Two days ago, if you were listening to the international news, it was all about the 'siege' in a chocolate shop in the rich financial centre of Sydney Australia. It was perpertrated by a lone disturbed gunman with a shotgun, holding hostages inside the shop, and was startling, though not very dreadful, until the police stormed the shop at 2 in the morning, killing the gunman and two other hostages.
The very next day this incident was dwarfed by an attack in Peshawar, Pakistan. In an act of the utmost barbarism, even by Pakistan's violent standards, heavily armed militants stormed a school run by the army for children of military personnel, not to take hostages and demand ransoms, though that would have been bad enough, but with intent purely to massacre as many children and teachers as possible. They burst into the morning assembly, where over 100 pupils were gathered, and shot nearly all of them, and then worked their way from classroom to classroom. By the time the Pakistani army regained control, and killed the militants, 145 were dead, including 136 children.
The Pakistani Taleban claimed responsibility, claiming that it was in revenge for the fairly successful military offensive against their tribal strongholds in the last few months. Will this mark a turning point, a sea change, in the fight against the Taleban in the region? Pakistan is the wierdest of countries, officially with a pro Western Government, but with factions of the military and certainly the secret sky agency (ISI) with sympathies to the Taleban. The attention of the world has been focussed on ISIS in Syria and Iraq, but the old problems remain.
Will it make a difference, will the Taleban and other extremist groups ever be rooted out, or will the politics and violence in the region continue as it always has done?
Meanwhile, forget about your family and financial problems this festive season. If you have an illness, forget about it. Just hold your children tight, and give thanks they go to school in a peaceful part of the world.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Torture and denial
The most bizarre international news this week was the admission by the US that it had used 'extreme interrogation techniques' otherwise known as torture on captured prisoners suspected of involvement in the 9/11 attacks. This admission could not have been more high profile, taking the form of a two hour speech by a lady in the US senate, broadcast in full on CNN - actually Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the senate Intelligence committee, and the report was the result of a four year investigation, trawling through some 6 million pages of CIA - the US central intelligence agency - documents. In so doing they found ample evidence of these interrogation techniques. Of course, much of this is not new - everyone has heard of waterboarding and seen the pictures of the humiliated prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Everyone knows that the CIA, once an abstract intelligence gathering organisation, had morphed into a kind of secret police force after 9/11.
The first point was that the CIA had never denied that these 'techniques' had taken place, but had justified them on the grounds that in the wake of 9/11 it was urgently necessary to obtain information from captured suspects to possible future or imminent attacks on the US; the assumption being that such information was obtained, to prevent further attacks, and that the extreme techniques were therefore justified.
But this was exactly what was refuted in the Senate report, which said that no information obtained by torture had been useful or valuable in stopping attacks, and that counter-terrorism intelligence had been obtained by more conventional means. To an ordinary person, this seems obvious - any 'information' obtained under torture is likely to be of low quality - the prisoner will tell the torturer anything he wants to hear. So that even the expedient justification for the extreme interrogation techniques falls away.
The next point is that the report sought to exonerate the previous US (Bush) administration, to some extent, by implying the the CIA ran a 'disinformation' conspiracy which destroyed evidence, emails and tapes, and kept its activities and methods hidden from the President.
The third point is that of course these kind of admissions and disclosures are highly unusual, especially for a major power like the US. (Can you imagine the Russian or Chinese governments coming out with an account apology for mistreatment of inmates in its prisons, let alone treatment of political prisoners, or even admission that they had any? It should have been hoped that these disclosures would be a cathartic experience for the US - one where responsible political leaders from both sides of the spectrum in the US came together, acknowledged previous faults, and vowed such treatment of prisoners would never happen again. It would have captured the moral high ground for the US and redounded greatly to the country's credit. Indeed, John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate and corm Vietnam vetern who was capture and tortured by the north Vietnamese, made a statesmanlike speech in which he broadly accepted the report's findings and said that the matter was more about us than the alleged terrorists.
