My attention has been drawn to Kennedy Buhere`s article (The Standard Newspaper 31st May 2010, P16) titled “Teachers to blame for poor language grasp.” I find Buhere`s stance on teachers of the English language maddeningly unfunny. It is loathsome for an opinion leader of his stature to behave like the “Bully Pulpit Preacher”, who elects to use mere rhetoric to shine a spotlight on an issue of national interest.
Buhere alleges that “lay” teachers of the English language have given up the fight against the ascendancy of Sheng among students. His is a misnomer. The truth is that teachers have put in place the language policy that seeks to encourage the use of the English language as the official language of communication not only within but outside school as well.
Apparently, his is a case of misconstruing the teachers` hue and cry over the ascendancy of Sheng among the youth to mean that teachers have given up the fight against minimizing the effects of Sheng in formal education.
All that teachers are simply looking forward to is a broad, proactive societal role to protect the interests of the youths in this nation. Parents must for instance take a more proactive strategy in guiding and counseling the youths. It goes without saying that society has given the youth so much latitude. Consequently the youths have become heavy consumers of popular culture, values that come from advertising, the entertainment industry, the media, and icons of style. These values are distinguished from those espoused by more traditional, political, educational or religious institutions. The effect of all these is manifested in their medium of communication which, as Buhere opines, is uniquely different from the mainstream society.
Things are made even worse by the fact that parents and guardians, flawed by their lack of understanding of their role, elect to make Sheng their occupation whenever they indulge in tête-à-tête with their children. This is a clear pointer to the fact that the parents` philosophy is not aligned with the schools` philosophy. In such instances, teachers are discouraged from actively disabusing the minds of the youths from their error of idolizing Sheng.
From the foregoing, Sheng is a social problem whose panacea does not lie in the hands of teachers alone. It is the society more than teachers that reserves most of the responsibility for the English language debacle. It is therefore incumbent upon Buhere to desist from his great game of straws and understand once and for all that teachers have no magic wand to wave.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Monday, May 31, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
POSITIVE DISCRIMNATION SEEKS TO FOSTER EQUITY IN A CHRISTIAN DOMINATED SOCIETY.
Thomas Hood (1799-1845) once said that “He lies like a hedgehog rolled up the wrong way, tormenting himself with his prickles.” Nothing could prove the import of Hood`s words than the on going debate on the draft constitution. You do not need to be schooled in matters law to realize that a section of the political and religious leaders have in an unceasing effort resorted to surreptitious interference of the constitution making process by desperately using very high profile propaganda to instill fear among Christians. Moral principles have lost their distinctiveness and absolute right and wrong are a matter of what the biased clergy and the filthy wealthy individuals say.
You have heard them opine that the draft constitution is fundamentally flawed on the count of the inclusion of the Kadhis courts. Yet, even with their “extraordinary vision” these leaders have failed to see how the majority Christian religion will sufficiently be served with the draft constitution. Moreover, suffice to say that a larger proportion of the laws in our penal code as well as the appointments in the judiciary are, today, tilted in favour of Christians.
By not acceding to the equal potential of all religions the Christian clergy (and the politicians hiding in their cloaks) will be justifying their intolerance and dominance. Simply put; they will be projecting an attitude that sanctions and encourages prejudice against other religions. It is thus imprudent of them to be obsessed with an invidious discrimination that is in itself an engine of oppression and subjugation of other religions as a means of maintaining or enhancing their power as Christians.
In realization of the disadvantages that other religions (and especially Islam) are faced with in our society the draft constitution has put in place article 27 (6). This clause talks about the state legislating other measures, including affirmative action programmes and policies designed to redress any disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups because of past discrimination. I see absolutely nothing wrong with such a provision being anchored in the constitution. There are other provisions dealing with positive discrimination which are anchored in the draft constitution. For instance, women are such beneficiaries. The inclusion of affirmative action for women in the draft constitution has not ruffled anybody`s feathers. Similarly, Kadhis` courts have their existence in the draft constitution vide this positive discrimination.
Like John Locke, we must forever allow “reason to be our last judge and guide in everything. Where reason does not guide our formation, our opinions are but the effects of chance and hazard, of a mind floating at all adventures, without choice, and without direction.” And this is dangerous trend because Christians will definitely in the long run inflict a lot of damage to themselves. For instance, if other religious faiths demanded for the expunging of all Christian family laws from our penal code as well as all forms of discriminatory Christian religious practices in all our public institutions and especially in our judiciary, I have no doubt whatsoever that Christians will become the biggest losers here.
It is for this reason that I believe that as Christians we can comfortably leave the Kadhi courts in the draft constitution without compromising our faith in any way.
Kadhi courts are only a remedial religious-based preference whose existence in the constitution seeks to foster religious equity in our largely Christian dominated society.
I beseech our Christian clergy to desist from religious disputes and especially those which are conducted in the eye of the public. Experience teaches us that such disputes are useless; they lead more to hatred than to enlightenment. We must never be seen to celebrate a court ruling that is likely to dismember the pillars that hold this nation together.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
You have heard them opine that the draft constitution is fundamentally flawed on the count of the inclusion of the Kadhis courts. Yet, even with their “extraordinary vision” these leaders have failed to see how the majority Christian religion will sufficiently be served with the draft constitution. Moreover, suffice to say that a larger proportion of the laws in our penal code as well as the appointments in the judiciary are, today, tilted in favour of Christians.
By not acceding to the equal potential of all religions the Christian clergy (and the politicians hiding in their cloaks) will be justifying their intolerance and dominance. Simply put; they will be projecting an attitude that sanctions and encourages prejudice against other religions. It is thus imprudent of them to be obsessed with an invidious discrimination that is in itself an engine of oppression and subjugation of other religions as a means of maintaining or enhancing their power as Christians.
In realization of the disadvantages that other religions (and especially Islam) are faced with in our society the draft constitution has put in place article 27 (6). This clause talks about the state legislating other measures, including affirmative action programmes and policies designed to redress any disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups because of past discrimination. I see absolutely nothing wrong with such a provision being anchored in the constitution. There are other provisions dealing with positive discrimination which are anchored in the draft constitution. For instance, women are such beneficiaries. The inclusion of affirmative action for women in the draft constitution has not ruffled anybody`s feathers. Similarly, Kadhis` courts have their existence in the draft constitution vide this positive discrimination.
Like John Locke, we must forever allow “reason to be our last judge and guide in everything. Where reason does not guide our formation, our opinions are but the effects of chance and hazard, of a mind floating at all adventures, without choice, and without direction.” And this is dangerous trend because Christians will definitely in the long run inflict a lot of damage to themselves. For instance, if other religious faiths demanded for the expunging of all Christian family laws from our penal code as well as all forms of discriminatory Christian religious practices in all our public institutions and especially in our judiciary, I have no doubt whatsoever that Christians will become the biggest losers here.
It is for this reason that I believe that as Christians we can comfortably leave the Kadhi courts in the draft constitution without compromising our faith in any way.
