|
A sober look at Namibias WEF ranking |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 02 August 2007 13:09 |
|
Dear Editor YOUR reference to Namibia “plummeting” down the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitive Index rankings needs some comment (Informanté, 26 July 2007: “Plummeting competitive ranking raises concerns” (p. 3) and “off the desk” editorial (p. 14), both by Max Hamata). Firstly, a change of five positions on a 125-country list would not normally constitute “plummeting”. In fact, another 27 countries moved down the index ranking by at least the same amount (including the USA, which fell from top place in 2005 to 6th position). Secondly, the rankings represent the ordering of a ‘global competitiveness score’, so that, for example, there are just 13 countries in the +/-0.20 range of the USA (score of 5.61), compared to 21 countries in the same range for Namibia (score of 3.74), making fluctuations in its ranking less remarkable. Thirdly, some downwards movement since 2003 should be expected when the number of countries on the index keeps growing. The latest (2006) table adds another eight countries to its list (although virtually all appear below Namibia). Fourthly, whilst Namibia’s 2006 score was 0.06 points lower than in 2005, the range for all countries was also lower: the maximum score fell 0.04 and the minimum score fell 0.15. Given its position on the table, Namibia’s result is better than might otherwise be expected. Fifthly, for SADC states, Namibia is ranked fourth, marginally behind Botswana (score of 3.79), and well ahead of all other member states. Finally, your reports singled out South Africa and Botswana for favourable comment, especially compared to Namibia, as investment destinations and as places to do business. However, those reports omitted to mention that South Africa also fell five places on the index; whilst Botswana fell nine places (so that the latest rankings suggest that Namibia has now almost closed the previous gap with Botswana). I make these comments without seeking to invite complacency. Perhaps, as the editorial argues, a Presidential Economic Advisory Council has merit; perhaps, as the article claims, business red tape needs attention. But it is not apparent that Namibia’s Global Competitiveness ranking warrants editorial or journalistic alarmism, or that it provides the vehicle for special interests seeking changes in public policy on the private sector. Possibly, even, the contrary could be argued from this World Economic Forum publication. |
|
|
Rape cases - where are we heading? |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 27 July 2007 09:51 |
|
Dear Editor I was very disappointed when I read in Informanté that some of our ministers have called in Mr Tona Amadhila’s daughter, who said that she was raped by her father, to ask her to withdraw the case. Now my question is: Where are we heading? Is rape not a state case? Meaning she can not withdraw the case. We are all human beings and deserve to be treated in the same manner. It does not mean that because the rapist is a wealthy or a well-known person that he deserves to be treated in a special way. We have cases in Namibia where people have murdered their relatives. So if people have the power to withdraw such cases, then it should be applicable to everybody, even murderers and all rapists - if we have the power to decide whether a particular person must be prosecuted or not. Nobody will want his/her father to be prosecuted by making up stories - because, as children, we love our parents very much and nobody will want their parents to go to jail. But if he deserves jail, he should sit. To the victim: keep it up, my Sister, because you are not doing this for yourself but for those who do not have a voice to raise. Ignore whatever people might say against you, because they will say it to demote and destroy you. But always remember that before they even said it, God knew that what they were to going say was for your own good (they meant it badly, but it was good for you). Concerned Polly student |
|
Last Updated on Friday, 27 July 2007 09:52 |
|
Friday, 27 July 2007 09:50 |
|
Dear editor I am a young Namibian who loves good quality Namibian music, but I’m very disappointed by the Omalaeti production artists and associates. These people are going around in public preaching that they are the only music label that does truly Namibian music. I am not opposing them but I definitely feel that they are immoral, apart from promoting their so-called truly Namibian music. They also go all the way against their fellow Namibian artists, saying that they are fake or master copiers. Referring to the letter that was written by John Wa, the owner of Omalaeti, and Tate Buti’s letter that was recently printed in your newspaper. They are all saying the same thing; that they are the only label that produces Namibian music. Tate Buti said; ‘There is everything wrong with it if we try to rename genres like Kwaito simply because we sing those bits in our vernaculars. A genre of music is defined by the way it sounds, which is called the bit, not the lyrical content. He goes on again saying; ‘I am trying to build up music in our own Namibian sphere and understanding. And I am confident that other truly local genres like Damara Punch, Shambo and Oviritje, will gain prominence in the heart of music-starved Namibians. If Tate Buti’s definition of a local music is right, then the only true Namibian music is Oviritje -that’s the only purely Namibian music with pure Namibian style. From my knowledge of African music, Kwiku and the lyrics, which are mostly in Oshiwambo, is the only thing different from the music that Tate Buti composes a chaste mixture of KwasaKwasa and Rumba, which are not Namibian music. Kwiku music is the music only common in Ovamboland, Windhoek and Walvis Bay. Is that truly Namibian? What about other regions, what will they listen to? They will listen to The Dogg, Gazza, Stanley, Gal Level, Qonja - not to Buti’s sister Janice or Pedrito. My