Of course, this did not last - immediately the matter degenerated into the usual Democratic-Republican partisan battle, with the Republicans bitterly disputing the findings of the report, questioning its timing (with the Republicans about to take over both houses of the US congress) and claiming that it would put US personnel abroad at risk, although of course US personnel are always at risk from jihadists. The CIA were drawn in, with both the present and previous directors defending their tactics and claiming the interrogation techniques did yield useful information, for instance leading to the discovery of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. A furious row erupted as to whether former president Bush was fully informed as to what was going on, with his loyal extreme conservative vice president Cheney claiming that he did. So that instead of salvaging the US's international reputation from this episode, it has probably made it worse.
Meanwhile, there is an embarrassed silence from America's allies. Why they must be asking, did the US have to spill the beans? The countries which houses the CIA's secret prisons? Britain, which during the Iraq war, followed the lead in everything the US did, so must have knowledge of the US torture techniques, or even imitated them with some of its own. Calls for disclosures are being made, but Britain has a tradition of bureaucratic secrecy probably surpassing that of every other nation. It has not released a long promised inquiry into the Iraq war, and already the official curtains are being drawn. Back to business as normal.
The first point was that the CIA had never denied that these 'techniques' had taken place, but had justified them on the grounds that in the wake of 9/11 it was urgently necessary to obtain information from captured suspects to possible future or imminent attacks on the US; the assumption being that such information was obtained, to prevent further attacks, and that the extreme techniques were therefore justified.
But this was exactly what was refuted in the Senate report, which said that no information obtained by torture had been useful or valuable in stopping attacks, and that counter-terrorism intelligence had been obtained by more conventional means. To an ordinary person, this seems obvious - any 'information' obtained under torture is likely to be of low quality - the prisoner will tell the torturer anything he wants to hear. So that even the expedient justification for the extreme interrogation techniques falls away.
The next point is that the report sought to exonerate the previous US (Bush) administration, to some extent, by implying the the CIA ran a 'disinformation' conspiracy which destroyed evidence, emails and tapes, and kept its activities and methods hidden from the President.
The third point is that of course these kind of admissions and disclosures are highly unusual, especially for a major power like the US. (Can you imagine the Russian or Chinese governments coming out with an account apology for mistreatment of inmates in its prisons, let alone treatment of political prisoners, or even admission that they had any? It should have been hoped that these disclosures would be a cathartic experience for the US - one where responsible political leaders from both sides of the spectrum in the US came together, acknowledged previous faults, and vowed such treatment of prisoners would never happen again. It would have captured the moral high ground for the US and redounded greatly to the country's credit. Indeed, John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate and corm Vietnam vetern who was capture and tortured by the north Vietnamese, made a statesmanlike speech in which he broadly accepted the report's findings and said that the matter was more about us than the alleged terrorists.
Of course, this did not last - immediately the matter degenerated into the usual Democratic-Republican partisan battle, with the Republicans bitterly disputing the findings of the report, questioning its timing (with the Republicans about to take over both houses of the US congress) and claiming that it would put US personnel abroad at risk, although of course US personnel are always at risk from jihadists. The CIA were drawn in, with both the present and previous directors defending their tactics and claiming the interrogation techniques did yield useful information, for instance leading to the discovery of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. A furious row erupted as to whether former president Bush was fully informed as to what was going on, with his loyal extreme conservative vice president Cheney claiming that he did. So that instead of salvaging the US's international reputation from this episode, it has probably made it worse.
Meanwhile, there is an embarrassed silence from America's allies. Why they must be asking, did the US have to spill the beans? The countries which houses the CIA's secret prisons? Britain, which during the Iraq war, followed the lead in everything the US did, so must have knowledge of the US torture techniques, or even imitated them with some of its own. Calls for disclosures are being made, but Britain has a tradition of bureaucratic secrecy probably surpassing that of every other nation. It has not released a long promised inquiry into the Iraq war, and already the official curtains are being drawn. Back to business as normal.
Monday, December 08, 2014
Opposition what opposition?