Kadhi courts are only a remedial religious-based preference whose existence in the constitution seeks to foster religious equity in our largely Christian dominated society.
I beseech our Christian clergy to desist from religious disputes and especially those which are conducted in the eye of the public. Experience teaches us that such disputes are useless; they lead more to hatred than to enlightenment. We must never be seen to celebrate a court ruling that is likely to dismember the pillars that hold this nation together.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Friday, May 28, 2010
THE CLERGY IS OBSESSED WITH INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OTHER RELIGIONS.
Over the last few weeks Kenyans have experienced a surreptitious interference of the constitution making process by a section of the political and religious leaders who have in an unceasing effort resorted to using very high profile propaganda to instill fear among Christians. They have opined that the draft constitution is fundamentally flawed on the count of the inclusion of the Kadhis courts.
Yet, even with their “extraordinary vision” these leaders have failed to see how the majority Christian religion and other minority religions are served with the current constitution. Suffice to say that a larger proportion of the laws in our current constitution are Christian friendly. The same can be said of our penal code as well as in the appointments in the judiciary. All these things are tilted in favour of Christians.
By not acceding to the equal potential of all religions Christians will be justifying their intolerance and dominance. Simply put; they will be projecting an attitude that sanctions and encourages prejudice against other religions. It is thus imprudent of them to be obsessed with an invidious discrimination that is in itself an engine of oppression and subjugation of other religions as a means of maintaining or enhancing their power as Christians. Positive discrimination is thus a matter of both empirical belief and moral faith.
It is instrumental to note that other religious faiths have not complained about Sunday, Easter holiday nor the Christmas holiday. They have not even complained about the judicial system whose laws gel with the Christian family laws. Neither have they complained about the standard practice involving the singing of Christian hymns, reading of the bible verses nor the saying of Christian prayers in public schools across the country. Besides, we must not forget the fact that Christian Religious Education is taught in public schools courtesy of the tax payers (including those who profess different religious faiths).
If other religious faiths demanded for the removal of all the faith based provisions in the current constitution as well as the draft constitution and the expunging of Christian family laws from our penal code, Christians will be treated to a rude awakening. If other religious institutions demanded an end to all discriminatory religious practices in all our public institutions and especially in our judiciary, I have no doubt whatsoever that Christians will become the biggest losers here.
It is for this reason that I believe that as Christians we can comfortably leave the Kadhi courts in the draft constitution without compromising our faith in any way. Kadhi courts are only a remedial religious-based preference whose existence in the constitution seeks to foster religious equity in our largely Christian dominated society.
From the foregoing, I hold it that last week`s ruling by the constitutional court was mischievous and was out to dismember the pillars that hold this nation together.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Yet, even with their “extraordinary vision” these leaders have failed to see how the majority Christian religion and other minority religions are served with the current constitution. Suffice to say that a larger proportion of the laws in our current constitution are Christian friendly. The same can be said of our penal code as well as in the appointments in the judiciary. All these things are tilted in favour of Christians.
By not acceding to the equal potential of all religions Christians will be justifying their intolerance and dominance. Simply put; they will be projecting an attitude that sanctions and encourages prejudice against other religions. It is thus imprudent of them to be obsessed with an invidious discrimination that is in itself an engine of oppression and subjugation of other religions as a means of maintaining or enhancing their power as Christians. Positive discrimination is thus a matter of both empirical belief and moral faith.
It is instrumental to note that other religious faiths have not complained about Sunday, Easter holiday nor the Christmas holiday. They have not even complained about the judicial system whose laws gel with the Christian family laws. Neither have they complained about the standard practice involving the singing of Christian hymns, reading of the bible verses nor the saying of Christian prayers in public schools across the country. Besides, we must not forget the fact that Christian Religious Education is taught in public schools courtesy of the tax payers (including those who profess different religious faiths).
If other religious faiths demanded for the removal of all the faith based provisions in the current constitution as well as the draft constitution and the expunging of Christian family laws from our penal code, Christians will be treated to a rude awakening. If other religious institutions demanded an end to all discriminatory religious practices in all our public institutions and especially in our judiciary, I have no doubt whatsoever that Christians will become the biggest losers here.
It is for this reason that I believe that as Christians we can comfortably leave the Kadhi courts in the draft constitution without compromising our faith in any way. Kadhi courts are only a remedial religious-based preference whose existence in the constitution seeks to foster religious equity in our largely Christian dominated society.
From the foregoing, I hold it that last week`s ruling by the constitutional court was mischievous and was out to dismember the pillars that hold this nation together.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
ONGERI`S SLIPSHOD LANGUAGE ON TEACHERS IS UNCALLED FOR.
Recently, the Minister for Basic Education opined that teachers are a languorous lot who are only too quick at demanding for pay rise than in redirecting their energies in improving performance in schools. He then went ahead to demand that they must post eighty percent improvement in performance to reciprocate the government`s gesture in implementing the Collective Bargain Agreement.
It is for this reason that I am impelled to discount the totalitarian tendencies and rising mediocrities perpetuated by the minister against the teaching fraternity. His penchant for extended digressions and slipshod language on issues affecting the teaching fraternity is uncalled for. In fact, he risks being seen as superfluous.
Suffice to say that nobody disputes the fact that good performance in national examinations is one of the principle outcomes of schooling. However, relying on students’ performance in national examinations as a measure of teachers’ performance (or lack of it) gives a very false impression on teachers` performance. This is because examination performance is depended on so many factors some of which are beyond the control of teachers. It is therefore critical that the minister looks at the schooling programme as a whole and not lambast teachers based on selective reading of the often inaccurate periodic monitoring and evaluation reports prepared by his ministry officials.
To begin with the ministry of basic education has continually held irrational thoughts that schools across the country are inherently at the same level of infrastructural development and that students have the same entry behavior hence examination results across the country must always be very much alike. The entry behavior aside, we are also too aware of the fact that there are many students with superior abilities but who pursue their studies in ill equipped schools and who do not achieve the measure that their abilities warrant because of poor infrastructure in such schools.
Moreover, I am sure that the minister is cognizant of the fact that what ails performance in the education sector is its poor planning (or lack of it), meager resources and corruption. It goes without saying that the schooling programme is reeling under heavy corruption, a problem which the minister is only too aware of.
It is therefore important that the minister understands that he is absolutely wrong in entirely relating poor performance to teaching or school leadership. Though performance in examinations is an important aspect of all educational systems, it cannot on its own be a reliable indicator in gauging teachers’ performance.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
It is for this reason that I am impelled to discount the totalitarian tendencies and rising mediocrities perpetuated by the minister against the teaching fraternity. His penchant for extended digressions and slipshod language on issues affecting the teaching fraternity is uncalled for. In fact, he risks being seen as superfluous.
Suffice to say that nobody disputes the fact that good performance in national examinations is one of the principle outcomes of schooling. However, relying on students’ performance in national examinations as a measure of teachers’ performance (or lack of it) gives a very false impression on teachers` performance. This is because examination performance is depended on so many factors some of which are beyond the control of teachers. It is therefore critical that the minister looks at the schooling programme as a whole and not lambast teachers based on selective reading of the often inaccurate periodic monitoring and evaluation reports prepared by his ministry officials.
