Post 49 - Nigerian Politicians Fleece Their Constituency

 

I don't often publish posts in such quick succession; too busy with other things. But today my heart is bleeding at the way the Nigerian populace is being fleeced, not this time by western governments, banks or corporations, but by their own politicians. The main part of this post is an article in the Nigerian daily Premium Times.

You may be wondering why I publish a post about Nigeria. Well, in case you don't know, I spent most of 30 years in Nigeria and consider it one of my homelands, whose people I love and among whom I still have many friends. I knew how much they were taken for a ride by their politicians then and sought to equip the people within my large orbit to resist it. Alas, it is still going on full force. My heart bleeds for them.  By thus sharing this sad information with my readers, I bring darkness into the light, one of the recognized means of opposing and overcoming it--at least to some degree. 

It is possible that I have some enlightened readers who object to this disclosure, arguing that similar corruption and fleecing occurs in our own Canada or USA. Yes and no. It is there, as the current Duffy scandal is making all too clear. Indeed, but nothing to the degree it is happening in Nigeria. It does considerable damage in our western countries, but it brings Nigeria to near collapse.

Here, then, the article. To understand it you need to know that $1 (US) is worth N220, the "N" standing for "Naira," the Nigerian currency.Thus, if you want the dollar equivalent to the Naira amounts in the article below, divide them by 220.

                              ==============

         Nigerian Senators, Reps cornered N600bn in 4 years

                             but passed only 106 bills

                       (May 12, 2015Chinenye Ugonna, Richard Akinwumi and Joshua Olufemi)

Nigerian lawmakers managed to approve only 106 new laws out of 1,063 brought before them in the last four years, despite spending more than half a trillion naira within the period, earning the notorious title as the world’s highest paid legislators.

The figures mean for the National Assembly, with a combined annual budget of N150 billion since 2011, returned 10 per cent in efficiency and averaged about two bills each month.

Each year, the Senate, House of Representatives and allied institutions, compete for government funding with projects designed to provide jobs, healthcare, education and roads to the citizens.

While the Goodluck Jonathan administration has shown its preparedness to cut financing to those vital services to Nigerians in the face of dwindling revenues, the government has helped the lawmakers retain their super N150 billion budget per year in the last four years.

Not even the present oil crisis has been enough to force the government to minimize the lawmakers’ comfort, by redirecting funds to critical areas badly starved of resources.

A typical example is the 2015 budget, affected massively by sliding oil price. The dwindling revenue forced the government to slash spending for roads – Ministry of Works – from about N160 billion to N11 billion for the entire nation. But the federal lawmakers refused to allow even a dime to be sliced off their N150 billion annual budget.

While the National Assembly budget also covers legislative aides, the National Assembly Commission and the Legislative Institute in Abuja, the biggest chunk of the appropriation goes to the 109 Senators and 360 members of the House of Representatives, each year.

But while the lawmakers take so much, their work rate has been dismally poor, PREMIUM TIMES analysis shows. The miserable worth of Nigerian legislators’ output is amplified when compared with their American counterparts, for instance.  While the legislature, under the leadership of David Mark and Aminu Tambuwal at the Senate and House of Representatives respectively managed to clear 106 bills in four years, the U.S. Congress passed 29​7​ just between 2013 and 2014. That figure was indeed one of the lowest for any U.S. Congress session as the two chambers passed 604 in just 1999, and 460 between 2007 and 2008.

Yet, the Nigerian lawmakers are the highest paid, according to a 2012 analysis by the UK-based Economist.The report compared lawmakers’ earnings with their countries’ GDP – what each citizen is worth if their nation’s total wealth was shared by the population. The analysis found Nigeria ahead of all other countries of the world, with its lawmakers taking 116 times what an average citizen takes of the GDP. Kenya and Ghana followed with ratios of 75 and 29.8 respectively. Norway’s ratio was 1.8, while U.S. lawmakers took 3.8 of what their citizens received. The United States pays its lawmakers an average annual salary of $174,000 while Britain pays parliamentarians $105,000.

