Malawi University Of Science And Technology: The Educational Hope of the Nation

Certainly, the Malawi University of Science and Technology (Must) is one structure that attests to the visionary leadership of late president Bingu wa Mutharika. Here is an educational infrastructure that seems, in all respects, to promise an undrying well of intellectual water whose very physical shape announces of its academic importance and excellence

.

Now the future of Must seems to be in limbo if recent news in the local print and online media is anything to by. Mr Ron Mkomba, Chairman of Public Universities Working Committee (PUWC)--a committee which was set to oversee the construction of late Mutharika's six universities in the country, says that Must was supposed to be handed over to government in December last year. It is even doubtful if it will be handed by December this year given the financial woes rocking it.

Politically interestingly, one would ask if Must would have indeed been handed in December last were it that the brains behind it, late Bingu wa Mutharika were alive.

Tricky as the question is, one would not be wrong in arguing that it would have most certainly been handed in December. This would be the case given the fact that the late president would have gone to every imaginable limit making the worst of economic decisions just to see the project through.

However, it would be logically and economically absurd to accuse president Joyce Banda and her administration of deliberately choking the institution for fear of being seen to be towing the late president's vision and not articulating her own. Though, it would not be wrong in accusing the Joyce Banda administration of failure to give the project the serious attention it deserves.

Political side aside, there is real need for government and PUWC to work together towards sourcing funds for the project to see the light of day. Here, there is for PUWC to relook at how they see themselves and look at the project since the top has changed.

The Joyce Banda administration has to be given a pat on the back for having selflessly played a good part since the demise of late wa Mutharika. 

However, the government needs to do more to help the nation in keeping its educational hope alive. For this reason, the government, through its knowledgeable leadership, should press every button to unlock the K25 billion preventing the opening of the university. 

Much as we see the vision and passion for the project by PUWC, it seems PUWC is pessimistic as it is quoted to have made statements to the effect that they have no indication as to where the money to finish the project will come from. Such statements are, inevitable as they are perhaps given the circumstances, rather energy-sapping and, at most, a big mistake.

Additionally, government on its side has got to be the biggest hand since the opening of Must is surely a step forward in higher education circles and a welcome development in the education arena. Again, government can take the funeral of re-negotiating the soft loans, if possible, with the Chinese government or any like governments, so that the projected is finished in time and thus opens its doors to the ever-growing demand for university education.

To this end therefore, PUWC and government have got to be partners in identifying the funds for the project--all doing it with the national interest at heart. Unless collective and concerted efforts are made, and unless politics is left to be what it is--politics--should Malawians expect to see Must open soon.

Otherwise, politicking, dilly-dallying, and the façade of economic prudence in not coughing the K25billion needed for the final fittings and purchases of the project will only helping in flooding our streets with college-material youths who would otherwise have been agents of great gains in our economy and politics, thanks to the opening of Must and smooth-calendaring of the university education.

Yes, it will be commendable and politically realistic on the part of government if it includes Must in its programs for its speedy opening. Only when will the Joyce Banda government have given the nation quite another valid reason to keep it in power come 2014 since, by doing that, the Banda administration will have helped in keeping the educational hope of the nation alive, and that education hope is Must.

What a Politician Thinks About Apart from Self-Enrichment

THE recently released book by Professor Sheridan Simove titled “What Every Man Thinks About Apart from Sex” has a lot to offer to serious thinking academicians—and, generally speaking, everyone else. The book, a 200-paged blank one, asserts that there is nothing else a man thinks about apart from sex; hence the blank pages.

Inspired by Simove’s 39-years old research findings, the author got fired up and went back in history analyzing events about politicians and came to the astounding conclusion that seems, in all arrangements, to be nothing but common knowledge.

Cases of politicians’ predisposition towards self-enrichment in Malawi and beyond are as just rampant as the many cries in Malawi due to hard economic times—thanks to devaluation and Kwacha floatation. 