To begin with the ministry of basic education has continually held irrational thoughts that schools across the country are inherently at the same level of infrastructural development and that students have the same entry behavior hence examination results across the country must always be very much alike. The entry behavior aside, we are also too aware of the fact that there are many students with superior abilities but who pursue their studies in ill equipped schools and who do not achieve the measure that their abilities warrant because of poor infrastructure in such schools.
Moreover, I am sure that the minister is cognizant of the fact that what ails performance in the education sector is its poor planning (or lack of it), meager resources and corruption. It goes without saying that the schooling programme is reeling under heavy corruption, a problem which the minister is only too aware of.
It is therefore important that the minister understands that he is absolutely wrong in entirely relating poor performance to teaching or school leadership. Though performance in examinations is an important aspect of all educational systems, it cannot on its own be a reliable indicator in gauging teachers’ performance.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Thursday, May 27, 2010
PROF. ONGERI`S SLIPSHOD LANGUAGE ON TEACHERS IS UNCALLED FOR.
Recently, the Minister for Basic Education opined that teachers are a languorous lot who are only too quick at demanding for pay rise than in redirecting their energies in improving performance in schools. He then went ahead to demand that they must post eighty percent improvement in performance to reciprocate the government`s gesture in implementing the Collective Bargain Agreement.
It is for this reason that I am impelled to discount the totalitarian tendencies and rising mediocrities perpetuated by the minister against the teaching fraternity. His penchant for extended digressions and slipshod language on issues affecting the teaching fraternity is uncalled for. In fact, he risks being seen as superfluous.
Suffice to say that nobody disputes the fact that good performance in national examinations is one of the principle outcomes of schooling. However, relying on students’ performance in national examinations as a measure of teachers’ performance (or lack of it) gives a very false impression on teachers` performance. This is because examination performance is depended on so many factors some of which are beyond the control of teachers. It is therefore critical that the minister looks at the schooling programme as a whole and not lambast teachers based on selective reading of the often inaccurate periodic monitoring and evaluation reports prepared by his ministry officials.
To begin with the ministry of basic education has continually held irrational thoughts that schools across the country are inherently at the same level of infrastructural development and that students have the same entry behavior hence examination results across the country must always be very much alike. The entry behavior aside, we are also too aware of the fact that there are many students with superior abilities but who pursue their studies in ill equipped schools and who do not achieve the measure that their abilities warrant because of poor infrastructure in such schools.
Moreover, I am sure that the minister is cognizant of the fact that what ails performance in the education sector is its poor planning (or lack of it), meager resources and corruption. It goes without saying that the schooling programme is reeling under heavy corruption, a problem which the minister is only too aware of.
It is therefore important that the minister understands that he is absolutely wrong in entirely relating poor performance to teaching or school leadership. Though performance in examinations is an important aspect of all educational systems, it cannot on its own be a reliable indicator in gauging teachers’ performance.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
It is for this reason that I am impelled to discount the totalitarian tendencies and rising mediocrities perpetuated by the minister against the teaching fraternity. His penchant for extended digressions and slipshod language on issues affecting the teaching fraternity is uncalled for. In fact, he risks being seen as superfluous.
Suffice to say that nobody disputes the fact that good performance in national examinations is one of the principle outcomes of schooling. However, relying on students’ performance in national examinations as a measure of teachers’ performance (or lack of it) gives a very false impression on teachers` performance. This is because examination performance is depended on so many factors some of which are beyond the control of teachers. It is therefore critical that the minister looks at the schooling programme as a whole and not lambast teachers based on selective reading of the often inaccurate periodic monitoring and evaluation reports prepared by his ministry officials.
To begin with the ministry of basic education has continually held irrational thoughts that schools across the country are inherently at the same level of infrastructural development and that students have the same entry behavior hence examination results across the country must always be very much alike. The entry behavior aside, we are also too aware of the fact that there are many students with superior abilities but who pursue their studies in ill equipped schools and who do not achieve the measure that their abilities warrant because of poor infrastructure in such schools.
Moreover, I am sure that the minister is cognizant of the fact that what ails performance in the education sector is its poor planning (or lack of it), meager resources and corruption. It goes without saying that the schooling programme is reeling under heavy corruption, a problem which the minister is only too aware of.
It is therefore important that the minister understands that he is absolutely wrong in entirely relating poor performance to teaching or school leadership. Though performance in examinations is an important aspect of all educational systems, it cannot on its own be a reliable indicator in gauging teachers’ performance.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Monday, May 24, 2010
THE THREE JUDGE BENCH HAVE MUCH IN COMMON WITH THE TROJAN PRINCE (PARIS).
Jean-Jacques-Rousseau (1712 - 1778) once said that “The general will is always straight, but the judgment that guides it is not always enlightened”. In trying to underscore the import of the above adage, one can draw some parallel from the “Judgment of Paris”, a Greek mythology whose impact on literature has been incalculably great. Its major characters, though shrouded in the distant past, exhibit personality flaws and strengths that are as real for people today as when the work first appeared.
The myth revolves around a Trojan prince (Paris), who was called on to judge which was the most attractive of the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite. Offered the bribes of power by Hera, success in battle by Athena, or the most beautiful woman in the world by Aphrodite, he chose the last. Aphrodite then helped him abduct Helen, so causing the Trojan War and earning the hatred of both Hera and Athena for the Trojans.
First, the moral story of this myth is that people (including judges like Paris) are corruptible. This is because the intellect is always at a high risk of being fooled by the heart. In such circumstances, many men and women of good standing find themselves succumbing to material temptations. Secondly, a judge whose moral standing is questionable may unwittingly make a ruling which commits the entire nation on pain of logical inconsistency so much so that hatred and animosity drives a wedge between neighbors.
In Kenya we have our own Trojan Prince in the name of the constitutional court whose ruling on the constitutionality of the Kadhis court has aroused considerable indignation and anger both in equal measures. Unfortunately though, this ruling is likely to engender religious intolerance which is a recipe for disaster in our fragile country that has barely healed form the 2008 Post Election Violence.
Like Hera and Athena our Muslim brothers and sisters are crying foul for what they consider a cold neutrality of the three judge bench. The Yes Team also reads mischief in the whole saga. They see this ruling as a ploy to derail the review process. In their estimation, this particular judgment is politically motivated and it is thus far removed from impartiality.
Some people have even opined that the court`s judgment is a pointer to the fear that has gripped the entire bench should the proposed draft constitution be promulgated. The fear is informed by the fact that there is a provision in the draft that requires a section of the judiciary to resign six months after the promulgation of the constitution for a thorough judicial purge.
There is a real danger that like Paris, the prince, the members of the bench may have eloped with the No Team. The ruling could just be one among the many in the “No Team`s bag of tricks”.
But even with the on going intrigues, the Yes Team should not despair. They must Like Abraham Lincoln, continually remind the electorate that “The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.”
