Thought Picnic: Of feet on seats, a challenge to my objectivity

An annoyance

The bugbear of feet on seats, today had me questioning my impartiality and objectivity as the man sat opposite me chose to put his feet on the seat next to mine.

I have in times past asked people to put their feet down because I consider it rude and disrespectful to have your feet on public transport seats next to another passenger.

This is beside the fact that it is against the rules and just bad manners. I have before today tolerated this particular passenger's bad habit knowing he will have to make way for other passengers at the next station.

Prompted to act

However, today, I was presented with an opportunity I did well not to miss. When he saw the ticket conductor walking down the aisle to check our tickets, he took his feet off the seat, signifying he knew it was wrong to soil the seats with footwear and also preventing the situation of being told off by an authority figure.

The moment the conductor left us, his feet were back on the seat. At which point, I motioned to him and asked why he took his feet off the seat when the conductor came by and then put them back on as the conductor left us.

Not too shocked

Then I upbraided him for behaving badly before I returned to reading my newspaper, not too pleased with myself for waiting to act with civic responsibility.

We then got off at the same station and then I realised we worked at the same place. I was appalled, but not surprised. Alas! Gentlemanliness and the test of such a virtue is not a prerequisite for working at a bank.

Petition: Death release him!

Clicking to save the world

Quite recently, I have become rather concerned about the insidiousness of online petitions and their power to force issues onto the agenda demanding serious action.

The whole idea that we can at our keyboards and click our way to world peace and the Nirvana we have also dreamt possible and attainable is now so trendy, it is beginning to lose its purpose.

Now, I have signed a few online petitions, even gone out on protests to back what I am petitioning for, however, I am not one to sign all petitions that land in my mailbox for whatever cause, no matter how serious and endearing that cause might be to others more fully persuaded of that cause.

To be persuaded

I need to be persuaded and engaged, I need to see the goal and understand the need, it is important that we see what is achievable and what is just following the crowd.

Yet, there are causes that I will support because they are close to my heart, those to do with rights, with children, with justice when deserved and the last one I felt so strongly about was the petition to Selfridges Manchester to remove the anti-homeless and reprehensible studs they installed on the low-lying ledges of their shop windows.

However, three recent petitions have got up my nose that seem to tend towards malevolence than beneficence.

An adjunct to justice?

The petition against Ched Evans who having been convicted of rape and having served his sentence was not allowed to return to his footballing career because some people did not think he had served his punishment enough. Besides going to prison and his still protesting his innocence, the petitioners who amassed in their hundreds of thousands creating a wall of online protest that appeared to force the hand of more reasonable people unwilling the challenge public opinion.

What is uncomfortably insidious about this development is where the petitions appear to tag on an extra punishment beyond the justice system, the keyboard warriors completely abstracted from reality, yet effective in their petitioning numbers. You wonder, when is a punishment or a crime effectively served if petitions can grant unregulated public opinion the ability to impose new sanctions?

Like reality television, the power of the subjective and emotional without clear access to the facts has now become part of our daily life, and much as it is helping some people, it can also dramatically ruin lives too.

Entertainment trumps the punch

The second petition that is giving me great concern is the one imploring the BBC to rescind the suspension of Jeremy Clarkson who co-hosts the Top Gear show.

I am no fan of Jeremy Clarkson, his manner, his attitude or his activities much as his antics can be entertaining and still be a pitiful display of boorish kidulthood. There are reasons why the BBC chose to take the very dramatic action of suspending their ‘Golden Goose’ as Top Gear is probably the most syndicated television show in the world.

Like many who have signed the petition and the keyboard warriors are close to a million, we all do not have access to the facts and detail of what prompted the suspension. The said ‘fracas’ suggests Jeremy Clarkson allegedly attacked his television show producer for not providing the refreshment or food he wanted.

Consider the producer, for once

Jeremy Clarkson is a lumbering creature and no one can explain what the producer might have felt in terror or humiliation at being ‘attacked’ for not doing what was expected of him. The dispute could have been handled in a more gentlemanly manner if Jeremy Clarkson were ever a gentleman, and I have never been convinced he ever was.