Nigerian lawmakers officially receive a modest pay of about $50,000(about N12m) yearly.
But they also pocket several illegal allowances, including the huge quarterly allowance which is nearly a $1m (N220m) a year.

                                                     =================

My youngest son, a Yale Ph. D,  works for a powerful Nigerian foundation in Lagos that is seeking to improve the business climate in Africa. He is rightfully annoyed with the attention paid to corruption in Nigeria. There is a more important story developing in the country, he argues, namely the boom in the Lagos economy with its spin off in the rest of the nation. I am grateful for that story and pray that it will soon outshine the negative story of national fleecing.

This paragraph is being written several weeks later--on July 11, 2015. The news yesterday was that both the new President of Nigeria, General Buhari, a pious Muslim, and his Vice President, a Pentecostal pastor, have offered to reduce their salaries by 50%. 

Post 48—Hail to Our Mothers

             

This is another remembrance post. Both are about giving life. While the previous one is about soldiers who have given their lives as their ultimate sacrifice for another (my) people, this one is about the life mothers give to their children. Both deserve our deepest respect and our most profound memories. 

Yesterday was Mother’s Day 2015.  The following poem by Amy Young was included in the worship package at our church. I thought it appropriate to share it with you without further words:

The Wide Spectrum of Mothering

To those who gave birth this year to their first child,

We celebrate with you

To those who lost a child this year,

We mourn with you

To those who are in the trenches with little ones every day and wear the badge of food stains,

We appreciate you

To those who experienced loss through miscarriage, failed adoptions, or running away,

We mourn with you

To those who walk the hard path of infertility, fraught with pokes, prods, tears, and disappointment,

We walk with you.

Forgive us when we say foolish things. We don’t mean to make

this harder than it is

To those who are foster moms, mentor moms, and spiritual moms,

We need you

To those who have warm and close relationships with your children,

We celebrate with you

To those who have disappointment, heart ache, and distance with your children,

We sit with you

To those who lost their mothers this year,

We grieve with you

To those who experienced abuse at the hands of your own mother,

We acknowledge your experience

To those who lived through driving tests, medical tests, and the overall testing of motherhood,

We are better for having you in our midst

To those who have aborted children

We remember them and you on this day

To those who are single and long to be married and mothering your own children,

We mourn that life has not turned out the way you longed for it to be

To those who are step parent,

We walk with you on these complex paths

To those who envisioned lavishing love on grandchildren, yet that dream is not to be,

We grieve with you

To those who will have emptier nests in the upcoming year,

We grieve and rejoice with you

To those who placed children up for adoption,

We commend you for your selflessness and remember how you hold that child in your heart

And to those who are pregnant with new life, both expected and surprising,

We anticipate with you

This Mother’s Day, we walk with you.

Mothering is not for the faint of heart and we have real warriors in our midst.

We remember you.

By Amy Young (http://messymiddle.com)

Post 47--Remembering Our Fallen Heroes

Post

Post

I am a Dutch-Canadian and holder of both countries’ passports. This early May a lot of attention was paid in both Canada and the Netherlands to the 70^th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands from the German Nazi regime. I remember the war and, especially, the liberation as they played out in my northern Dutch village of Lutjegast, but my memory is that of a child born in 1938.  Thus, these are not adult memories, but they are nevertheless valid and vivid. Those vivid memories are the reason for my interest in this anniversary as a Dutchman. 

For details I refer you to our—my wife’s and mine—memoirs titled Every Square Inch—A Missionary Memoir, volume 1, pp. 47-49. They can be accessed free of charge on <  www.SocialTheology.com  > on the Boeriana page.

But I am also strongly interested in this anniversary as a Canadian, for Canadian forces are credited for their dominant role in defeating the Nazis in the Netherlands and chasing them away. I remember the Canadian forces coming through and the joyful elation they brought to my village. It was dancing two weeks straight. Canada as a whole has always been remembered by the Dutch as their main liberator. But not all participants in the drama danced, for many thousands of Canadian soldiers paid the ultimate price and never made it home. Every year the Dutch send something like 50,000 tulip bulbs for a memorial garden in Ottawa as a token of gratitude. The Dutch continue to have a special regard for Canada till today. This year, Prime Minister Steven Harper himself participated in the festivities in the Netherlands.