One such case is that of former Vice President Dr. Cassim Chiumpha. Here was an ex-VP who enjoyed all that associated with the ‘ex-VPship’.  One would look for answers as to why Dr. Cassim Chilumpha forwent the esteemed vice-presidency position only to accept a ministerial post—a position so unsafe as a fenceless mansion. It may be argued here, righty so for that matter, that it is perhaps this scenario that demystifies the topic at hand: “What a politician thinks about apart from self-enrichment”.

Today, almost all politicians operate on the go-where-grass- is-greenest thinking. Getting oneself into contact with this philosophy guiding politicians’ life should therefore give a firsthand hint about politicians’ probable next move.  

Have you wondered why, since politics became the hottest money-spinning adventure, it is the very same persons who migrate from one government to another. Essentially, it is not that these people are most intelligent or at best technocrats, no! These are people without any conceivable national development agenda but a personal one, vehemently pursuing it at all costs.

That is why the migration of the Blue camp to the Orange camp is no surprise to those in the know, politically speaking. It is for this reason that it would be  almost normal hearing of the Orange camp migrating to the Red,  Yellow, or Blue camp depending which camp carries the day come 2014 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections (PPE).

Expectedly, Kennedy Makwangwala had to move, so was Goodall Gondwe, Ken Zikhale Nag’oma, Uladi Mussa, earning such nickname as “Change Golo”, and all other party-prostituting politicians you know. It will therefore be politics as usual hearing of Patricia Kaliati, Kamuzu Chibambo, Chris Daza, Mark Katsonga and what have you all dumping their respective parties for another party pursuant of the self-enrichment thinking sweetly dubbed “go-where-grass-is-greenest” thinking.

Whoever the framers of the Malawi constitution were, the people were just geniuses. Knowing very well of this democratically-crazy, development-unfriendly philosophy, the framers thought it wise that there has to be stop to this, hence Section 65 as read together with Section 64. 

But alas! Knowing Section 64 to be a ‘hindrance’, some self-serving politicians repealed it leaving Section 65 a seating duck. And now, sadly, Section 65 has become a constitutional punchbag—getting itself tossed right, left, and center depending on what the government of the day and not the constitution sees right.

It is perhaps a tradition that every politician, as is true of life in general, has to offer reason(s) that appeals to the masses as to why s/he has made such and such a move or decision. When it comes to this the reasons range from the usual “I want to help the current government in development” to as uncommon as “My party is missing the point in criticizing the present government” and all the shaggy-dog-bull stories in between.

Therefore, politicians would go to every unimaginable length to look clean, sympathetic, patriotic, development-friendly, and logically sound when it comes to hiding and defending their self-enrichment. They would readily deny never having intentions of self-enrichment otherwise they would miss the money train, and would thus sugar-coat their maneuvers to give the false impression of a proactive politician.

In resting my case it be argued here that whatever it is the politicians say or do, one thing is obvious; they want 100-fold returns. Given the forgoing, this author argues, with no apologies or regrets, that there is NOTHING that a politician thinks about apart from self-enrichment. Yes! Whenever a politician makes his/her political moves and/or decisions, s/he thinks about one and only one thing—self-enrichment.

OMG! Malawi Presently In The Hands Of Small Politicians

IF manners make the man, then vision, tolerance of opposition voice, and financial prudence make the 21^st century great leader. Inspired by the foregoing , therefore, whosoever, by ‘divine’ chance or electorates’ choice, becomes a leader and lacks vision, silences opposition voice, and mismanages the economy, is, politically speaking, a small politician.

Though her democracy is nascent, Malawi has quite a good lot of history to write home about in the areas of leadership and governance. From Kamuzu Banda; arguably, Malawi’s greatest autocratic statesman—never mind the oxymoron—to such leaders as Bakili Muluzi—the greatest politician—and Bingu wa Mutharika—the visionary leader—through to Joyce Banda—the take-every-advice leader. It sure is a good array of leadership to learn from!