Now that the dust of the national election has settled, the fact that will strike most outside observers is the total dominance of Swapo, who took more or less 80% of the vote, and the multitudinous opposition parties who shared the remaining crumbs between them. This is not good for democracy, as, from the outside again, it makes Namibia look like a banana republic in which the vote is ridiculously rigged in favour of a ruling junta, whereas everyone knows the vote is free and fair: it is just that the opposition is rubbish.
As the nominal runner-up in the presidential race, McHenry Venaani admitted, the ambition of so-called opposition politicians is not to advance alternative paths for the country, but simply to get a parliamentary seat, again, not as a platform for their political voice, but simply to be assured of a nice pension and a seat on the gravy train.
Alarmingly, some of the 'parties' seem quite satisfied with their sub 1% support from the electorate. What are they there for? There was no NBC debate between presidential candidates, and without trawling some old documents or obscure websites, it is impossible to know what these parties actually stand for, if anything. What would they do, differently from SWAPO? Mostly, they seem to be ethnically or regionally based, and date from the pre-independence political era. So to someone versed in Namibian political history, these parties may have some cultural origin or meaning, and have a vaguely socialist political flavour, but to an outsider they are incomprehensible.
The only glimmer of hope (from the opposition point of view) is that these parties over the weekend schedules a closed door meeting. It should have been done long before the election. Hopefully, the intent, although it is very doubtful if it will be realised, is to forge a common policy and name - maybe a Democratic Alliance, along the South Africa model, based on an open market economy, totally non-racially based, and with a commitment to combat corruption, Such a united alliance may have some political prospects and hope, Otherwise the Namibian opposition will be doomed to irrelevance.
As the nominal runner-up in the presidential race, McHenry Venaani admitted, the ambition of so-called opposition politicians is not to advance alternative paths for the country, but simply to get a parliamentary seat, again, not as a platform for their political voice, but simply to be assured of a nice pension and a seat on the gravy train.
Alarmingly, some of the 'parties' seem quite satisfied with their sub 1% support from the electorate. What are they there for? There was no NBC debate between presidential candidates, and without trawling some old documents or obscure websites, it is impossible to know what these parties actually stand for, if anything. What would they do, differently from SWAPO? Mostly, they seem to be ethnically or regionally based, and date from the pre-independence political era. So to someone versed in Namibian political history, these parties may have some cultural origin or meaning, and have a vaguely socialist political flavour, but to an outsider they are incomprehensible.
The only glimmer of hope (from the opposition point of view) is that these parties over the weekend schedules a closed door meeting. It should have been done long before the election. Hopefully, the intent, although it is very doubtful if it will be realised, is to forge a common policy and name - maybe a Democratic Alliance, along the South Africa model, based on an open market economy, totally non-racially based, and with a commitment to combat corruption, Such a united alliance may have some political prospects and hope, Otherwise the Namibian opposition will be doomed to irrelevance.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Have a good weekend but vote first
Friday is Namibia's general election, and has been declared a public holiday (was the last election day a public holiday?) , Anyway, the day is a Friday, and coupled with the fact that it falls at the end of the month, the temptation may be to utilise your hard earned pay packet to do some plentiful 'shopping' at the local bottle store, and head off for a pre-Christmas long weekend - maybe just you and your special other, not all the extended family and kids whom you will have next month.
You are quite entitled to do that, and I wish everyone a great weekend anyway, but, should you hopefully be registered on the voters' roll, please cast your vote first. Just a week or so ago, there was a bye-election in Windhoek West, where the winner was elected on a 12% turnout. Please be advised, our fighters for democracy did not put their lives on the line for the sake of 88% 'no-shows' or 'don't cares'.
For those cynics who say that their single vote doesn't matter, recall the infamous 2000 US election, where, after weeks of confusion and re-counts, it appeared that George W. Bush won by a margin of 9 votes in a nation of nearly 300 million. We all know what happened thereafter - 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc.
Of course, the Namibian election will not be so close, but even, as often happens in new African democracies, where there is a hugely dominant ruling party, and a weak opposition, one must vote anyway.. Even if you are an opposition supporter, totally disillusioned by the fragmentation and triviality of the so-called opposition parties, where such parties often seem to consist of little more than three initials, a flag, the leader, and his dog, you should turn up and put your paper in the box, or press the button on the voting machine, as the case may be. When you get turnouts of 80%+, governments have to listen, and it is much better than street riots, as in the case of Burkino Faso. 12% turnouts mean the slow, or not so slow, death of democracy.