Yet, for the popularity of his show, the producer has become inconsequent and a nonentity, whilst Jeremy Clarkson is to be excused and forgiven the actions that led to his suspension, because our entertainment matters more to us than the minor act of a probable fist connecting to the body of another lowly person who brings no glee into our well-adjusted lives. According to the petitioners and the following is global.

As a consequence, the producer might become a pariah and even lose his job because it is attached to the now suspended Top Gear show. Is there any justice in this world?

Death release him

Which brings me to the last petition and there is not much I can say to the fact that Sir Terry Pratchett died on the 12^th of March, 2015 after almost eight years of suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

Over 21,000 have signed a petition asking Death to give Sir Terry Pratchett back, I guess that is a petition I can sign up to, seeing we are coming into the Easter season. Honestly! That is what the petition craze has become.

Opinion: Our low threshold for standards

Our sense of judgement

Some events of the last few days have now opened my eyes to why Nigeria would languish at the bottom of corruption rating indices.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Ranking places Nigeria at 144 out of 177 countries with a score of 25 out of a hundred countries.

I observed in a number of tweets that the corruption measurement parameters are skewed to a Western perception of transparency to which we have very little sensitivity.

The poisoning of openness

For instance, there are too many areas where "conflicts of interest" have no particular meaning as pertains to public office.

People or organisations might have multiple interests which could affect their motives or cloud their judgements on issues where independence are critical for a transaction to be above board.

Neopatrimonalism is the order of the day where officials dole out without accounting or accountability to obtain favours and allegiance.

Here, especially people in power buy access, influence, allegiance, obeisance or votes by using the commonwealth of public funds.

Transparency is more a dictionary word rather than one of civil engagement required in all transactions.

Few talent pools

Whilst we are aware of nepotism, influence peddling and malfeasance, they all seem to be instruments of acquiescent brokerage.

We acquiesce to the abuse of power, privilege and office; as much as we can rail against this when it is not in our favour, we are accepting of the gains that this brings us without quibble, concern or even conscience.

The extension of this is the tribal and clannish tendency to want people like us in power rather than the best people we could find do things for the good of all.

The number of states in Nigeria is evidence of the many pools we have to fulfil positions to represent federal character but these many pools do not constitute adequate talent pools to tackle the challenges that face Nigeria.

Low thresholds for standards

For instance, we have a Freedom of Information Act that appears to be a tool of courageous engagement than an everyday call to accountability.

In the almost 30 months of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act, we have not seen its common usage in unravelling the obscurantist tendencies of the government, this especially in determining the cost of our democracy, how much oil we produce, how it gets spent and the real cost of the fuel subsidy.

The fundamental ethical demands of honesty, openness, integrity and so on, have a much lower threshold of fulfilment.

Normalised abuse

We have low expectations of ethical conduct, this accompanied with a very low emotional intelligence of the leadership that they are not discerning of issues enough to adapt or adjust until shamed, blamed, defamed embarrassed into taking appropriate action.

Rather than address the issue upfront, we seek moral equivalences and comparative scenarios to excuse reprehensible conduct or justify positions we have taken.

Consequently we are almost inured to the abuse of power and office, whilst those in power cannot be made fully accountable because the pursuit of truth, fairness and justice is neither with determination nor resolute.

Objectivity and honesty

I reflected on this as I read comments on certain blogs that partly inspired the blog I wrote yesterday - Opinion: The Salvation of Full Disclosure from Hypocrisy

The bigger lesson I want us to take away from that blog remains – With Full Disclosure, whilst people might question your objectivity, they cannot question your honesty, when you juxtapose that statement with another - Without Full Disclosure, whilst people might not question your objectivity, they will question your honesty.

You have a trade-off between objectivity and honesty predicated on full disclosure, that subtle distinction is what had me in the middle of the absurdity of apologising for manifest hypocrisy.

I have to admit and accept that my cultural influences are probably too diametrically opposed to my greater engagement that we all probably have a long and hard job of re-education and reorientation to appreciate that we need to raise the bar for ethical conduct.

Opinion: The Salvation of Full Disclosure from Hypocrisy

And I did

I rarely leave comments on other blogs, not even under duress, but this once I did, because, there was a need to say some pertinent things.