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
The myth revolves around a Trojan prince (Paris), who was called on to judge which was the most attractive of the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite. Offered the bribes of power by Hera, success in battle by Athena, or the most beautiful woman in the world by Aphrodite, he chose the last. Aphrodite then helped him abduct Helen, so causing the Trojan War and earning the hatred of both Hera and Athena for the Trojans.
First, the moral story of this myth is that people (including judges like Paris) are corruptible. This is because the intellect is always at a high risk of being fooled by the heart. In such circumstances, many men and women of good standing find themselves succumbing to material temptations. Secondly, a judge whose moral standing is questionable may unwittingly make a ruling which commits the entire nation on pain of logical inconsistency so much so that hatred and animosity drives a wedge between neighbors.
In Kenya we have our own Trojan Prince in the name of the constitutional court whose ruling on the constitutionality of the Kadhis court has aroused considerable indignation and anger both in equal measures. Unfortunately though, this ruling is likely to engender religious intolerance which is a recipe for disaster in our fragile country that has barely healed form the 2008 Post Election Violence.
Like Hera and Athena our Muslim brothers and sisters are crying foul for what they consider a cold neutrality of the three judge bench. The Yes Team also reads mischief in the whole saga. They see this ruling as a ploy to derail the review process. In their estimation, this particular judgment is politically motivated and it is thus far removed from impartiality.
Some people have even opined that the court`s judgment is a pointer to the fear that has gripped the entire bench should the proposed draft constitution be promulgated. The fear is informed by the fact that there is a provision in the draft that requires a section of the judiciary to resign six months after the promulgation of the constitution for a thorough judicial purge.
There is a real danger that like Paris, the prince, the members of the bench may have eloped with the No Team. The ruling could just be one among the many in the “No Team`s bag of tricks”.
But even with the on going intrigues, the Yes Team should not despair. They must Like Abraham Lincoln, continually remind the electorate that “The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.”
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Sunday, May 23, 2010
TSC MUST RESCIND THIS UNFORTUNATE UNILATERAL EDUCATIONAL DISARMAMENT.
The teaching profession can only be added quality if teachers are given a sense of empowerment and responsibility. It is therefore everyone`s expectation that the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) has to encourage teachers to embrace further education and training. But this is not what is presently happening. Apparently many of the failures and problems in the teaching profession can be traced to inefficient and unresponsive systems of teacher management. To begin with, TSC does not value the enhancement of quality among teachers.
It is absurd for an employer who ought to demand quality above everything else be the one issuing an unorthodox decree that seeks to bar teachers from quality enhancement. This is clearly perpetuation of a pure misnomer. It is such attitude from TSC that has over time removed glamour from this once highly respected profession. Consequently the teaching profession suffers from image crisis. Fewer and fewer people want to be associated with the teaching profession in primary and secondary schools.
A visit to our public and private universities indicates that teaching as a career has hit an all time low. Very few students are taking teaching as a career. This trend portends disaster for our Nation. The educational foundations of our society are presently are undoubtedly being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrities perpetuated by the TSC. Among other things, TSC has unilaterally barred teachers from taking study leaves to pursue further studies on grounds of teacher shortages in schools. Through this unfortunate pronouncement TSC seeks to dismantle essential support systems which enable teachers bring quality back to class. TSC has, in effect, committed an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament. Unfortunately if this mediocrity is allowed to go on our very future as a Nation and a people will be threatened.
Yet TSC`s stance of being a permanent stumbling block to teachers professional growth does not come as a surprise at all given its penchant for disregarding quality in the teaching profession. Instead, its number one concern has been to heavily reward employees of the TSC at the expense of teachers. For instance, a clerical officer employed by TSC will earn Kshs 30, 000 while a primary school teacher with more years of education will earn a paltry Kshs 13,000. The disparity in terms of salaries between TSC employees and teachers keeps on increasing across the different job groups.
It appears as though TSC has advised the government to ensure that teachers' salaries do not keep pace with either inflation or the salaries of most other professionals, as a way of retaining teachers in the teaching profession. Not only are starting salaries low but they fail to grow fast enough to be competitive. Consequently, teachers are demoralized not only by low salaries but also by loss of status, bureaucratic pressures, a negative public image and a lack of recognition and rewards.
As a way of getting themselves out of this prison of some sorts, many teachers want to pursue further education as a means to enhancing their pay package. Unfortunately, a masters degree holder is given a paltry two increments which is hardly the teacher`s worth. Those who wish to go beyond the masters level will be hit by the realization that currently TSC has not thought of retaining teachers who have attained the doctorate degree.
These highly educated and experienced teachers have to look for greener pastures elsewhere. Perhaps the decision by TSC to bar teachers from taking study leave is as a realization that the number of teachers quitting TSC for greener pastures is on a steady rise. TSC has in the meantime to contend with teacher shortages.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
It is absurd for an employer who ought to demand quality above everything else be the one issuing an unorthodox decree that seeks to bar teachers from quality enhancement. This is clearly perpetuation of a pure misnomer. It is such attitude from TSC that has over time removed glamour from this once highly respected profession. Consequently the teaching profession suffers from image crisis. Fewer and fewer people want to be associated with the teaching profession in primary and secondary schools.
A visit to our public and private universities indicates that teaching as a career has hit an all time low. Very few students are taking teaching as a career. This trend portends disaster for our Nation. The educational foundations of our society are presently are undoubtedly being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrities perpetuated by the TSC. Among other things, TSC has unilaterally barred teachers from taking study leaves to pursue further studies on grounds of teacher shortages in schools. Through this unfortunate pronouncement TSC seeks to dismantle essential support systems which enable teachers bring quality back to class. TSC has, in effect, committed an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament. Unfortunately if this mediocrity is allowed to go on our very future as a Nation and a people will be threatened.
Yet TSC`s stance of being a permanent stumbling block to teachers professional growth does not come as a surprise at all given its penchant for disregarding quality in the teaching profession. Instead, its number one concern has been to heavily reward employees of the TSC at the expense of teachers. For instance, a clerical officer employed by TSC will earn Kshs 30, 000 while a primary school teacher with more years of education will earn a paltry Kshs 13,000. The disparity in terms of salaries between TSC employees and teachers keeps on increasing across the different job groups.
It appears as though TSC has advised the government to ensure that teachers' salaries do not keep pace with either inflation or the salaries of most other professionals, as a way of retaining teachers in the teaching profession. Not only are starting salaries low but they fail to grow fast enough to be competitive. Consequently, teachers are demoralized not only by low salaries but also by loss of status, bureaucratic pressures, a negative public image and a lack of recognition and rewards.
As a way of getting themselves out of this prison of some sorts, many teachers want to pursue further education as a means to enhancing their pay package. Unfortunately, a masters degree holder is given a paltry two increments which is hardly the teacher`s worth. Those who wish to go beyond the masters level will be hit by the realization that currently TSC has not thought of retaining teachers who have attained the doctorate degree.