Expectedly, common logic convinces one that whosoever succeeds the former should pull less and less leadership eccentricities and gaffes. Given this history, one expected Bakili Muluzi to be a little wiser, so was Bingu wa Mutharika then and now Joyce Banda. But alas! That was not the case with Bakili Muluzi. Neither was it with Bingu wa Mutharika, nor is it with Joyce Banda.

Now at the pinnacle of government hierarchy, president Joyce Banda has moved from the sweet-VP old self to, sadly indeed, a donor-worshipping and take-every-advice leader. Her administration has not borrowed a single leaf from Kamuzu Banda—the belief in contact and dialogue.

Unfortunately, yes unfortunately, the Banda administration has adopted two leadership eyesores from her beloved predecessors: Bakili Muuzi’s economy-draining policies of handouts and Bingu wa Mutharika’s policies of trampling the constitution, giving a deaf ear to opposition voice, and that of globetrotting.

Perhaps every Malawian is witness to this. The presidency has now a 101th role, that of being always on the road giving food handouts from such townships as Ndirande and Chilimba to University students—Chancellor College and College of Medicine in particular.

Today, the Banda administration is a bedfellow of intolerance, corruption, and demonization of political opponents. It is not surprising these days to hear the president and her vice talking to the populace like they are talking to their Dutch uncles. Such is perhaps the new meaning of presidency, yes, perhaps it indeed is.

It is commonly held among leaders and the led alike the world over that every leader has to exude leadership traits in such a grand scale as to make him/her different from the ordinary men and women. One such leadership trait is projection of vision. 

The projection of vision is such a great issue that leaders are doomed to be booted out of position should they fail to manifest it. In Malawi, sadly though,  President Joyce Banda does not inspire confidence in the way and manner she and her administration articulate their vision leaving such Malawians as the author to conclude that she and her administration do not have vision at all.

Whenever there is talk of vision, one hears the present administration making reference to some international organization, country, or president as having said so and so. Here, one wonders as to how the international community would look at the Malawi issues with such precision and concern as a bonafide citizen, like the president, would. 

Still, one wonders if the present administration would pursue such donated vision to great heights given the fact that it seems it has no mental capacity to develop a vision of its own let alone implement a donated one.

The lack of vision is most probably the cause for the loss of direction in the administration. The local media is awash with reports of how the Banda administration is busy trashing every single advice from opposition; and how it is making every effort to silence the opposition in 2014 during the elections. The latest one being that of the Vice President ordering the Attorney General to revive Mr. John Kapito’s case as a way of silencing him so he calls off the January 17^th mass demonstrations.

As tenable as the foregoing is or can be, one is tempted to conclude, as does the author, that Malawi is being currently led by small politicians with no vision whose survival rests on silencing the opposition, and mismanaging the economy through travel and handouts.

Jan 17th Demos: Kapito Shining, Jb Govt Shaking, Malawians Shunning

HISTORICALLY, Malawians have long been believed to be generally quiet. Quite unexpectedly, the last days of late Bingu wa Mutharika administration ingrained in Malawians a different, largely unMalawian doctrine, if you like—that is, the belief that demonstrations is the solution.

Ever since, the demonstrations discourse has become so much of a catchword than simply a linguistic phrase in Malawi’s nascent democracy. It should be little wonder then that every single misunderstanding in companies, government departments, and organizations has demonstrations as the answer. To this fact, reports that siblings in family x have staged a demonstration demanding grocery allowance from their guardian would be normal sometime in the near future.

Now, the father of demonstration discourse seems to be John Kapito, the Consumers Association of Malawi (CAMA) boss. The man, who embodies the true meaning of advocacy and participative democracy in all fairness, is leading a campaign for Malawians to stage demonstrations on January 17^th 2013.

Surely, the Jan 17^th demonstrations have put Kapito in a coveted media and political spotlight. Cut loose, John Kapito is shining. With exceptions of the CAMA boss, Bingu wa Mutharika’s death has truly shown how much of cowards Malawi’s then human rights defenders are. More importantly, it has also given, of course on the political level, free lessons as to why there is need for treating the mistakes of a preceding government as first hand field data to inform government of the day in similar situations.