It is for this reason that I pass on to you a statement on the subject from the Prime Minister:

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the anniversary of the Red Friday Campaign launch in Canada

May 6, 2015
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement marking the ninth anniversary of the Red Friday Campaign launch in Canada:

“Nine years ago, two patriots, Lisa Miller and Karen Boire, launched the Red Friday Campaign in Canada with a rally on Parliament Hill.

“They did so to encourage all Canadians to wear red on Fridays to show support for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who put their lives on the line every day to ensure the freedom, peace and security of our country. 

“That valour and dedication are still very much in evidence today. The Canadian Armed Forces continue to play a vital role in defending Canada and in championing justice, freedom and security around the world. In the past year this has included participation in the coalition against the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, helping to fight Ebola in West Africa, training Ukrainian forces to cope with the military aggression of the Putin regime, and deploying elements of the Disaster Assistance Response Team in the aftermath of the recent earthquake in Nepal.  

“As we count down towards the 150^th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in 2017, let us remember the many chapters that the proud members of our military have written in blood, sweat and tears in defence of our great country and our values. As we do so, let us never forget the enormous sacrifices of their families.

“I would like to thank all citizens across our great country who continue to wear red at schools and in their workplaces to show their support for those who serve.  

“I encourage all Canadians to continue this proud tradition as a gesture of respect to honour those who defend our freedoms and liberties with their lives.”

(From the Prime Minister's Web Site (http://www.pm.gc.ca/)

And from me personally: Thank you, Canada.

Post 46--To Bee or not to Bee—That Is the Challenge

You may have noticed that issues like secularism vs religion, science and religion, human rights, etc. are major concerns of mine.  However, I am also concerned with all kinds of more tangible and less theoretical things and happenings. The environment is a big concern of mine, even though so far I have not written much about it. You can expect more on such issues in future posts.

I may have given the impression in the above paragraph that the issues I list as major concerns of mine are less tangible and more theoretical. In the minds of some of you my readers that could mean less useful and less practical. That is by no means the impression I would want to leave. Those issues are among the most practical and tangible and, certainly, most important for the future of our society. 

Today I draw your attention to the bee issue. Actually, I had intended to do a post on water issues, but then this email about bees appeared on my screen this morning and I decided to switch to that subject as more in need of immediate attention. Both water and bees are very concrete and practical issues right now that do and will increasingly affect the entire world—which means all of my neighbours!

You may be aware that bees are dying off in droves, some due to “natural” causes indirectly the result of human intervention, including climate change. They are also being attacked by pesticides that we spray to preserve our crops. Lowe, a giant home and garden retailer, has been selling such pesticides. They have been “attacked” by an organization “SumOfUs” with great success. I am herewith passing on to you a report from SumOfUs. I am not a member and do not know enough about them to recommend them to you. However, I judge that the report you are about to read is valuable information and a good example of how ordinary people, when they band together, can overcome the mighty giants of our day. 

==========

We’re buzzing: Lowe’s, one of the world’s biggest home and garden retailers, just announced it’s no longer going to sell bee-killing "neonic" pesticides.

There’s no way Lowe’s would have done this without you and almost a million other SumOfUs members. Together with Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs members have been pushing Lowe’s to save the bees for almost two years -- and it worked!

We’re at a critical moment in the fight to stop the mass bee die-off -- with this move, we can push other big retailers and governments to save the bees as well.
Donations and actions from SumOfUs members made this all possible. Here’s what you did to make Lowe’s save the bees:

• Almost 1 million of us signed a petition to get Lowe’s to stop selling bee killing pesticides;
• Tens of thousands of us took to social media to let Lowe’s know that we wanted them to save the bees;
• SumOfUs members called Lowe’s stores, and visited individual locations to speak to managers about their concerns about selling neonics (the bee killing pesticides);
• So many of you turned up in person for the US and Canada day of action from cities from New York to Vancouver;
• SumOfUs members chipped in so beekeepers could attend Lowe’s annual shareholder meeting to speak directly with the CEO and Head of Sustainability during and after the meeting about their concerns;
• And so many more phone calls, letters, meetings, and protests.