These highly educated and experienced teachers have to look for greener pastures elsewhere. Perhaps the decision by TSC to bar teachers from taking study leave is as a realization that the number of teachers quitting TSC for greener pastures is on a steady rise. TSC has in the meantime to contend with teacher shortages.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Saturday, May 22, 2010
THE CLERGY HAVE SUCCUMBED TO THE INTRICATE TEMPTATIONS OF THE WORLD OF POLITICS.
The clergy have increasingly been made a butt of many cynical jokes. This is because the faithful have developed a cynical distrust of them.
And it is quite easy to understand the anger and frustration from the faithful. Big money allegedly from the “clergy’ is threatening to corrode our democracy. But it is not only the money from the clergy (which is actually a lingering misnomer for the church). We also have undue influence from the filthy wealthy cabal who in communion with the clergy are pulling their massive resources together to debilitate the process for essential reforms in this country.
Judging by their countrywide campaigns which are awash with all sorts of posters, leaflets and other political rally appurtenances, we have no doubt that colossal sums of money are involved. And, it cannot just be the contributions made by the Christian faithful. There must be undisclosed sources from which these colossal sums of money come from. And since the source(s) is a highly guarded secret, this can only be the kind of money whose aim is to pervert democracy. We all know that it can only be a perversion of democracy for a section of the clergy and politicians to rely on massive financial resources rather than prayer and ideology to influence the referendum outcome.
This perversion has been made possible by the very fact that at the moment there is very weak legislation that prohibits political groupings and individuals from sourcing and spending unregulated funds in a political campaign. Is it not time that the conscientious public demanded full disclosures of all contributions and disbursements that have so far gone to the No camp?
If indeed it is the money from the faithful, is its use not inconsistent with the purpose for which it was given? We need to know whether the faithful were consulted by the clergy before their tithes were injected into this muddy referendum campaign exercise. This is because no clergy on any pretext whatsoever can elect to use the church resources for purposes other than that which they are meant for. By using the faithful’s money in a political campaign, the clergy have succumbed to their appetites and lost their spirit among the singularly intricate temptations of the world of politics. By the end of the referendum campaign, the clergy will have to deal with the fact that they will increasingly be seen by the faithful as having become a misnomer and a cover for socio-political stagnation.
As for the Yes Team, I wish to remind them that commitment and consensus in strategy are prerequisites for a successful campaign. They must try to counter the floodgate of lies perpetuated by the naysayers. They must also deal decisively with those in their midst who have concealed their inner self behind the glib mask of duplicity.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
And it is quite easy to understand the anger and frustration from the faithful. Big money allegedly from the “clergy’ is threatening to corrode our democracy. But it is not only the money from the clergy (which is actually a lingering misnomer for the church). We also have undue influence from the filthy wealthy cabal who in communion with the clergy are pulling their massive resources together to debilitate the process for essential reforms in this country.
Judging by their countrywide campaigns which are awash with all sorts of posters, leaflets and other political rally appurtenances, we have no doubt that colossal sums of money are involved. And, it cannot just be the contributions made by the Christian faithful. There must be undisclosed sources from which these colossal sums of money come from. And since the source(s) is a highly guarded secret, this can only be the kind of money whose aim is to pervert democracy. We all know that it can only be a perversion of democracy for a section of the clergy and politicians to rely on massive financial resources rather than prayer and ideology to influence the referendum outcome.
This perversion has been made possible by the very fact that at the moment there is very weak legislation that prohibits political groupings and individuals from sourcing and spending unregulated funds in a political campaign. Is it not time that the conscientious public demanded full disclosures of all contributions and disbursements that have so far gone to the No camp?
If indeed it is the money from the faithful, is its use not inconsistent with the purpose for which it was given? We need to know whether the faithful were consulted by the clergy before their tithes were injected into this muddy referendum campaign exercise. This is because no clergy on any pretext whatsoever can elect to use the church resources for purposes other than that which they are meant for. By using the faithful’s money in a political campaign, the clergy have succumbed to their appetites and lost their spirit among the singularly intricate temptations of the world of politics. By the end of the referendum campaign, the clergy will have to deal with the fact that they will increasingly be seen by the faithful as having become a misnomer and a cover for socio-political stagnation.
As for the Yes Team, I wish to remind them that commitment and consensus in strategy are prerequisites for a successful campaign. They must try to counter the floodgate of lies perpetuated by the naysayers. They must also deal decisively with those in their midst who have concealed their inner self behind the glib mask of duplicity.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Sunday, May 16, 2010
HON. WILLIAM RUTO MUST ANCHOR CAMPAIGN ON DRAFT CONSTITUTION IN THE BREAST OF HONESTY.
If the words of Mario Vargas Llosa (1936- ) are anything to go by, then real politics has indeed very little to do with ideas, values, and imagination. It has everything to do with maneuvers, intrigues, plots, paranoia’s, betrayals and a great deal of calculation. It has no little cynicism. In sum it is a kind of con game. In Kenya, one only needs to confirm the truth of this assertion by just paying a little attention to the goings on in the current constitutional making exercise. The referendum campaign is so crowded with infamous falsehoods and distortions. In fact, it would be an understatement to say that there is a certain class of politicians whose mendacity is simply unparalleled.
Take for instance Honorable William Ruto`s rhetoric that the electorate can reject the draft constitution in the 2010 August 4th plebiscite and enact another one in a span of three months. Ruto knows too well that he is perpetuating a blatant falsehood. Perhaps it would do Ruto a lot of good were he to stretch his memory a little bit further to 2002. The NARC government then promised the people of Kenya that it would promulgate a new constitution in 90 days. It took the NARC government three solid years to come up with a draft constitution and even then vested interests saw the draft rejected at the referendum.
When the Wako draft was rejected at the plebiscite, the government did not invite people to gloss over the rejected draft constitution with a view to removing the clauses that they disagreed upon so that another referendum could be held immediately thereafter. The entire process had to begin afresh. It has taken another five solid years (two of which are under the grand coalition government) not forgetting that the process has consumed not less than 9 billion of the hard earned tax payers` money for the government to go through another constitutional making process. Like 2005, the country will have to wait for at least two years for political temperatures to subside before taking another stab at the process. And even after that we have to wait for a complete economic recovery before embarking on the process again.
This obviously mean that the country will have to head into the 2012 general elections under the current flawed constitution that led to the 2007 post election violence.
Honestly speaking, many Kenyans of goodwill shudder at the prospects of the country heading into another election without a constitution that has proper checks and balances. It is because of this that I beseech him for once to anchor his campaign in the breast of honesty. For the sake of the citizenry of this country, let him think for once that he could be wrong.
Currently, we are at the brink of enacting a new constitution and it were better if those who feel that there certain clauses they disagree with were to wait for its promulgation then immediately after embark on amendments.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter/tomefrancis.com
Take for instance Honorable William Ruto`s rhetoric that the electorate can reject the draft constitution in the 2010 August 4th plebiscite and enact another one in a span of three months. Ruto knows too well that he is perpetuating a blatant falsehood. Perhaps it would do Ruto a lot of good were he to stretch his memory a little bit further to 2002. The NARC government then promised the people of Kenya that it would promulgate a new constitution in 90 days. It took the NARC government three solid years to come up with a draft constitution and even then vested interests saw the draft rejected at the referendum.