You are quite entitled to do that, and I wish everyone a great weekend anyway, but, should you hopefully be registered on the voters' roll, please cast your vote first. Just a week or so ago, there was a bye-election in Windhoek West, where the winner was elected on a 12% turnout. Please be advised, our fighters for democracy did not put their lives on the line for the sake of 88% 'no-shows' or 'don't cares'.
For those cynics who say that their single vote doesn't matter, recall the infamous 2000 US election, where, after weeks of confusion and re-counts, it appeared that George W. Bush won by a margin of 9 votes in a nation of nearly 300 million. We all know what happened thereafter - 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc.
Of course, the Namibian election will not be so close, but even, as often happens in new African democracies, where there is a hugely dominant ruling party, and a weak opposition, one must vote anyway.. Even if you are an opposition supporter, totally disillusioned by the fragmentation and triviality of the so-called opposition parties, where such parties often seem to consist of little more than three initials, a flag, the leader, and his dog, you should turn up and put your paper in the box, or press the button on the voting machine, as the case may be. When you get turnouts of 80%+, governments have to listen, and it is much better than street riots, as in the case of Burkino Faso. 12% turnouts mean the slow, or not so slow, death of democracy.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Running out of energy
Initially expecting a routine procession of Powerpoints, I soon smelt the dissent in the air. Were the main players in the country's energy industry simply manning their long-standing barricades, or were new policy conflicts emerging?
We had the Hon Minister of Trade and Industry showing that Namibia had the most expensive power in the SADC region, with the possible exception of Mauritius - an island 2000km out in the Indian ocean, and twice as expensive as our land-locked neighbour Botswana.
We had Dr. van Pletsen representing the private investor and his role in national energy policy, presenting his plans for a wind farm in Luderitz, but mainly lambasting Government for its penchant for encouraging private investors to spend their money in researching and piloting power schemes, but refusing to provide them with adequate guarantees (principally that it would purchase their power, and safeguard them against force majeure events, in other words problems arising which were outside the private company's control). We had Mr Vernetti presenting plans for the '250 megawatt' project (Namibia's current peak demand is about 560 MW, excluding certain mines) - this is apparently a hybrid scheme of diesel, solar and gas generation.). Then there was Mr. Gschwender, the team leader for the biomass project, proposing to turn invader bush into fuel for conventional fuel power stations, such as van Eck in Windhoek.
Then, when it came to question time, Dr. Hangala upset the apple cart by laying into the Kudu gas project, now in an advanced stage of planning (but how advanced is advanced?). He said it was unviable, and he probably meant that in the era of cheap gas, driven by American fracking, Kudu gas will probably be otally uncompetitive.
What puzzles me is that, when I first came to Namibia shortly after independence, the existing power stations of course were the ones from the colonial era - Ruacana, the coal fired station in Windhoek, with its landmark twin chimneys, and a small station in Walvis Bay. Nearly twenty five years later, we still have the same power stations, with the country's greatly increased power consumption filled in by ad hoc imports. There must have been innumerable conferences, proposals, feasibility studies and policy documents on energy - and nothing to show for it. How is this possible?
But the next day, the Minister of Mines and Energy travelled to Omaruru to break the ground for a solar photo-voltaic system backed to the tune of N$84m by the French company Innosun, to add a modest but useful 4,5MW to the country's grid. "Other investors just talk but nothing happens" said the Minister, spade in hand. The price of the solar power will be expensive, but at least there will be literally something on the ground by next year. An extra 4,5 MW of locally generated power since 1992.
Other investors just talk but nothing happens.
Other investors just talk but nothing happens.
Other investors just talk but nothing happens.
Friday, November 14, 2014
One more step for mankind
In nearly all cultures, the pattern of stars in the night skies is taken as eternal and unchanging, so that when a comet appears, stretching like a luminous great finger across the skies, it creates great excitement and wonder, but, maybe because of mankind's inherent pessimism, also terror as a portent of disaster, never as good news. Even when a comet appeared in the evening skies over Windhoek in 2007, a businessman was murdered when up on a hill trying to observe it.