We love it! This shows just how strong people power is when it comes to creating real change.

Lowe's commitment is the real deal: in the next 4 years, it will phase out all bee-killing pesticides in shelf products and plants that it sells. We’re not going to stop here -- not with your help. Please, if you’ve got just a minute, could you do one of these three easy actions to keep the momentum up? Or bee (get it?!) a superstar, and do all three!

1. Make a donation to keep the momentum up -- your gift will supercharge the Save the Bees campaign!

2. Share the news on your Facebook wall celebrating this huge victory for the bees!

3. Forward this email to five of your friends and show them that people power works.

Thanks for all that you do,
Taren, Jon and the rest of the team at SumOfUs

Congratulations to you guys and all your supporters from myself and my readers.

Post 45--Secular Pluralism—Solution to Intolerance?

 

In Post 43 I referred to Dr. Sue Hughson, President of the BC Humanist Association.  She got herself  involved in the mutual recrimination game that is going on in both Nigeria (between Christians and Muslims) and Canada (between Christians and Humanists) [Sue Hughson, “Secularism aids dialogue,” Vancouver Sun, March 25/2015]. She charged two Christian leaders, Geoffrey Cameron and Karen Hamilton, of “perpetuating imagined dangers of a ‘harsh’ and ‘strict’ secularism,” and countered their allegation with the exact same accusation: “The dangers they choose are not the results of over-zealous secularism but more symptomatic of religious sectarianism.”        There it is, right out in the open; exactly like Christians and Muslims in Nigeria. I thought this a perfect example of my allegation about mutual recrimination. It is hardly a figment of the imagination.

These two groups not only engage in mutual recriminations, but they also agree with each other at some fronts. Both agree that “pluralistic and multicultural dialogue is an absolute necessity for Canada to continue to grow and welcome immigrants from all cultures.”  Cameron and Hamilton even welcome the participation of secularists in this process. They “note the benefits of secularism in promoting tolerance, respect, science and free thought.”

But not so Hughson.  She declares that “these dialogues can take place only against a backdrop of shared secular values that transcend narrow belief systems.”  Pay close attention to her vocabulary.  “Secular values” are opposed to “narrow belief systems,” which in this context must be understood as religious belief systems—Christianity, basically, though not exclusively. Secularism is wide; religion, narrow. I’ve heard that claim before, of course, but it never ceases to amaze me. Secularism with its tunnel vision that recognizes only the empirical, wide?  Uh?  Where does that come from, except from a tunnel vision that is not acknowledged or recognized? Though there are some versions of religion, including the Christian religion, that are narrow, one can hardly claim that for the mainstream of Christian history and certainly not of the Reformed variety with its all-encompassing perspectives to which I adhere.

Hughson wants the discussion to be carried out “only against a backdrop of shared secular values that transcend….”  You see, secularism is the all-embracive wagon on which everyone else has to jump. It is the main rational platform to which everyone else has to conform. It is the biggest and has room for all these narrow little systems, though little toleration and no respect. Secularism is the standard for all. It is the same mentality that has given rise to our public school system. To disagree with that standard is to descend into irrationalism. It is the typical secular view that equates religion with the “archaic, flawed, aberrant and intolerant,” as Bruce Clemenger of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada put it in one of his circulars (April 2015).

I have argued at many fronts, also in earlier posts on this blog, that this secular perspective is a faith or belief and has never been proven anymore than any other worldview.  And it is an intolerant faith that insists that it is the rational standard to which others must tow the line and conform to its contours.

What, pray tell, is the difference between this secular claim today and the intolerant claims of many Muslims today and of some Christians both in the past and present?  How can this possibly serve as a platform for all?  To ask the question is to answer it.

Yes, secularists need to be at the table, as Hughson pleads, but not as the established worldview that sets the standard for everyone else, not as the new Anglicanism of earlier Protestant Canada or the new Roman Catholic of pre-Reformation days, but as one among many.  I agree with that fully, but only on a level playing ground.