point is people like The Dogg and Gazza do commercial music, it’s their career, it’s where they get the money to buy their daily bread. These guys are who they are because of their fans - so the fans love their music because it’s entertaining and hot. For example Gazza started with Reggae but transformed to Kwaito due to its popularity among Namibian so it’s basically about what the people want to hear, but not about what Omalaeti wants to impose on the Namibians. The message in their music is what keeps fans screaming and buying their music. Omalaeti wants to tarnish Kwaito, but Kwaito is also a Namibian culture - we the music listeners are happy with it. Kwaito is international, so whoever does it wants’ to be international. Gazza went to perform around Africa and he has established his name there and that is supposed to be the dream of every musician. The Dogg went to perform in South Africa and in countries such as the UK, Australia, Sweden etc. and these guys are rocking Channel O with pure Namibian style. Namibian Kwaito is very much different from that of South Africa; I don’t understand the meaning of ‘copy and paste’ Tate Buti is talking about. I wonder if Tate Buti take his music to Zimbabwe or DR Congo competing against Koffi Olominde if will impress an audience. Why hating on the guys who are doing the best in the industry, let’s build the industry. If one is trying to promote his music, he should only do so but not saying bad things about other artist’s music. It’s obvious that The Dogg, the Matongo Family, Gazza, and Qonja have more fans than these Omalaeti guys. But I don’t see any chance of gaining any fan by campaigning against them. Issai Namupala Mshasho and Kwaito fan |
|
|
Nujoma - give others a chance to rule |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 27 July 2007 09:49 |
|
Dear Editor REPORTS in the newspapers say that the Swapo Party Central Committee has proposed a change of the party constitution which is expected to effectively pave the way for its leader, Sam Nujoma, to remain in power with the title of National Chairman. This title clearly implies that Swapo is to be led by men only. It is not gender–sensitive, why? The Swapo Elders’ Council echoed the Oshana and Karas regions by calling for Nujoma to remain Swapo president recently. This is not fair. The former president must retire and give other people a chance to rule. He is not the only a person who liberated this country and it is not his personal property to do with what he wants. I am see a deliberate equation aimed at serving an individual’s interest, which is: Sam equals to Swapo Party and Nujoma equals to Namibia. My question here is, why was there no National Chairman before? We have got many people who really fought for this country, but they are not credited with this: - people like Kuku Andimba Toivo ya Toivo. If they were saying they want to change the Swapo constitution to create such title for Andimba Toivo ya Toivo that would be understandable since ya Toivo does not have a title. He is one of the co-founders of SWAPO’s forerunner, the Owambo People Congress (OPC) in 1957. If such a title is given to Nujoma, that is an insult to our democracy. Why always Nujoma? Is Nujoma himself not yet satisfied to what the Namibian people have given him? He must say thanks for being allowed to lead Namibia and Swapo for a long time. The Namibian Constitution was amended for Nujoma to run for a third term and now Swapo wants Nujoma to become a National Chairman. His name is given to many things in this country like streets, soccer stadium, railway station, schools, etc. Nujoma has got too many titles. What about others? Who is Nujoma by the way? He must go and enjoy his retirement! What he has done for this country is enough. Nujoma must follow the example of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela who surrendered the power to Thabo Mbeki. Nujoma must give the power to President Pohamba and democracy will play a role in our country. We are tired of being ruled by Nujoma ONLY in this country. This makes it seem like he is the only competent and clever leader in this country. He must retire and give us young people a chance to lead or choose the leader of our choice. HE MUST GIVE OTHERS A CHANCE PLEASE!
|
|
How can parliamentarians suggest that prisoners need condoms? |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 20 July 2007 09:54 |
|
Dear Editor Parliamentarians recently, to my surprise, discussed whether it is necessary to put condoms in prisons to prevent the high rate of HIV/AIDS in prisons. My point is, that parliamentarians must realise that they are in parliament on behalf of the people and to pass laws, not to play. How can they discuss the distribution of condoms to prisoners if they know that prisoners are denied to have sexual intercourse while in prison? This contained in the Criminal Procedure Act. Are they now trying to change the law which is already there, or what are they trying to do? What I think is that the guards are not doing their jobs properly. If they did, how can HIV/AIDS increase in prisons if prisoners are being guarded all the time? The Ministry of Safety and Security must make sure that enough guards are being provided to all prisons and that they do their jobs properly. If prisoners are allowed to have sex while in prison, what does this mean? What I know is that even when a husband and wife are in prison, they are not allowed to have sex somewhere while in prison. Now, how about those who are not couples, raping each other in prisons? Are they now going to put on condoms in order for them to rape each other as it is being claimed? Which means that even if people are couples and one happens to be arrested, the other one has a possibility to go and request his/her partner from the prison in order to have sex? Please parliamentarians must always think critically first before they discussing matters in parliament. By Mirjam Sakaria Mariental |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 285 of 314 |