When the Wako draft was rejected at the plebiscite, the government did not invite people to gloss over the rejected draft constitution with a view to removing the clauses that they disagreed upon so that another referendum could be held immediately thereafter. The entire process had to begin afresh. It has taken another five solid years (two of which are under the grand coalition government) not forgetting that the process has consumed not less than 9 billion of the hard earned tax payers` money for the government to go through another constitutional making process. Like 2005, the country will have to wait for at least two years for political temperatures to subside before taking another stab at the process. And even after that we have to wait for a complete economic recovery before embarking on the process again.
This obviously mean that the country will have to head into the 2012 general elections under the current flawed constitution that led to the 2007 post election violence.
Honestly speaking, many Kenyans of goodwill shudder at the prospects of the country heading into another election without a constitution that has proper checks and balances. It is because of this that I beseech him for once to anchor his campaign in the breast of honesty. For the sake of the citizenry of this country, let him think for once that he could be wrong.
Currently, we are at the brink of enacting a new constitution and it were better if those who feel that there certain clauses they disagree with were to wait for its promulgation then immediately after embark on amendments.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter/tomefrancis.com
DRAFT CONSTITUTION NOT FOR WHIMSICAL ANTICS AND FRANTIC SLAPSTICK COMEDY.
Even as the state intelligentsia (in a bid to avoid being seen as sharing in the guilt) fumbles with the investigations to unearth the bizarre faceless minions behind the inclusion of the two noxious words (national security) in the bill of rights, a number of persons—both public officials and private citizens have expressed fear of the existence of a very dangerous conspiracy aimed at cutting a swath through the efforts at enacting a new constitution.
It is emerging that the motivation behind the naysayers campaign is not because the draft constitution is fundamentally flawed as they would want the unsuspecting public to believe. (For if it was then they would not need a conspiracy to make the electorate reject it.) Their rejection of the draft constitution is informed purely by their collective phobia for a possible Raila presidency. It is quite disheartening for politicians to let a very sensitive and costly constitution making exercise degenerate into an exercise for settling personal scores.
Granted, Prime Minister (Raila Odinga) is one the most tumultuous and controversial figures in the political history of this nation. His fiery speeches have made him a well-known and popular figure throughout Kenya and the world. His single-minded pursuit of better governance has won him loyal admirers and implacable political enemies. It is precisely because of his growing political presence and his critical stance on governance that has made many political figures shudder at the prospects of his presidency. Today, many of the anti Raila crusaders are the former YK92 operatives.
It is instructive to note that at the time when the KANU apologists were snoozing courtesy of KANU`s political furs, Raila was a “political criminal” who was incarcerated because of his political convictions. Despite the incarceration, his hopes for a better Kenya were never dashed. He always drew inspiration from the fact that the world over, the history of human progress is at the same time the history of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn, and in Kenya, the brighter dawn was always considered illegal, outside of the law by the inimical KANU apologists that presided over the withering away of our state.
With the Kibaki succession politics gaining momentum, the move by the YK92 operatives alongside other KANU apologists to begin coalescing with a view to becoming power brokers is not unexpected. They willfully believe that the draft constitution, with its clear checks and balances, will make it virtually impossible for anyone to stand in the way of the democratic will of the people of Kenya. To them, a Raila presidency will mean that historical injustices will certainly be addressed.
The panacea in containing a possible Raila presidency lies in their incessant opposition to institutional reforms as well as in becoming stumbling blocks in the country`s efforts to enact a new constitution. In so doing, they hope to have a carte blanche to rig the 2012 presidential elections and then invoke the national security clause (which is in the current constitution) to kill, beat up, and silence those who will be patriotic enough to stand up against this treachery.
The question that is increasingly being asked by Kenyans of goodwill is whether whimsical antics and frantic slapstick comedy ought to be sufficient grounds for the rejection of long sought after draft constitution? The draft constitution cannot be and will never be the theatre of the absurd.
I take it that you will be sincere enough and honest enough and brave enough to render a verdict according to your convictions, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Suffice to say that each one of us is an atom in the incessant human struggle towards the light that shines in the darkness—the ideal of economic, political and spiritual liberation of mankind!
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
It is emerging that the motivation behind the naysayers campaign is not because the draft constitution is fundamentally flawed as they would want the unsuspecting public to believe. (For if it was then they would not need a conspiracy to make the electorate reject it.) Their rejection of the draft constitution is informed purely by their collective phobia for a possible Raila presidency. It is quite disheartening for politicians to let a very sensitive and costly constitution making exercise degenerate into an exercise for settling personal scores.
Granted, Prime Minister (Raila Odinga) is one the most tumultuous and controversial figures in the political history of this nation. His fiery speeches have made him a well-known and popular figure throughout Kenya and the world. His single-minded pursuit of better governance has won him loyal admirers and implacable political enemies. It is precisely because of his growing political presence and his critical stance on governance that has made many political figures shudder at the prospects of his presidency. Today, many of the anti Raila crusaders are the former YK92 operatives.
It is instructive to note that at the time when the KANU apologists were snoozing courtesy of KANU`s political furs, Raila was a “political criminal” who was incarcerated because of his political convictions. Despite the incarceration, his hopes for a better Kenya were never dashed. He always drew inspiration from the fact that the world over, the history of human progress is at the same time the history of every new idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn, and in Kenya, the brighter dawn was always considered illegal, outside of the law by the inimical KANU apologists that presided over the withering away of our state.
With the Kibaki succession politics gaining momentum, the move by the YK92 operatives alongside other KANU apologists to begin coalescing with a view to becoming power brokers is not unexpected. They willfully believe that the draft constitution, with its clear checks and balances, will make it virtually impossible for anyone to stand in the way of the democratic will of the people of Kenya. To them, a Raila presidency will mean that historical injustices will certainly be addressed.
The panacea in containing a possible Raila presidency lies in their incessant opposition to institutional reforms as well as in becoming stumbling blocks in the country`s efforts to enact a new constitution. In so doing, they hope to have a carte blanche to rig the 2012 presidential elections and then invoke the national security clause (which is in the current constitution) to kill, beat up, and silence those who will be patriotic enough to stand up against this treachery.
The question that is increasingly being asked by Kenyans of goodwill is whether whimsical antics and frantic slapstick comedy ought to be sufficient grounds for the rejection of long sought after draft constitution? The draft constitution cannot be and will never be the theatre of the absurd.
I take it that you will be sincere enough and honest enough and brave enough to render a verdict according to your convictions, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Suffice to say that each one of us is an atom in the incessant human struggle towards the light that shines in the darkness—the ideal of economic, political and spiritual liberation of mankind!
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Saturday, May 8, 2010
WE MUST ALL SAY NO TO SPIRITUAL MONSTROCITIES.