At the same time, sometimes it is necessary to gather your own troops to reflect on what should be your approach. I am quite sure the agenda of BC Humanist Association meetings more than once has included discussions of this nature without having invited Christians. That is their right.  Christians have the same right, though for the dialogue to move forward you occasionally need everyone, no matter how much they disagree.

However, anyone with a superiority complex will have difficulty fitting in, let alone help advance—and that surely is the case with secularism.  Go to the meetings of Roman Catholics, of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, or of the Canadian Council of Churches or read their publications and you will find none of the hybris displayed by Dr. Hughson in the context of a pluralist society. They have all learned their lesson. It is time Secular Humanists humble themselves and borrow a leaf from them. Of course, this secularism has already been replaced by post-modernism that with respect to the issue of a pluralistic society is closer to Christianity than to secularism.

Post 44--Mea Culpa--We're Guilty

I continue with the subject of the previous post (43).  I want to make sure you, my readers, understand not only but also take seriously the charge in that post that we Christians have at least partially created our own troubles and are at least partially responsible for our own marginalization in the West, not to speak of the Middle-East and other places. I don’t just want this acknowledged and then move on with a shrug of our shoulders with little or no concern. We, Christians, have seriously compromised the truths, insights and requirements of our religion at the expense of others by marginalizing and oppressing them, not once, not twice, but time and again. It has been our style for centuries across the street and around the world. And that is a major reason for others trying to marginalize us.  

We asked for it, you might say. We should acknowledge that history, recognize that by our bloody mistakes—and they were bloody—we called up, we evoked this secular reaction from the darkness down below. People were tired of bloody religion, intolerance and discrimination, religion forced upon people. And they had good reason to object and rebel. It led to the French Revolution where religion was rejected as evil and to thousands of books on philosophy in which the whole notion of religion was ridiculed and rejected, while reason was offered as the great source of wisdom, the exclusive source. No more need for divine revelation, thank you. We can manage on our own.

At the beginning of post 43 I devoted a paragraph to my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations. In volume 5 of that series I wrote the following, part original and part quotation:

Kuyperians—a Calvinist version of Christianity to which I adhere--recognise that secularism is 

largely the result of Christian failing at various fronts and that it has introduced a number of important corrections in society. Jonathan Chaplin, at the time a faculty member of Toronto’s Institute for Christian Studies, is generous and honest in this respect:

Let me make it clear that the anxieties shared by many secular

liberals about the impact of public religion are real

ones. Some of them are mine too…And let me also record

that the response of early modern liberalism to public religion

was compelling and necessary. In the 17th century, religion

was not only public, it was backed by force of arms. In

such circumstances, we can see why moves to confine the

public expression of faith seemed so necessary. In time,

Christians who had stoked up religious warfare were humbled

and had to allow liberalism to teach it again what its

own deepest principles had always implied: that authentic

faith cannot and may not be coerced. So, a religious response

to contemporary liberalism must begin by appreciating liberalism’s

vital historical contribution to religious freedom and democracy.

In spite of my constant anti-secular bias throughout this series, I want this contribution of secularism recognised and remembered as we go along (pp. 139-140). That will help keep us humble as we struggle against the marginalization today’s secularists seek to impose on us. 

That is a major source of our secularism in Canada. Fear for that past. Islam is now reviving that fear and, for some, also the American Christian right.

Whether the response of secularism is the right response is another question, but that it has a historical justification is certain and true. We, Christians, asked for it. But that does not mean it is the right response.

So, as you will occasionally be entertained by my anti-secular blasts in this blog, do remember that it is something we ourselves have called up. Secularism is our offspring. As we correct it as parents do their children, let us do so humbly, something that may not come easy for someone like me, a crusader type of guy.

Post 43—Religion, Secularism, Dialogue

A few years ago I published an 8-volume series on Christian-Muslim Relations as they play themselves out in Nigeria.  

It is obtainable free of charge as an ebook from <  www.lulu.com   >.  All you need to do is punch in my name  “Jan H. Boer” and they will surface. You have to “purchase” through the normal commercial channel, including opening an account with Lulu, but in the end you receive a bill for a grand total of $00.00.  It will soon also be available on my website  < www.SocialTheology.com> on the Boeriana page. (“Boeriana” simply means “things written by and about Boer,” just like “Canadiana” or “Americana” are things written about Canada or America.)

