (the coalition Government) pledged to the citizenry that it will deliver a new constitution.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Monday, April 19, 2010
THE ELECTORATE MUST NOT BE FED ON A PLETHORA OF INFAMOUS FALSEHOODS ON THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION.
Whereas we acknowledge the fact that the obstacles to consensus on the draft constitution are considerable, I wish to appeal to the political class and a section of the clergy to ensure that the campaigns for or against the draft constitution must be issue based. Of particular concern is the fact that they are saying things that are not only grossly misleading but utterly irresponsible as well.
First, the draft opponents opine that in the absence of Majimbo, the draft constitution completely fails on the devolution front. What they however fail to tell the public is that the moment every legislator demanded to have a region in his backyard, the import of devolution as envisaged in article six of the draft constitution was lost. Aware that we could not sit down with a square rule and compass to re-design our ethnic boundaries, the regional architects engaged in shady alliances and disgraceful back-room deals in Naivasha with a view to blocking and thwarting the interests of politicians from smaller regions from ascending to the highest political office of this country. However, back in parliament it emerged that no conscientious legislator wanted to be part of a cabal that desired an amendment for the formation of permanent regional majoritarian.
Secondly, the no campaign is saying that the president in the draft constitution is akin to a quasi king. This of course, is another white lie. It is important to note that unlike the current constitution that makes a mockery of the separation of powers with little if any checks and balances; the draft constitution has vested distinct power in the three arms of the government. It also has in built checks and balances effectively designed to limit on the president and by extension, the government`s abuses. The draft constitution empowers parliament to vet the president`s appointees. For instance in article 205, clause one, the state president on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission and with the approval of the National Assembly, shall appoint the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice and other Judges. In extreme circumstances, parliament can, with a two thirds majority, impeach a sitting president without shooting itself in the foot as is the case in the current constitution. We also have the senate which can check the excesses of not only the president but of parliament as well thereby further limiting on the abuses of the president.
Thirdly, with regard to article thirty five, clauses one and two, abortion is only permitted to the extent that in the opinion of a health professional, the mother`s health is in grave danger. This views are also contained in sections 158, 159 and 160 of Kenya`s penal code. Like the draft constitution, section 240 of the penal code provides an exception. It states that a person will not be criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother`s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient`s state at the time, and to all circumstances of the case. Interestingly, this section of the penal code has never caused uproar among the clergy. It must be said without any fear of contradiction that the flock is irked by the devout clergy that has deliberately or otherwise chosen to misunderstand the divine linkage between Christianity and science.
On land, article fifty nine, clauses one and two spell out the right to an individual to own property and that the state shall not arbitrarily deprive a person of property of any description nor will the state through parliament’s legislation limit or in any way restrict the enjoyment of any right under this article as it will obviously be negating the article on freedom from discrimination as is contained in article thirty seven, clause one of the same draft constitution. However, in clause three, such an exceptional action is permissible in so far as it is strictly done in the interest of the public.
It must be noted that it is the practice all over the world for the states to at times invoke the power of eminent domain to foster economic productivity. Based on our history of injustices, it must be made clear that the power of eminent domain can only be invoked on legally acquired property. This is where the National Land Commission (NLC) comes in. Before adequate compensation, NLC will look into whether the land in question was legally acquired or not and make appropriate recommendations to the Government.
It is also quite in order for the government to introduce tax on unused but legally acquired lands with a view to encouraging production on such lands. Again, this is purely in the interest of the public. The argument by the “no” proponents that the government will arbitrarily deprive people of their land is therefore baseless.
Finally, Kadhi courts are not in anyway contentious since they do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the Christians. In any case, true Christians know that equality is in the eyes of God, not the earthly constitution.
Clearly, the challenge seems to be how the “yes” proponents can carry out effective civic education given the propensity for the electorate to swallow with ease plethora of infamous falsehoods and distortions.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
First, the draft opponents opine that in the absence of Majimbo, the draft constitution completely fails on the devolution front. What they however fail to tell the public is that the moment every legislator demanded to have a region in his backyard, the import of devolution as envisaged in article six of the draft constitution was lost. Aware that we could not sit down with a square rule and compass to re-design our ethnic boundaries, the regional architects engaged in shady alliances and disgraceful back-room deals in Naivasha with a view to blocking and thwarting the interests of politicians from smaller regions from ascending to the highest political office of this country. However, back in parliament it emerged that no conscientious legislator wanted to be part of a cabal that desired an amendment for the formation of permanent regional majoritarian.