Comets must have seemed spectacular in the days before people lived in cities with smoke, dust and light pollution dimming the heavens - nowadays, even when the arrival of a comet is much hyped in the media, you usually see barely a smudge in the sky. Practically, comets have no influence over the earth and its inhabitants.
Astronomically however they are very interesting. They are debris left over from the formation of the solar system, like piles of unused broken bricks and tiles left at the edge of a building site. Mostly, they originate in a vast area called the Kuiper belt beyond the furthest planets, and only a very few of them are pulled in towards the sun by the force of gravity, and become visible to us. They really consist of a lumpy head or nucleus, composed of of ice, dust and fragments of rock,plus maybe organic compounds which excite scientists because comets colliding with earth thousands of millions of years ago may have brought the necessary materials (plus water) for life. The comet's 'tail' consists of water vapour and dust which are boiled off the comet by the heat of the sun - it is blown away from the direction of the sun by the solar wind, so sometimes the tail can precede the head of the comet. So examining the make-up of the head of the comet is like looking back in time to the beginning of the solar system, giving us crucial information about this and maybe even about the origin of life.
The European Space Agency sent up a probe 10 years ago to follow, catch up with and eventually land on this comet, with a difficult Ukrainian name. In a hugely complicated path, it had to circle the earth's orbit three times, picking up enough momentum to fling itself out beyond the orbit or Mars, and eventually rendezvous with the comet - it was, like somebody said, like firing a gun in New York, the bullet bouncing off a rock in Africa and eventually hitting a bird in Beijing. Yesterday it made it, and though the landing was not perfect, it was an astonishing feat, and an amazing feat of human planning, science and skill. Definitely another great step for mankind.
Monday, November 10, 2014
November 2014, or 1989, or 1914.....
their rebellious populations. Specifically, the East German government found they could no longer bottle up their entire population behind the Wall - the population was draining away though Hungary and other countries to the West. On the afternoon of the 9th of November 1989, the East German interior minister made an unremarkable speech, towards the end of which he announced that 'limited' travel by East Berliners to the West was to be permitted. Whereupon tens of thousands of East Berliners descended on the Wall's few crossing points. The East's border guards, who had received no instructions, first of all held the mob back, then yielded to the inevitable and opened the barriers. The wall was open, and thousands surged through to the West, not to cross permanently, but to meet long separated relatives, see the sights and go back home, at least for the first night. But when the wall was breached, it lost its relevance, and would soon go: without the Wall, the East German state lost its relevance and would soon go too. And if one communist satellite regime imploded, why not the others? And then what reason did the main communist regime have to exist? So within a couple of months, all the the eastern European countries had thrown off the Soviet yoke, followed by the fall of the Soviet union itself.
I was there soon after, in fact just before Christmas 1989 - the wall was still there, and border formalities were still in place, at least for foreigners, We crossed over into the East, and took a train down to Dresden, a very strange place, with little reconstruction from the terrible damage inflicted in world war 2, and had Christmas dinner in the People's palace of culture there - another very strange experience.
So, twenty five years on, there was a magnificent celebration in Berlin, even though, in a place heavy with history, the 9th of November has another connotation - Kristallnacht - when the Nazi regime led its first attack on Jewish businesses, culminating in the Holocaust. Nobody seemed to be thinking of that last night.
The Wall is nearly all gone now, and a young person could visit the city without knowing where it stood or indeed knowing anything about it at all. So the city put up a string of 7000 self luminous balloons along the line of the former wall, and last night after all the fireworks, speeches, music and massive street parties in front of the Brandenburg gate, let them fly one by one into the night, to symbolise freedom and the soaring human spirit, as a total opposite to the lifeless, leaden concrete of the Wall. It was a brilliant spectacle, maybe even worth the air Namibia flight to Germany, and I hope you saw it on TV.