Today, human rights defenders have had their cacophonous voices irrevocably muted not by ill healthy or, God forbids, death but by cheap political guarantees in the form of carrots. 

But, hey! It is interesting to note that the 6-point petition John Kapito gave the Joyce Banda administration has sent shivers down the government spine. Perhaps that explains why every single moment government officials are busy demonizing the CAMA boss. The government seems to have everything in control. 

In addition, though tactlessly, the government is buying the sympathy of Malawians to give deaf ears to Kapito calls for mass demonstrations. It is here that one wonders: “why government is using every available opportunity to beg for people’s patience if at all John Kapito has no genuine issues for mass demonstrations? Aren’t Malawians intelligent and knowledgeable enough to know whether or not Kapito has good issues worth staging mass demonstrations?” 

The JB government is miserably failing on its considered agenda to tarnish the image of the CAMA boss. It is busy with Kapito as if Kapito will go knocking to each and every single house forcing its occupants to go out and participate in the mass demonstrations.

Observing the recent conduct of government on the January demonstrations convinces the serious citizen that government is obviousy panicked with the January 17^th demonstrations. By extension, this panic by government is enough reason to believe that probably the CAMA boss has serious enough issues that government knows need attention.

That John Kapito has issues is for the wiser readership to discern. What is of interest, however, is the reported low interest from Malawians to participate in the mass demonstrations. One may be true in arguing, as is always true of governments, that the government might have dangled a carrot to these people.

True as it may, that argument does not tell the whole truth. The other side of the truth might be that Malawians are now ‘awake’ and that therefore they know when they are used as pawns on the political chessboard. And, frankly speaking, the mass demonstrations called by the CAMA boss and Co. has every tell-tale of an arranged plan to use the masses for the organizers to buy for themselves favors from government.

It is common knowledge that organizers of such demonstrations are, at best organizers, and at worst, reapers of the fruits of the demonstrations. It is also important to note that they rarely physically participate as they mostly direct the proceedings of such demonstrations through phones, and sometimes they do so at the comfort of their homes. It is the local man, our uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, and friends who suffer the hardships of such demonstrations and its attendant miseries.

Given the above, it is concluded here that three things are clear from the January 17^th demonstrations: John Kapito is shining, Joyce Banda government is shaking, and Malawians are shunning. And the solution is; genuine and practical dialogue.

IF YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST, MINE DOES!

IN passing, the idea about God is as old as creation itself. Those in the know about revelations in the three Abrahamic faiths--Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, have all repeatedly manifested that God has always revealed Himself to humanity in different forms and fashions.

Of late, however, there has been some talk of great religious interest; the idea that God does not exist as championed by atheism, agnosticism--God neither exists nor does not exist, and, locally prominently, Secular Humanism. There is need to point out here that, though it is tempting to ignore these and other similar '-isms' in terms of its adherents, their idea that God does not exist is too religiously suicidal to ignore, hence my writing this article.

It is worth mentioning here that these God-does-not-exist associations mostly arise out of a growing disenchantment with religion. For the most part, the associations accuse established religions of “grand contradictions and inconsistencies”. Among others, creation, design, and morality are the areas they often times point. Using arguments from creation, design, and morality, I intend to show that God exists and, by implication, to show that those to the contrary opinion are most certainly probably wrong.

Before I get into the crux of the matter, I would like to inform my wiser readership that I excuse myself from appealing to any scripture of the three Abrahamic faiths, and instead use science and reason. This is the case because it is only more proper that I use science and reason as the God-does-not-exist associations believe them than use scriptures whose inspirer they say does not exist let alone believe His revealed scriptures.

To begin with, the assertion that God exists only requires, and not commits, its asserters to provide evidence. It is those who oppose the assertion that are committed to provide evidence; that is, the opposers have the burden of proof. Furthermore, to oppose that God exists presupposes knowledge of God which, by extension, presupposes His existence.