Secondly, the no campaign is saying that the president in the draft constitution is akin to a quasi king. This of course, is another white lie. It is important to note that unlike the current constitution that makes a mockery of the separation of powers with little if any checks and balances; the draft constitution has vested distinct power in the three arms of the government. It also has in built checks and balances effectively designed to limit on the president and by extension, the government`s abuses. The draft constitution empowers parliament to vet the president`s appointees. For instance in article 205, clause one, the state president on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission and with the approval of the National Assembly, shall appoint the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice and other Judges. In extreme circumstances, parliament can, with a two thirds majority, impeach a sitting president without shooting itself in the foot as is the case in the current constitution. We also have the senate which can check the excesses of not only the president but of parliament as well thereby further limiting on the abuses of the president.
Thirdly, with regard to article thirty five, clauses one and two, abortion is only permitted to the extent that in the opinion of a health professional, the mother`s health is in grave danger. This views are also contained in sections 158, 159 and 160 of Kenya`s penal code. Like the draft constitution, section 240 of the penal code provides an exception. It states that a person will not be criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother`s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient`s state at the time, and to all circumstances of the case. Interestingly, this section of the penal code has never caused uproar among the clergy. It must be said without any fear of contradiction that the flock is irked by the devout clergy that has deliberately or otherwise chosen to misunderstand the divine linkage between Christianity and science.
On land, article fifty nine, clauses one and two spell out the right to an individual to own property and that the state shall not arbitrarily deprive a person of property of any description nor will the state through parliament’s legislation limit or in any way restrict the enjoyment of any right under this article as it will obviously be negating the article on freedom from discrimination as is contained in article thirty seven, clause one of the same draft constitution. However, in clause three, such an exceptional action is permissible in so far as it is strictly done in the interest of the public.
It must be noted that it is the practice all over the world for the states to at times invoke the power of eminent domain to foster economic productivity. Based on our history of injustices, it must be made clear that the power of eminent domain can only be invoked on legally acquired property. This is where the National Land Commission (NLC) comes in. Before adequate compensation, NLC will look into whether the land in question was legally acquired or not and make appropriate recommendations to the Government.
It is also quite in order for the government to introduce tax on unused but legally acquired lands with a view to encouraging production on such lands. Again, this is purely in the interest of the public. The argument by the “no” proponents that the government will arbitrarily deprive people of their land is therefore baseless.
Finally, Kadhi courts are not in anyway contentious since they do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the Christians. In any case, true Christians know that equality is in the eyes of God, not the earthly constitution.
Clearly, the challenge seems to be how the “yes” proponents can carry out effective civic education given the propensity for the electorate to swallow with ease plethora of infamous falsehoods and distortions.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Sunday, April 18, 2010
E-LEARNING IS THE WAY TO GO FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION IN KENYA.
Quite significant during President Kibaki`s launch of e-learning in schools on 29th of march 2010, at the Kenya Institute of Education (KIE) was his bold message that traditional schools are not working as effectively as we would have wanted. With population explosion, live classroom-based teaching is becoming too costly and cumbersome. Every year there is an astronomical increase in the budgetary allocation to the Ministry of education.
For instance investments to the education sector, through the two sister ministries within the 2009-2010 budget made up 18.6% of Kenya`s total budget. It is worth noting that the larger majority of this budget was under recurrent expenditures. This included things such as paying of personnel salaries and purchase of expendables. The Ministry of Basic Education’s budget went up by 16.2% while that of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology rose by 12.9 percent.
Not withstanding the enormous strain that such an allocation has on the government`s annual budget, the two sister ministries are still unable to meet their rising recurrent expenditure, thus the need to come up with a more effective, cost cutting education mechanism that can achieve education objectives without the unnecessary attendant costs. This is where e learning comes in.