The issue concerned people who I consider friends from Social Media, I love my friends, and I cannot bear to see them warring in public, at the same time, I am rarely sentimental about my desire to have people cut it out and return to a modicum of peace.

I hope that when I view matters brought to my attention, I am able to see things sometimes quite radically different from others, it is a matter of perspective and there are many narratives to any situation all depending on where we observe things.

The spirit of gratitude

Like a popular author once said, we should be careful of the single story, and I rarely reiterate the story told by others if there is another angle of approach.

Broadly, this issue concerned charity, opinion, confrontation, offence, recalcitrance and opportunity for vituperation in the aftermath.

My view of charity is simple; there is only one valid response, it is gratitude. For they who bring succour and respite are angels in disguise for that time of need.

That angels displaying human nature can later on turn out to be obnoxious does not obviate the good previously done, its value for that time, place and setting is immeasurable.

The conflicts of gratitude

Demands can be made by the generous to serve interests inimical to the views of the recipient, but it is for the latter to adapt with reserve, circumspection and wisdom, it tests the patience and resolve. It is not beyond the capacity of all to exercise such.

We all have opinions, but the better part of valour is knowing how to make forceful points without alienating a source of goodwill. Goodwill should not present a sense of enslavement, and it is reprehensible for those who have done a turn of good to make unreasonable demands of those they have helped.

The fundamental, much as it is difficult to understand is that the act of generosity is meant to attract commensurate gratitude. There is no time limit to the expression of gratitude whilst it can accommodate the expression of truth with moderation, consideration and circumspection, which should not contemn the deeds of those who have visited with an outstretched hand.

No hypocrites with full disclosure

That said; there is a wider and broader issue when it comes to having opinions and views you want to share. There is no restriction on the freedom of expression but it is hypocritical to posit forcefully on issues where you have once been a beneficiary of a related cause without declaring an interest.

It is called “Full Disclosure.” This allows people to understand that you have an interest as you have a strong viewpoint, and whilst people might question your objectivity, they cannot question your honesty.

There is a reason why honesty is the best policy, because with it comes transparency, clarity, openness, fairness and truth.

The hypocrite has no refuge

In my opinion, the best way to tackle a festering problem is to determine its root cause, and there is no doubt in my mind that the absence of full disclosure in an original opinion opens that person to the excoriating rebuke of hypocrisy. The form criticism for hypocrisy could take varies, but we would be naïve to think there are parameters of engagement when it comes to condemning hypocrisy – no, there are none.

When seen in that context, it is easy to apportion blame, but it is hoped that people would engage to ameliorate the situation, albeit in the public space.

In closing, I would say, never sequester your freedom of expression, but if you have an interest in the matter or have been a beneficiary of the system that you have a strong opinion about, err on the side of full disclosure and save yourself the ridicule of being called out as a hypocrite.

Nigeria: The Senate Health Bill is rejected

A retreat in retreat

The Senate Committee for Health headed by Senator Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello presented their National Health Bill to the Senate where the quality and standard of the bill was panned such that the deputy Chairman of the committee had to withdraw the bill.

You will remember, the committee was given N10 million from the illegally disbursed N300 million that the Ministry of Health should have returned to the treasury on the orders of the President.

Committee apparently went on retreat to Ghana to discuss this bill and finalise what they were to present to the Senate, the developments now show that the retreat achieved none of the objectives to make the bill suitable for presentation.

It sounds like a bad school report to have a results that indicate in the words of the Senate officials your work has irregularities.

The profile of the Health Committee

I am really saddened that this committee headed by someone who holds a PhD in some health delivery field, albeit veterinarian and was once a state health commissioner failed to grasp the remit of her brief.

However, when you see that the committee also includes that instigator of the indecent dressing bill (Senator Eme Ufot-Ekaette), the quality might have been dampened by ideas of someone given to frivolities. As a pharmacist, she seems to have no medicine for Nigeria’s health needs; she chairs the Women and Youth Committee.