Then across in the UK, the same day was Remembrance Sunday, the day in which the dead of Britain and the Commonwealth are remembered. This year especially relevant, as it is the centenary of the outbreak of World War 1, in which Namibia was the site of the first conflicts. In London, around the famous Tower of London, there is an amazing display 888 000 red ceramic poppies, to symbolise the lives of each of the British soldiers killed in the war. It is vast, amazing and beautiful, and gives a powerful impact of how huge a number nearly a million is. There's a picture of it above.
Of course, in 1989, on the other side of the world, UN resolution 435 had been passed, and Namibia was rapidly advancing to independence. Nearly all the countries of Africa wee independent, and many were converting from autocracies to multi-party democracy. All seemed right with the world. All the issues which had been dogging the twentieth century: the cold war, imperialism, colonialism, racism and international mistrust, seem to have been resolved, and Francis Fukuyama wrote a famous book called "The end of history". If history was mostly about war, and there were to be no more wars, what would there be to write about?
For a time, and apart from the tragic conflict in the former Yugoslavia, he seemed to be right.
But Mr. Gorbachev, now 83, was present at the weekend's Berlin celebrations, and in his speech cast a cloud over the event. We are facing the prospect, he said, of entering a new cold war? Why?
There was one exception to the general boom and prosperity throughout the world in the 1990's. This was Russia, whose economy imploded after the fall of the soviet union. State assets were sold off at ludicrous prices to the so-called oligarchs, who became fabulously wealthy, at the expense of the rest of the population. The former satellite countries of eastern Europe had thrown off Russian influence entirely, and for the most part had become members of the European Union and NATO.
The head of state who presided over this chaos, Boris Yeltsin, handed over power exactly at the end of the millennium, on 31st December 1999, to a little known ex-KGB colonel, Vladimir Putin, whose most famous dictum was that the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest disaster of the twentieth century. Slowly, the image of Russia changed, from a rather ramshackle but fairly open good humoured society, to a sullen, revanchist country, with increasing government, i.e. Putin control, over the media, accompanied by harassment of internal dissidents and occasion murder of external ones, corruption which characterises nearly all oil-based economies, run of course by Putin cronies, and an increasingly truculent and aggressive foreign policy, determined not to give another inch to the West, and if possible, take one back. This came to a head in the present crisis in Ukraine, a country which Putin regarded as fundamentally within the Russian sphere of influence, if not a part of Russia itself, whose nominal independence was tolerated so long as there was a pro-Russian government in power.
When pro-Western demonstrators overthrew this a year ago, the gloves were off. Putin seized the opportunity to annex Crimea, which admittedly with its huge Russian naval base was effectively part of Russia anyway, and to stir up trouble in the ethnically Russian parts of Eastern Ukraine, with the object of ensuring that the country would be kept in a state of eternal, bankrupt turmoil, and never become part of the Western bloc, especially NATO.
So are the gains of 1989 becoming undone, and are we heading towards a new uncertain world order? Maybe Mr. Fukuyama, still very much with us, will have to write a new book about how 'history' has re-started again.
Sunday, November 09, 2014
Namibia, Burkina Faso, and the US mid-term elections
Most countries, like Namibia, the UK and other democratic countries, hold their elections every five years or so usually all in one go, for president, members of parliament, and other officials, although minor elections for local authorities may be held at other times . In the US there are elections every four years (sounds like a compromise arrangement from an original five) for of course the President and most of the Senate and house of representatives (lower house) seats. A sitting President may stand for another term, but only one, setting the general 'maximum of two terms' pattern, imposed of many countries by the West. Interestingly, though, there was originally no limit on the length of time a US president could serve - the iconic leader during the Great Depression and World war 2, Franklin Roosevelt, served three terms and died during his fourth. His Republican opponents thereafter, fearing a repeat performance by someone else, changed the constitution to limit the number of presidential terms to two.
Anyway, getting back to our point, not only are there the main elections every four years in the US, there are the 'mid-terms' every two years, most of the upper and lower House seats are up for grabs (though not the President's position). Was this because there was a high turnover of congressmen in the early days? But now the 'mid-terms' definitely serve the purpose of a 'safety valve' and protest vote. Usually the party of the President and/or government loses heavily, and the opposition picks up much support, which may or may not be an indication for the coming main election.