The three- hour “Uhuru Park Show” hosted by a section of the clergy and which boasted of a batch of like minded politicians attempted to create the impression that its audience is growing substantially. They may have nearly succeeded in doing so were it not for the fact that these men and women of the cloak forgot that such a function was likely to carry with it a pack of unintentional goals. One such unintentional goal (and which had far reaching ramifications) was in letting the all important prayer become a footnote in the whole exercise. This function, complete with all the paraphernalia of a political rally only helped portray the fact that the "maverickness” of a section of the clergy had definitely hit an all-time high. You see, they not only used the guise of prayer to unofficially launch the no campaign, but they also went ahead to choose their campaign symbol contrary to the rules and regulations of the IIEC.
In choosing the symbol of a whistle and instructing the naysayers to blow themselves out of breath wherever they are, the clergy were indirectly telling all and sundry that they are not only defiant of the regulations as laid down by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) on noise pollution but that they were also telling the larger public that they are more than willing to be insensitive to the public`s desire for a noise free environment. Not even God likes noise. Definitely, the electorate is sure to refuse to be subjected to noise pollution by the whistle blowing naysayers and this may breed a fertile ground for unnecessary confrontation. Such antics signal the clergy`s intention to create not only a rapaciously chaotic but also inefficient and irrelevant protracted referendum campaign. Moreover, whistle blowing will only help portray the clergy`s stance as nothing more than a whimsical kaleidoscope of confused signals.
It is such behavior that has made the electorate learn not to stop questioning the moral legitimacy of the clergy`s mawkishness on many other socially sensitive issues. Not even in the primordial society were people held captive in the miraculous whimsy of the supernatural. After all, God, in his own wisdom, deemed it absolutely necessary to abundantly bless man with scientific knowledge so that he (man) can put it to good use to save mankind. By insisting on subjecting mankind to oppressive weight of blind faith, the clergy are actively participating in their own relegation to the dusty cabinet of spiritual monstrosities.
In the words of Thomas Browne (1605-1682) “If there be any among those common objects of hatred I do condemn and laugh at, it is that great enemy of reason, virtue, and religion, the multitude; that numerous piece of monstrosity, which, taken asunder, seem men, and the reasonable creatures of God, but, confused together, make but one great beast, and a monstrosity more prodigious than Hydra.”
Indeed, the clergy must think it necessary to subject certain dogmas to a critique of reason if they are to command the respect of humanity.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
In choosing the symbol of a whistle and instructing the naysayers to blow themselves out of breath wherever they are, the clergy were indirectly telling all and sundry that they are not only defiant of the regulations as laid down by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) on noise pollution but that they were also telling the larger public that they are more than willing to be insensitive to the public`s desire for a noise free environment. Not even God likes noise. Definitely, the electorate is sure to refuse to be subjected to noise pollution by the whistle blowing naysayers and this may breed a fertile ground for unnecessary confrontation. Such antics signal the clergy`s intention to create not only a rapaciously chaotic but also inefficient and irrelevant protracted referendum campaign. Moreover, whistle blowing will only help portray the clergy`s stance as nothing more than a whimsical kaleidoscope of confused signals.
It is such behavior that has made the electorate learn not to stop questioning the moral legitimacy of the clergy`s mawkishness on many other socially sensitive issues. Not even in the primordial society were people held captive in the miraculous whimsy of the supernatural. After all, God, in his own wisdom, deemed it absolutely necessary to abundantly bless man with scientific knowledge so that he (man) can put it to good use to save mankind. By insisting on subjecting mankind to oppressive weight of blind faith, the clergy are actively participating in their own relegation to the dusty cabinet of spiritual monstrosities.
In the words of Thomas Browne (1605-1682) “If there be any among those common objects of hatred I do condemn and laugh at, it is that great enemy of reason, virtue, and religion, the multitude; that numerous piece of monstrosity, which, taken asunder, seem men, and the reasonable creatures of God, but, confused together, make but one great beast, and a monstrosity more prodigious than Hydra.”
Indeed, the clergy must think it necessary to subject certain dogmas to a critique of reason if they are to command the respect of humanity.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Monday, May 3, 2010
THE WHIMSICALITY OF WANTING TO INFUSE MORALITY IN THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION.
Any controversial national debate on the future of our country must always begin with the question of legality only then can we proceed to the question of morality.This two-step approach is what we mean when we say that our government operates under a rule of law. Some people seem to forget easily that the question of legality (which so often resolves itself into a question of constitutionality) is both fundamental and paramount on any given issue.
It is perplexing as well as perturbing that they have failed to go back to the basics and remind themselves that all great political issues eventually resolve themselves into legal issues. And since the Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the land, all debates on great national policy issues must begin and end with the Kenyan Constitution.
When some of them opine that the rejection of the draft constitution will mean going back to the current constitution which outlaws abortion I think they are obviously tethered on confusion's tail end. Suffice to say that what the current constitution has done is to leave the operationalization of the clause on abortion in the province of legislation. Indeed, the provisions in the penal code are no different from what is in the draft constitution. Are the naysayers saying that they are ready to live with the penal code that has the same provisions like the draft Constitution but reject the latter?
On this alone, can they be honest enough to tell us the motivation behind them yielding to the temptation to oppose the draft constitution. In this regard, I am afraid that they are truly caught up in the whimsical to the extent that they have totally failed to focus on the constitutional issue. Or may be, as it has been said, they are salivating at the prospects of swimming in the American Dollars whose sole intention is to debilitate the constitution making process in the country.
With regard to the Kadhis courts, I wish to remind the clergy (and those politicians hiding behind them) that they are no more catholic, pentecostal or believers in the African Traditional Religion than the rest of us. I have never, as a Christian, felt my rights infringed upon by the existence of the Kadhis courts in the constitution. If, however, at a latter date, they prove detrimental to my faith, then I will cross the bridge at that juncture. I am acutely aware that the draft constitution provides a window through which those aggrieved can amend it, so why all this fuss? Unless, of course, we do not subscribe to the biblical teaching that we are all equal in the eyes of God (with or without an earthly constitution).
And while the clergy are at it, a section of the politicians in the “Yes camp” are busy instilling fear in the electorate that we need all the naysayers on our side lest they defeat the constitutional referendum. Others like Augustino Neto (Saturday Standard, 1st May 2010) are imputing that the referendum may meet its Water Loo when the minority abstain from voting hence denying the referendum the quorum necessary for it to be valid. Evidently, this witty piece of writing is aimed at inciting the naysayers into abstention.
I wish to remind them that if we needed to have everybody on the yes side, then the import of a referendum will be lost. In any case, the referendum laws, in many countries do not provide for quorums. Save for those that put the threshold as low as 40%, the issue of threshold is deliberately left out in many countries. Still, many other people are of the opinion that just as it is unconstitutional to make voting compulsory so is the threshold requirement unconstitutional.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.comtter.com/tomefrancis
It is perplexing as well as perturbing that they have failed to go back to the basics and remind themselves that all great political issues eventually resolve themselves into legal issues. And since the Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the land, all debates on great national policy issues must begin and end with the Kenyan Constitution.