To begin with, e-learning will definitely, reduce the government`s wage burden by significantly eliminating costs associated with instructors` salaries bearing in mind that fewer and fewer teachers and lecturers will be required because the Internet will be overflowing with accessible, multimedia presentations from experts in different disciplines. Secondly, and perhaps of more significance is the fact that the Kenya National examination Council (KNEC) will administer examinations on-line thus significantly reducing, if not totally eradicating instances of cheating in national exams. Thirdly, on-line education will provide a challenge for bright students, extra help for lagging students and alternatives for those who don’t function well in a classroom. This is because synchronous e-learning is self-paced. Fast learners are allowed to speed through instruction that is relatively easy while slow learners slow their own progress through content thus eliminating frustration with themselves, their fellow learners, the course and the teacher. In these ways, e-learning is inclusive of a maximum number of participants with a maximum range of learning styles.
Even though there are those debilitators of e-learning who have said that e-learning will mean handing your kids over to a Robot teacher, the truth is that the magical bond between teachers and students will remain intact and it will perhaps be enhanced further. This is because, since lesson planning and delivery will move on-line, the few available teachers and lecturers will have more time to provide personalized support and mentoring to students.
From the foregoing, since the advantages of e-learning far out weigh the traditional mode of education, the government must not fear venturing into this path. Whether we like it or not, e-learning is rapidly growing. Its clear benefits guarantee it a leading role in the teaching and learning strategy.
The only drawback as for now is that the existing technology infrastructure in our country is inadequate to accomplish this very important goal. It is hoped that with more investment in technology, e-learning may just be the panacea to the problems bedecking the education sector in Kenya.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
For instance investments to the education sector, through the two sister ministries within the 2009-2010 budget made up 18.6% of Kenya`s total budget. It is worth noting that the larger majority of this budget was under recurrent expenditures. This included things such as paying of personnel salaries and purchase of expendables. The Ministry of Basic Education’s budget went up by 16.2% while that of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology rose by 12.9 percent.
Not withstanding the enormous strain that such an allocation has on the government`s annual budget, the two sister ministries are still unable to meet their rising recurrent expenditure, thus the need to come up with a more effective, cost cutting education mechanism that can achieve education objectives without the unnecessary attendant costs. This is where e learning comes in.
To begin with, e-learning will definitely, reduce the government`s wage burden by significantly eliminating costs associated with instructors` salaries bearing in mind that fewer and fewer teachers and lecturers will be required because the Internet will be overflowing with accessible, multimedia presentations from experts in different disciplines. Secondly, and perhaps of more significance is the fact that the Kenya National examination Council (KNEC) will administer examinations on-line thus significantly reducing, if not totally eradicating instances of cheating in national exams. Thirdly, on-line education will provide a challenge for bright students, extra help for lagging students and alternatives for those who don’t function well in a classroom. This is because synchronous e-learning is self-paced. Fast learners are allowed to speed through instruction that is relatively easy while slow learners slow their own progress through content thus eliminating frustration with themselves, their fellow learners, the course and the teacher. In these ways, e-learning is inclusive of a maximum number of participants with a maximum range of learning styles.
Even though there are those debilitators of e-learning who have said that e-learning will mean handing your kids over to a Robot teacher, the truth is that the magical bond between teachers and students will remain intact and it will perhaps be enhanced further. This is because, since lesson planning and delivery will move on-line, the few available teachers and lecturers will have more time to provide personalized support and mentoring to students.
From the foregoing, since the advantages of e-learning far out weigh the traditional mode of education, the government must not fear venturing into this path. Whether we like it or not, e-learning is rapidly growing. Its clear benefits guarantee it a leading role in the teaching and learning strategy.
The only drawback as for now is that the existing technology infrastructure in our country is inadequate to accomplish this very important goal. It is hoped that with more investment in technology, e-learning may just be the panacea to the problems bedecking the education sector in Kenya.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Thursday, April 15, 2010
POLITICAL ELITES MUST NOT BUTTRESS BOVINE OBEDIENCE IN THEIR ETHNIC BASES.
Hobbes in the Leviathan argues that because people are motivated primarily by selfish reasons, the society must come up with a political order that can curb such selfish desires and guarantee all the citizenry equal rights. Such a political order is referred to as the constitution.