For example, if I non-metaphorically assert that I have a real Boeing 747 in my shirt pocket and someone screams, “you don't have!” presupposes that person's knowledge of a Boeing 747. To this person, the knowledge of a Boeing 747 convinces him that my assertion is false. It might be because a Boeing 747 is big and therefore cannot fit into a shirt pocket, and hence the scream, “you don't have!” Similarly, those who argue that God does not exist only confirm that God exists because arguing against something one does not have knowledge of is unreasonable if not utterly preposterous. It is said elsewhere that he that knows nothing doubts nothing.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION

Creation as we see it would need an All-time Cause, Infinite for that matter. I start: that which is in the universe has a cause where by 'universe' I mean 'a world of caused beings'. Proceeding; that which has a cause is finite--limited by time. It follows thus that everything in the universe is caused and limited by time. However, that which is outside the universe causes. That which causes cannot be caused and is infinite. God is outside the universe. Therefore, God causes and is infinite.

The circularity and the classic everything-has-a-cause arguments are hardly tenable. The argument as advanced above means God is the starting and stopping point, and no circularity either meant or implied. Everything-has-a-cause argument is all indefensible as it assumes that 'every' is everywhere 'every'. One good example is at a presidential rally. When the president says, “everyone has to be seated” you would always see soldiers still standing. This means that 'every' there did not mean 'every' but rather meant 'non-soldiers'.

The issue here should be to establish the finiteness of the universe. Logically, to be in the present presupposes to have been in the past and a possibility of being in the future which is possible only through a countable series of time. And the fact that this is 2012 presupposes a past, 1 BC, and a possibility of a future, say the year 2013, 2014 or 3000. Expectedly, this confirms the fact that the universe is limited by time and is therefore caused.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

There is no denying that the universe is stunningly intelligently and purposefully designed. You would agree that such design requires an intelligent and purposeful designer. And God is an intelligent and purposeful designer. For this reason, God must have, and of course he designed the universe. Recent scientific studies have all revealed that the separate laws governing the universe are related and interlock the universe thus confirming harmony and order in the universe as intelligently and purposefully designed by an omnipresent God.

It be made clear that Darwin's evolution theory is no obstacle here. Darwin postulated that species did not evolve through orderly mutation, by a random mutation and natural selection--the much-talked 'survival of the fittest'.  Darwin miserably failed to explain how random mutation and natural selection came about and how the matter in his so-called “pre-biotic soup” came to exist. More importantly, Darwin's theory is about EVOLUTION OF LIFE AND NOT ORIGIN OF LIFE. So, even Darwin could not explain the origin of life. Cut loose, a creative and intelligent God created the universe with a goal for His creation.

ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY

Contrary to what extreme moral relativists say, there is telling evidence in the world of objective morality. Existence of objective morality is evidence enough of a single supreme moral giver outside of us. If, as argued by moral relativists, what appears like objective morals is nothing but social conventions and natural instincts, then how would we explain the existence of absolute right and wrongs in the world?

Then why is it the case that the world is all unanimous in blaming Adolf Hitler that what he did was, and still is, absolutely wrong? Then why is it the case that all societies in the world, perhaps in the animal world too, it is generally agreed that to torture children, to murder, and to lie is wrong. I ask further: “why all societies commonly agree that it is good to love, to show care, to show compassion, and to be selfless?”.

There must therefore be some higher-order entity, a supreme being who wires something in humans that should teach us that it is objectively wrong to murder and objectively right to love. And that Supreme Being is God. Thus, argument from morality also is one way of establishing the existence of God.

From the foregoing, it is not only reasonable but also spiritual to believe in the existence of God, and Infinite, Personal, Intelligent, Artistic, and Purposeful God. And now, that God exists is perhaps beyond question to the God-does-not-exist diehard supporters. However, it is good to point out that humanity's knowledge of God is limited due to either humanity's finiteness, God's infiniteness, or both. Consequently, humanity cannot absolutely ultimately know God. Therefore, humanity's failure to furnish concrete evidence to prove God's existence should not be construed as vindicating that God does not exist. This is the case because absence of 'seeable' evidence of God's existence is not evidence of God's absence. Yes! ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!.