This time, the results were worse than usual for the incumbent, President Obama. He lost control of both houses of the US congress to his opponents, the Republicans. It may sound strange to many outsiders that a President can govern with both houses of parliament opposed to him (can you imagine President Putin allowing that!) but it happens in the US system, and it will force the President to compromise on his policies (if any) in order to find some common ground with his political opponents and to get something done in his final two years in office. It is an effective check-and-balance - which of course may mean the same thing as stalemate and gridlock.
Now take Burkina Faso, where the incumbent president took office 27 long years ago after the death in mysterious circumstances of the previous President Thomas Sangara. There is a seven year presidential term there, and sure, there was an election every seven years, whose openness was questionable. Voters who disapproved could only console themselves that would be rid of him in 14 years, after the maximum length of time in office. But no, when he was due to retire - out of the blue he wanted to change the constitution to allow him to run for another term, and maybe and indefinite number of terms after that. Tensions boiled over, with results which everyone has seen on TV - the president fled the country, showing that his motivation for the constitutional change was less than watertight, and there we a confused military takeover, whose outcome is not yet clear. The system did not allow for any 'safety valve'.
What of Namibia? The ruling party is very firmed entrenched in power, its mixed-economy policies are most uncontroversial, and the opposition lacks a coherent voice or a coherent political philosophy of how differently they would do things. The election result is therefore a foregone conclusion, but if any public resentments build up, likely over corruption, badly run schools or difficult-to-access government services, where will such resentment go? Five years is a long time to wait for the next election, and maybe Namibia could also do with some form of 'mid-terms'.
Anyway, getting back to our point, not only are there the main elections every four years in the US, there are the 'mid-terms' every two years, most of the upper and lower House seats are up for grabs (though not the President's position). Was this because there was a high turnover of congressmen in the early days? But now the 'mid-terms' definitely serve the purpose of a 'safety valve' and protest vote. Usually the party of the President and/or government loses heavily, and the opposition picks up much support, which may or may not be an indication for the coming main election.
This time, the results were worse than usual for the incumbent, President Obama. He lost control of both houses of the US congress to his opponents, the Republicans. It may sound strange to many outsiders that a President can govern with both houses of parliament opposed to him (can you imagine President Putin allowing that!) but it happens in the US system, and it will force the President to compromise on his policies (if any) in order to find some common ground with his political opponents and to get something done in his final two years in office. It is an effective check-and-balance - which of course may mean the same thing as stalemate and gridlock.
Now take Burkina Faso, where the incumbent president took office 27 long years ago after the death in mysterious circumstances of the previous President Thomas Sangara. There is a seven year presidential term there, and sure, there was an election every seven years, whose openness was questionable. Voters who disapproved could only console themselves that would be rid of him in 14 years, after the maximum length of time in office. But no, when he was due to retire - out of the blue he wanted to change the constitution to allow him to run for another term, and maybe and indefinite number of terms after that. Tensions boiled over, with results which everyone has seen on TV - the president fled the country, showing that his motivation for the constitutional change was less than watertight, and there we a confused military takeover, whose outcome is not yet clear. The system did not allow for any 'safety valve'.
What of Namibia? The ruling party is very firmed entrenched in power, its mixed-economy policies are most uncontroversial, and the opposition lacks a coherent voice or a coherent political philosophy of how differently they would do things. The election result is therefore a foregone conclusion, but if any public resentments build up, likely over corruption, badly run schools or difficult-to-access government services, where will such resentment go? Five years is a long time to wait for the next election, and maybe Namibia could also do with some form of 'mid-terms'.
Monday, October 27, 2014
A devastating loss
Was it just one of the all too common violent botched burglaries in South Africa, or something more directed and sinister? Was is a bungled kidnapping, or have the local lowlife come to the conclusion that celebrities especially sports stars are rich, and are thus ripe for targeting? Everyone must have known where Meyiwa lives and whee his girl friend's house was. Should sporting celebrities be provided with police protection?