However, it must be understood that there will always be an aristocratic minority who will fear that a fair constitution will curtail their insatiable desires. This explains why today, few political elites are trying to buttress bovine obedience in their ethnic bases by spewing empty rhetoric.
Take for instance the allegation that the president in the proposed constitutional arrangement will wield extensive powers beyond the reach of the people. This argument is untrue. First and foremost, parliament will vet all presidential appointees. Moreover, with a two thirds majority, parliament can impeach an inept president without shooting itself in the foot as is the case in the current constitution. The senate is also empowered to check presidential excesses. From the foregoing, it is very clear that the president will not have a carte Blanche to act as he or she pleases. The fear that the president will be a quasi king is therefore unfounded.
As for the inclusion of the clause on abortion; I think that a section of the clergy have deliberately chosen to misinterpret it. If, indeed, they have fears that abortion proponents are likely to exploit the ambiguity in this clause, then parliament through legislation can define the term professional. Besides, Christians have God's ten commandments in place. I do not therefore think that it is in the province of the Government to legislate for people's morals.
And as for the inclusion of the Kadhi courts in the constitution. Let it be said loud and clear that the clergy are insincere on this issue given the fact that the Kadhi courts do not in any way infringe upon the rights of the Christians. It is worth noting that the church was adequately represented in the Bomas conference that came up with the then Bomas draft which has been one of the many references in the making of the current draft constitution. The Kadhi courts were not a contentious issue then. I do not understand why they have suddenly become contentious. In any case, true Christians know that equality is in the eyes of God, not the earthly constitution.
On land, it is instrumental to note that last year; the cabinet and parliament passed a comprehensive legislative National Land Policy. The draft constitution borrowed a lot of from this policy. The National Land Commission will among other things, initiate investigations, on its own or on a complaint, into present or historical land injustices and recommend appropriate redress. Closely related to this is the clause that empowers parliament to legislate on the minimum and maximum acreage that one is supposed to own. Implicitly, the government is targeting huge tracks of idle land. It is only proper that idle land is taxed to generate income for the country. One wonders why this issue has become so emotive. It must be made abundantly clear that the clause has nothing to do with the compulsory acquisition of land by the government.
Lastly, I do not agree with those suggesting that we postpone the referendum in order build consensus necessary for the amendment of certain clauses. I know for sure that if we had more time for the discussion of the draft constitution, we would probably make a great many more mistakes and make this exercise even more emotive than it currently is.
It is incumbent upon us to note that there is still a window of opportunity available to those dissatisfied. This is because, after the draft constitution has been passed at the referendum, any proposed law can be put to a popular vote before it can go into effect. Indeed, the practice worldwide is that signatures of about 5 to 10 percent of the registered voters are required to validate such a petition. In Kenya, only a million signatures are required.
Faced with these facts, I urge the “no” crusaders to kindly modify their stance, changing it so slightly so that "dissatisfied" becomes "satisfied," which is just a difference of three letters.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
However, it must be understood that there will always be an aristocratic minority who will fear that a fair constitution will curtail their insatiable desires. This explains why today, few political elites are trying to buttress bovine obedience in their ethnic bases by spewing empty rhetoric.
Take for instance the allegation that the president in the proposed constitutional arrangement will wield extensive powers beyond the reach of the people. This argument is untrue. First and foremost, parliament will vet all presidential appointees. Moreover, with a two thirds majority, parliament can impeach an inept president without shooting itself in the foot as is the case in the current constitution. The senate is also empowered to check presidential excesses. From the foregoing, it is very clear that the president will not have a carte Blanche to act as he or she pleases. The fear that the president will be a quasi king is therefore unfounded.
As for the inclusion of the clause on abortion; I think that a section of the clergy have deliberately chosen to misinterpret it. If, indeed, they have fears that abortion proponents are likely to exploit the ambiguity in this clause, then parliament through legislation can define the term professional. Besides, Christians have God's ten commandments in place. I do not therefore think that it is in the province of the Government to legislate for people's morals.
And as for the inclusion of the Kadhi courts in the constitution. Let it be said loud and clear that the clergy are insincere on this issue given the fact that the Kadhi courts do not in any way infringe upon the rights of the Christians. It is worth noting that the church was adequately represented in the Bomas conference that came up with the then Bomas draft which has been one of the many references in the making of the current draft constitution. The Kadhi courts were not a contentious issue then. I do not understand why they have suddenly become contentious. In any case, true Christians know that equality is in the eyes of God, not the earthly constitution.