When some of them opine that the rejection of the draft constitution will mean going back to the current constitution which outlaws abortion I think they are obviously tethered on confusion's tail end. Suffice to say that what the current constitution has done is to leave the operationalization of the clause on abortion in the province of legislation. Indeed, the provisions in the penal code are no different from what is in the draft constitution. Are the naysayers saying that they are ready to live with the penal code that has the same provisions like the draft Constitution but reject the latter?
On this alone, can they be honest enough to tell us the motivation behind them yielding to the temptation to oppose the draft constitution. In this regard, I am afraid that they are truly caught up in the whimsical to the extent that they have totally failed to focus on the constitutional issue. Or may be, as it has been said, they are salivating at the prospects of swimming in the American Dollars whose sole intention is to debilitate the constitution making process in the country.
With regard to the Kadhis courts, I wish to remind the clergy (and those politicians hiding behind them) that they are no more catholic, pentecostal or believers in the African Traditional Religion than the rest of us. I have never, as a Christian, felt my rights infringed upon by the existence of the Kadhis courts in the constitution. If, however, at a latter date, they prove detrimental to my faith, then I will cross the bridge at that juncture. I am acutely aware that the draft constitution provides a window through which those aggrieved can amend it, so why all this fuss? Unless, of course, we do not subscribe to the biblical teaching that we are all equal in the eyes of God (with or without an earthly constitution).
And while the clergy are at it, a section of the politicians in the “Yes camp” are busy instilling fear in the electorate that we need all the naysayers on our side lest they defeat the constitutional referendum. Others like Augustino Neto (Saturday Standard, 1st May 2010) are imputing that the referendum may meet its Water Loo when the minority abstain from voting hence denying the referendum the quorum necessary for it to be valid. Evidently, this witty piece of writing is aimed at inciting the naysayers into abstention.
I wish to remind them that if we needed to have everybody on the yes side, then the import of a referendum will be lost. In any case, the referendum laws, in many countries do not provide for quorums. Save for those that put the threshold as low as 40%, the issue of threshold is deliberately left out in many countries. Still, many other people are of the opinion that just as it is unconstitutional to make voting compulsory so is the threshold requirement unconstitutional.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.comtter.com/tomefrancis
Saturday, May 1, 2010
CAN THE MINORITY DEFEAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM VIDE ABSTENTION?
It is important to note that the question of constitutionality of the promulgation of a new constitution consists of both the procedural and the substantive aspects.
The procedural aspect consists of the minimum requirements laid down by the constitution for the promulgation of a new constitution. On the other hand the substantial aspect consists of the basic concerns of necessity, beneficialness, and practicability. In other words, when we put this debate into the ordinary man`s language, there are two issues that we must grapple with: the procedural issue of constitutionality; and the substantive issue of policy.
Of much concern is the substantive issue and especially with regard to the necessary quorum in the national referendum. In view of the above Mr. Augustino Neto (Saturday Standard, 1st May 2010) touched on both the procedural and the substantial. On the substantive, he noted with a lot of concern the absence of the referendum law (which can only be introduced by ordinary legislation). The import of threshold is such that it gives the majority of eligible voters the impression that if that minimum requirement is not achieved, their opinion is not taken into account and therefore the referendum exercise is null and void. Individual countries are therefore expected to come up with clear, unequivocal, and straightforward legislation to guide their national referendums.
It is also important to note that countries have to decide whether a referendum on a single issue has the same weight with that of the promulgation of a new constitution and therefore both have to be subjected to the same threshold or whether the latter should have a slightly lower threshold. It is worth noting that in many countries, the requirement for the latter is slightly lower. This is deliberately so because many people fear that a higher threshold can block the whole process. They opine that when a higher quorum is provided for, the result of the referendum can be predetermined vide deliberate abstentions. This is obviously a move which is against the constitutional purpose of the referendum. Indeed, it is very possible that the naysayers can call for a countrywide boycott in the hope of defeating a constitutional referendum by abstention despite being in a minority.
Respective countries must therefore have the foresight to prevent such a scenario. I would for instance be frightened at the prospects of parliament passing a legislation that would require a 60% turnout of eligible voters and a 50% plus one as the minimum requirement for the promulgation of a constitution. But unlike Augustino Neto, I may be comfortable with a legislation that states that “a referendum’s decision “shall be considered effective and binding if at least 40% of the total number of eligible voters participate in the vote and if 50% plus one of them voted in favour of the decision. (It is instrumental to note that eligible voters herein refer only to registered voters and not anybody who has attained the age of 18 years.). This is because I do not anticipate voter turn-out to hit an all time low of 40% even with the ongoing debilitation by the naysayers kingpins.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
The procedural aspect consists of the minimum requirements laid down by the constitution for the promulgation of a new constitution. On the other hand the substantial aspect consists of the basic concerns of necessity, beneficialness, and practicability. In other words, when we put this debate into the ordinary man`s language, there are two issues that we must grapple with: the procedural issue of constitutionality; and the substantive issue of policy.
Of much concern is the substantive issue and especially with regard to the necessary quorum in the national referendum. In view of the above Mr. Augustino Neto (Saturday Standard, 1st May 2010) touched on both the procedural and the substantial. On the substantive, he noted with a lot of concern the absence of the referendum law (which can only be introduced by ordinary legislation). The import of threshold is such that it gives the majority of eligible voters the impression that if that minimum requirement is not achieved, their opinion is not taken into account and therefore the referendum exercise is null and void. Individual countries are therefore expected to come up with clear, unequivocal, and straightforward legislation to guide their national referendums.
It is also important to note that countries have to decide whether a referendum on a single issue has the same weight with that of the promulgation of a new constitution and therefore both have to be subjected to the same threshold or whether the latter should have a slightly lower threshold. It is worth noting that in many countries, the requirement for the latter is slightly lower. This is deliberately so because many people fear that a higher threshold can block the whole process. They opine that when a higher quorum is provided for, the result of the referendum can be predetermined vide deliberate abstentions. This is obviously a move which is against the constitutional purpose of the referendum. Indeed, it is very possible that the naysayers can call for a countrywide boycott in the hope of defeating a constitutional referendum by abstention despite being in a minority.
Respective countries must therefore have the foresight to prevent such a scenario. I would for instance be frightened at the prospects of parliament passing a legislation that would require a 60% turnout of eligible voters and a 50% plus one as the minimum requirement for the promulgation of a constitution. But unlike Augustino Neto, I may be comfortable with a legislation that states that “a referendum’s decision “shall be considered effective and binding if at least 40% of the total number of eligible voters participate in the vote and if 50% plus one of them voted in favour of the decision. (It is instrumental to note that eligible voters herein refer only to registered voters and not anybody who has attained the age of 18 years.). This is because I do not anticipate voter turn-out to hit an all time low of 40% even with the ongoing debilitation by the naysayers kingpins.
TOME FRANCIS,
BUMULA.
http://twitter.com/tomefrancis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)