The quality of the presentation does not seem to have exhibited the presumed talents of Senator Chris N. Anyanwu who as a journalist suffered incarceration for her profession. She is the vice-chairman - Committee on Defence & Army

One senator and former governor refused to put his name to the bill that was Senator Chimaroke Nnamani of Enugu State who seems to be preoccupied with causing ructions in his old state.

Senator Mohammed I. Ahmed was a senator in the last legislative session, so should be conversant with senate procedures, he was once a Secretary to the Kwara State government and holds the coveted title of Member of the National Institute.

He also chairs the Establishment & Public Service Committee; in a position like that, he should have known better not to accept money from a ministry that his committee oversees, maybe he knows nothing about possible conflicts of interest.

Senator George Akume was once the governor of Benue State, a Director General and Permanent Secretary; he holds degrees in Library Science and chairs the Integration & Cooperation Committee.

Senator Adego Erhiawarie Eferakeya holds a PhD in Pharmacy (1975) and is a Doctor of Medicine (1977), he was Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Benin, and he is the vice-chairman of the Ethics & Petition Committee.

Senator Adeleke Olorunnimbe Mamora is a medical practitioner and the vice-chairman of the Federal Character & Inter-Governmental Affairs Committee.

Senator Umaru Dahiru is a legal practitioner, he was a Senator in the last legislative term and is now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Senator Hassan Gusau was a member of the last legislative term and is the vice-chairman of the Employment, Labour & Productivity Committee.

Senator Mujitaba Mohammed Mallam holds a degree in educational biology and chemistry and he was once the commissioner for health of Jigawa State, he is the vice-chairman of the Housing Committee.

Senator Manzo G. Anthony is the vice-chairman of the Information & Media Committee.

Senator Gyang Dalyop Dantong was a member of the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003 and a Senator since 2003, he is the vice-chairman of the Health Committee, he presented the bill and voluntarily withdrew it after the criticism of the quality and standard of the bill - he should at least know how things are done in the Nigerian legislature, one would think.

It beggars belief

This committee has 5 people who are either highly qualified health practitioners or have held positions of state health commissioner, it has 5 chairmen of Senate committees and 7 vice-chairmen of Senate committes, 2 were governors, 3 were Senators in the last legislative term, they all must have been involved in report preparations either academically or professionally.

This was no committee of nonentities, they were probably the best qualified of all senators to produce a bill of the standard that really addresses the health problems of Nigeria.

We have record numbers of people dying from malaria, religious organisations impeding their adherents from using health delivery programmes, sub-standard drugs are found in our teaching hospitals, Ministers of Health do not seem to have the right priorities and we do not have any institution in the country to treat our President when he has an allergic reaction and we end up with a bill for a junket in Ghana and no sound bill on health.

It is a disgrace.

Address the issue objectively

The Chairman in the person of Senator Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello has responsibilities to manage, if her personal troubles are getting in the way of performing her duties with dispatch she should honourably resign her chairmanship and allow the committee to deliver without being hindered by these external factors.

I am disappointed that some political movements have failed to address the issue of the problems that Senator Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello is having with her business dealings and indictments as completely separate from other matters that concern the activities of the regime of General Olusegun Obasanjo (Rtd.) the erstwhile President of Nigeria, who happens to be her father.

One is not surprised because from my observation Nigerians have a tendency to forget the issues and get carried away with peripheral subjective matters such that all objectivity necessary to address and scrutinise the real issue is lost.

If indeed Senator Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello is answerable to any charges, she should be dealt with as an individual in her own right and she be accorded all the means and courtesies to defend herself vigorously in any chosen forum of accusation, rebuttal, consideration and judgment.

The daughter is not the ex-President

She however should never be used as a conduit to get at her father who obviously has many enemies but is looking like a Teflon demi-god – if no one can legally and confidently indict General Obasanjo as an individual or head of a past government that is presumed to have been less than scrupulous, then he should be left alone to live out his years in pseudo-retirement.

This lack of objective focus on the issues allows the Senator to plead that she is being victimised and suggest that her life is in danger; it helps generate unnecessary sympathy for what should be a straight-forward legal issue whilst exciting commentary that could lead to exonerating her long before her cases are properly tried and proven.

It does no serve us well at all and it skews our criminal justice system.