On land, it is instrumental to note that last year; the cabinet and parliament passed a comprehensive legislative National Land Policy. The draft constitution borrowed a lot of from this policy. The National Land Commission will among other things, initiate investigations, on its own or on a complaint, into present or historical land injustices and recommend appropriate redress. Closely related to this is the clause that empowers parliament to legislate on the minimum and maximum acreage that one is supposed to own. Implicitly, the government is targeting huge tracks of idle land. It is only proper that idle land is taxed to generate income for the country. One wonders why this issue has become so emotive. It must be made abundantly clear that the clause has nothing to do with the compulsory acquisition of land by the government.
Lastly, I do not agree with those suggesting that we postpone the referendum in order build consensus necessary for the amendment of certain clauses. I know for sure that if we had more time for the discussion of the draft constitution, we would probably make a great many more mistakes and make this exercise even more emotive than it currently is.
It is incumbent upon us to note that there is still a window of opportunity available to those dissatisfied. This is because, after the draft constitution has been passed at the referendum, any proposed law can be put to a popular vote before it can go into effect. Indeed, the practice worldwide is that signatures of about 5 to 10 percent of the registered voters are required to validate such a petition. In Kenya, only a million signatures are required.
Faced with these facts, I urge the “no” crusaders to kindly modify their stance, changing it so slightly so that "dissatisfied" becomes "satisfied," which is just a difference of three letters.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Sunday, April 11, 2010
RUTO`S TREE PLANTING EDICT SIGNALS HIS CLIMB-DOWN IN THE FACE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
Going by the highly unexpected good tidings that emanated from none other than Hon. William Ruto, I have every reason to believe that the Eldoret North legislator is on the verge of a complete political metamorphosis. You see, this increasingly belligerent legislator has over time demonstrated that he has no ready-made solutions to offer despite his harsh criticisms of the various cabinet policies that he himself participates in crafting only to disown them even before the ink in which they were written dries up.
That he has finally completely reversed himself on the issue of environmental conservation and even gone ahead to issue an edict to the effect that all land owners in Kenya must have at least ten percent of their land planted with trees for purposes of conserving the environment is no doubt a climb-down in the face of political correctness.
Even though Ruto`s edict is logically inconsistent with his usual proclamations, I have no doubt in my mind that it has nonetheless left many conscientious Kenyans with a deep sigh of relief. I dare say that it is only a matter of time before he also sees through the same lenses, the wisdom in not attempting to engender yet another constitutional gridlock in this country.
It is surely comforting to know that even though we haggle and sometimes even quarrel over certain political issues but at least we can pride ourselves of being able to rise to the occasion and think (however long it takes) on the same wavelength when it comes to issues that gel us as a nation.
It is against this backdrop that Kenyans from all walks of life fervently hope to see a similar change of heart in William Ruto`s stance regarding the constitutional making process. We hope that William Ruto will sooner than later realize that parliament has had its say on the draft constitution and that it is only good manners that he, without further ado, lets Kenyans have the final say vide the prospective referendum. Neither should he make the costly mistake of allowing those hypocritical legislators surrounding him to cloud his political sense.
I say so because I have a feeling that Hon. William Ruto knows too well that there is no symbiotic relationship between him and each of those legislators attempting to debilitate the constitution making process. Many of them are politically inept and are thus desperately jostling to burry themselves deep in his political fur as a means of avoiding the wrath of their constituents come 2012.
Still, more others are conjoining themselves with him for the sole reason that they are deeply disappointed with the fact that the draft constitution has barred them from touting their presidential ambitions as a conduit pipe to retaining their parliamentary seats. They imagine that Ruto has enough political clout to kowtow parliament to amend the noxious clauses failure to which he will rally the public to reject the draft constitution at the referendum stage.
The more crafty ones think that Ruto`s political epitaph has already been written and that all they need to do to win the massive support from his political turf is to be seen publicly with him and to permanently adorn foolish grins on their faces and to vigorously nod their heads in agreement with anything he says.