One of the issues in those Nigerian relationships is that both religions accuse each other of trying to destroy or marginalize each other. They both have enough stories to “prove” “it.” A parallel situation obtains in Canada between religious and secular folk, though here it is a matter of mutual marginalization rather than outright killing. Since I am more familiar with the Christian scene, I will discuss the religious side of this issue from that point of view.  

Father de Souza, a National Post columnist, university lecturer, and Editor-in-chief of Convivium, a Cardus publication, delivered a lecture to the Canadian Club of Hamilton ON entitled “Should there Be Room in Secular Canada for Religion?”  That was not a question that needed discussion in the past, but today, he explained, it is “not as obvious to others that the religious voice is needed.” (Christian Courier, Jan. 26, 2015, p. 16).  He then reviewed various key moments in Canadian history where religion played crucial roles. Even today, de Souza asserted, many of the major issues require moral and religious insights for their solutions, even though those insights tend to be resisted and ignored by many.

At the same time, de Souza acknowledged that at least part of the reason for the marginalization of religion among Canadians and in public discussions is the fact that Christians have often misbehaved or not lived up to their own standards. The author of this report on de Souza lecture, Sean Schat, a Ph. D. candidate at Brock University, explained that we “Christians have silenced our own voices….  Too often, our words and actions do not match our intentions.”  Sad but true. We have oppressed and marginalized those unlike us. We have often made it difficulty for others and pushed them from the centre.

The result of that disconnect between Christian teaching and behaviour is disrespect for us on the part of the non-religious, the secularists among us. They have developed negative attitudes towards faith in general, including Christianity. They have long been arguing that religion should be private and restricted to the personal, private and the church and be kept out of the marketplaces of the nation.  The result of that result is that Christians complain that they are being pushed out to the margins of society. That is a legitimate and true complaint that you have met already and will continue to meet frequently in the posts of this blog.  We have a right to air that complaint and to try to overcome that situation, but as we do so, we should remember that we have asked for it by that disconnect mentioned above.

However, many secularists also feel that that they are being marginalized in society. I was once a member of a small group comprised of  adherents of various religions as well as secularists. The group had been pioneered by atheists who complained that they are discriminated against in the public school system by religious folk, particularly Christians. That may well surprise Christians who feel that they are the ones discriminated against in these same schools. The atheists, active members of the BC Humanist Association, wanted to restore the teaching of religions in the schools, religions now referred to as “worldviews” that would then include Humanism.  I strongly supported this cause and, in the process, became close friends with these Humanists, without either side losing sight of our differences.  So, as in Nigeria, so here we have these two sides accusing each other of marginalizing the other.

Fortunately, in the context of the above worldview crusade, we had agreed to be open about our differences and be prepared to discuss them, but always in a friendly and respectful way. We stuck to that agenda and I, at least, had a wonderful time with my new friends. But it is not always that friendly an atmosphere in which these matters are discussed. You may be familiar with the vitriol in the popular books by leading atheists of our day. They can be vicious.

And as to being marginalized, Sue Hughson, President of the BC Humanist Association, complained that the secular community had been excluded from the recent Our Whole Society conference held in Vancouver that addressed these very issues. She wrote, “Despite claims of collaboration with secular organizations, none appear on the program…. The conversation about religion and secularism requires secular communities at the table” (Vancouver Sun, 25 March, 2015). I was surprised, for one of the organizers of the event was a secular think tank. But if her complaint is based on facts, then I would agree with her—on this point, at least.

So, there it is, both sides accusing each other of discriminating and marginalizing the other.  I am hoping to explore this topic further over the next few posts, provided some more urgent matters do not interfere or intervene, by examining first the secular solution and then the Christian.  Well, of course. As a Christian I would want the last word. However, if any secularists reading this post want to write the last post on this subject, I will welcome them. However, theirs will not really be the last word, for I will be writing about these issues off and on. They are among the major reasons I started this blog in the first place.