Such conniving legislators must be told in no uncertain terms to hold their horses or risk their political careers festering faster than they can imagine. It is fallacious for them to imagine that Kenyans will allow them the opportunity to fire up their ethnic bases to vote “no” against a draft constitution that we have painstakingly sought for years without end. In so doing they will only prove to all and sundry that they are not progressive firebrands as they have all along wanted us to believe.
Quite frankly, it bothers many Kenyans that what is happening now is just an excuse on the part of a section of the legislators to advance arguments that totally ignore the constitution making process and that they are also hell bent on interpreting things in a rather parochial way in the hope that they will succeed in sowing the seeds of confusion among Kenyans.
Take for instance the land issue that has allegedly become contentious; how come that last year parliament adopted the land policy as it appears in the current draft constitution without the flaring of emotions? It is therefore purely hypocritical for a section of these legislators to belatedly backpedal on the same issue.
Kenyans are not a benighted lot and they will therefore not be confounded by such unintelligible doubletalk. Neither should such legislators attempt to adorn the church’s cloak or peddle ethnic sludge in the hope that such antics will provide them with the political discourse aimed at denying Kenyans a new constitution.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
That he has finally completely reversed himself on the issue of environmental conservation and even gone ahead to issue an edict to the effect that all land owners in Kenya must have at least ten percent of their land planted with trees for purposes of conserving the environment is no doubt a climb-down in the face of political correctness.
Even though Ruto`s edict is logically inconsistent with his usual proclamations, I have no doubt in my mind that it has nonetheless left many conscientious Kenyans with a deep sigh of relief. I dare say that it is only a matter of time before he also sees through the same lenses, the wisdom in not attempting to engender yet another constitutional gridlock in this country.
It is surely comforting to know that even though we haggle and sometimes even quarrel over certain political issues but at least we can pride ourselves of being able to rise to the occasion and think (however long it takes) on the same wavelength when it comes to issues that gel us as a nation.
It is against this backdrop that Kenyans from all walks of life fervently hope to see a similar change of heart in William Ruto`s stance regarding the constitutional making process. We hope that William Ruto will sooner than later realize that parliament has had its say on the draft constitution and that it is only good manners that he, without further ado, lets Kenyans have the final say vide the prospective referendum. Neither should he make the costly mistake of allowing those hypocritical legislators surrounding him to cloud his political sense.
I say so because I have a feeling that Hon. William Ruto knows too well that there is no symbiotic relationship between him and each of those legislators attempting to debilitate the constitution making process. Many of them are politically inept and are thus desperately jostling to burry themselves deep in his political fur as a means of avoiding the wrath of their constituents come 2012.
Still, more others are conjoining themselves with him for the sole reason that they are deeply disappointed with the fact that the draft constitution has barred them from touting their presidential ambitions as a conduit pipe to retaining their parliamentary seats. They imagine that Ruto has enough political clout to kowtow parliament to amend the noxious clauses failure to which he will rally the public to reject the draft constitution at the referendum stage.
The more crafty ones think that Ruto`s political epitaph has already been written and that all they need to do to win the massive support from his political turf is to be seen publicly with him and to permanently adorn foolish grins on their faces and to vigorously nod their heads in agreement with anything he says.
Such conniving legislators must be told in no uncertain terms to hold their horses or risk their political careers festering faster than they can imagine. It is fallacious for them to imagine that Kenyans will allow them the opportunity to fire up their ethnic bases to vote “no” against a draft constitution that we have painstakingly sought for years without end. In so doing they will only prove to all and sundry that they are not progressive firebrands as they have all along wanted us to believe.
Quite frankly, it bothers many Kenyans that what is happening now is just an excuse on the part of a section of the legislators to advance arguments that totally ignore the constitution making process and that they are also hell bent on interpreting things in a rather parochial way in the hope that they will succeed in sowing the seeds of confusion among Kenyans.
Take for instance the land issue that has allegedly become contentious; how come that last year parliament adopted the land policy as it appears in the current draft constitution without the flaring of emotions? It is therefore purely hypocritical for a section of these legislators to belatedly backpedal on the same issue.
Kenyans are not a benighted lot and they will therefore not be confounded by such unintelligible doubletalk. Neither should such legislators attempt to adorn the church’s cloak or peddle ethnic sludge in the hope that such antics will provide them with the political discourse aimed at denying Kenyans a new constitution.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Saturday, April 3, 2010
PRELATES STANCE ON DRAFT CONSTITUTION IS ALOT MORE DISINGENUOUS.
Three quiescent years after the botched up 2007 Presidential elections, it seems as if the leadership of the mainstream Christian Churches has rediscovered its voice again in the political arena. But unfortunately, once more its position, as represented by among others; cardinal John Njue of the catholic church and Reverend Peter Karanja; Provost of All Saints' Cathedral Nairobi, is yet again, on the wrong side of history. This is because their remarks to the effect that they will rally “their flock” to vote against the draft constitution are a lot more disingenuous.
Far be it for me to suggest that the prelates have no right as citizens of this country to comment on this country’s constitutional issues. The problem is that usually, whenever they comment on any constitutional issue, it is presumed that theirs is a reflection of the common position adopted by the church faithful. It is for this reason that I beseech them to be more guarded with their speech lest they want to goof time and again and in so doing, keep on confirming their astounding ignorance on constitutional matters with relative ease. Remember the 2005 draft constitution referendum vote? The leadership of the mainstream Churches tried to force down the throats of the faithful the direction to take. So many Christians I know voted en-masse against the respective positions taken by the church leadership.
This bits and pieces of increased and unrestrained sentiments by the top church leadership is not only a manifestation of their dictatorial tendencies but is also a clear pointer to the disrespect with which they hold “their flock.” Clearly, they have no respect for individual conscience and liberties on matters constitutional. I wish to remind them that the flock shall once more rightfully give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. It behooves the faithful to see the clergy behave as if matters constitutional are solely in the confines of faith more than reason. Take for instance, the right to life; it appalls the faithful that the church leadership is even oblivious of the obvious relationship between religion and science. Is not crystal clear to the church leadership that God intended science and religion to compliment each other?
The church leadership must begin to seriously examine itself and stop these antics. Theirs is not only a disgusting trend but also a dangerous one for that matter and which will not be tolerated by the faithful. I must not hesitate to state that I am a Christian faithful but not a Christian faith fool. I therefore have no patience with subjective and partisan prelates. The stance by the church leadership will undoubtedly see sentiments simmer at dangerously high temperatures in the mainstream churches. Managing this disappointment will require deft hands. It will perhaps take a lot more reassurance in the weeks and months ahead to calm the deep seated simmering anxiety among the faithful of the mainstream Churches.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Far be it for me to suggest that the prelates have no right as citizens of this country to comment on this country’s constitutional issues. The problem is that usually, whenever they comment on any constitutional issue, it is presumed that theirs is a reflection of the common position adopted by the church faithful. It is for this reason that I beseech them to be more guarded with their speech lest they want to goof time and again and in so doing, keep on confirming their astounding ignorance on constitutional matters with relative ease. Remember the 2005 draft constitution referendum vote? The leadership of the mainstream Churches tried to force down the throats of the faithful the direction to take. So many Christians I know voted en-masse against the respective positions taken by the church leadership.
This bits and pieces of increased and unrestrained sentiments by the top church leadership is not only a manifestation of their dictatorial tendencies but is also a clear pointer to the disrespect with which they hold “their flock.” Clearly, they have no respect for individual conscience and liberties on matters constitutional. I wish to remind them that the flock shall once more rightfully give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. It behooves the faithful to see the clergy behave as if matters constitutional are solely in the confines of faith more than reason. Take for instance, the right to life; it appalls the faithful that the church leadership is even oblivious of the obvious relationship between religion and science. Is not crystal clear to the church leadership that God intended science and religion to compliment each other?
The church leadership must begin to seriously examine itself and stop these antics. Theirs is not only a disgusting trend but also a dangerous one for that matter and which will not be tolerated by the faithful. I must not hesitate to state that I am a Christian faithful but not a Christian faith fool. I therefore have no patience with subjective and partisan prelates. The stance by the church leadership will undoubtedly see sentiments simmer at dangerously high temperatures in the mainstream churches. Managing this disappointment will require deft hands. It will perhaps take a lot more reassurance in the weeks and months ahead to calm the deep seated simmering anxiety among the faithful of the mainstream Churches.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)