No comeback for Nokia
Last year, Microsoft threw Nokia, the cellphone maker, a lifeline, by taking over its cellphone operations, and most importantly, their software, with the idea of making Nokia's phones mini-Windows devices, with 'seamless' integration with Microsoft office programs running on other machines. just a few days ago, however, Microsoft announced the dropping of the Nokia name, so no more Nokia Lumina's - just Lumina's, if Microsoft even decide the keep that name.
The trivia question in the mid 2000's was : Who is the worlds' largest manufacturer of camera? Not Canon or Nikon, but in fact Nokia, because most of the cameras made, and certainly the most cameras bought , were in Nokia of which millions were sold
What went wrong?
Nokia cannot be blamed for 'not seeing the ccoming of the smart phone', because if fact they
Almost simultaneous with Microsoft's announcement came news of the final demise of anotherof the founding icon's of handheld devices - 'personal digital assistants', later to be integrated with phone facilities. This was Palm, which ruled the roost in this market in the mid 2000's, later Palm One, and ultimately taken over by Hewlett Packard. Thee was the incredibly innovative Treo series, complete with full keyboard, touch screen and stylus, with loads of supporting software, sorry, 'apps'. All these devices had their individual accounts, connected to the HP 'cloud', which provided universal backup in the event of less of data, updates and an app catalogue. This week, HP announced the termination of support: the apps catalogue service was to be closed and the HP cloud finally shut down as of next January.
The trivia question in the mid 2000's was : Who is the worlds' largest manufacturer of camera? Not Canon or Nikon, but in fact Nokia, because most of the cameras made, and certainly the most cameras bought , were in Nokia of which millions were sold
What went wrong?
Nokia cannot be blamed for 'not seeing the ccoming of the smart phone', because if fact they
Almost simultaneous with Microsoft's announcement came news of the final demise of anotherof the founding icon's of handheld devices - 'personal digital assistants', later to be integrated with phone facilities. This was Palm, which ruled the roost in this market in the mid 2000's, later Palm One, and ultimately taken over by Hewlett Packard. Thee was the incredibly innovative Treo series, complete with full keyboard, touch screen and stylus, with loads of supporting software, sorry, 'apps'. All these devices had their individual accounts, connected to the HP 'cloud', which provided universal backup in the event of less of data, updates and an app catalogue. This week, HP announced the termination of support: the apps catalogue service was to be closed and the HP cloud finally shut down as of next January.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
The blades stop turning
So the Oscar Pistorius trial is over - the immense relief not only of the participants but also of the media, who have had to sit in the courtroom or stand outside that damn courthouse, day after day, month in, month out, trying to think of something new to say each time - a trial supposed to take three weeks which dragged out over seven months.
Tens of thousands of words have already been spewed over the verdict. But what I was reflecting on, is what the trial reveals about the new South Africa. What would have happened, if a similar incident had happened under apartheid? Well of course there would have been no Olympic champion, because South Africa was banned from the Olympics. There were plenty of Springbok rugby heroes though. What if one of them had shot his girl friend? The courtroom would have been the same - the system of a judge and two assessors would have been the same, since the democratic SA government has not re-introduced thee jury system. The judge would of course been an elderly white man, not an elderly black woman, but even the 1970's law under which Pistorius was charged would have been the same. Under apartheid there was of course the death penalty, and the jail to which Pistorius has been taken - the former Pretoria Central - was where the hangings were carried out. But, though the present judge said that there cannot be one law for the poor and disadvantaged, and another for the rich and famous, there definitely was one under apartheid - a white man under a capital charge was about 50 times less likely to be sentenced to death than a black man. So the fate of a 1970's Pistorius would likely have been fairly similar to the 2014 one - a moderate jail sentence, with no doubt special conditions vastly better than than of the ordinary inmate.
Actually, many of the high-profile homicide cases in late apartheid South Africa remained unsolved, perhaps because they had political involvement - for instance the grisly murder of the economist Robert Smit, despite a raft of conspiracy theories. Anybody remember any others?
Tens of thousands of words have already been spewed over the verdict. But what I was reflecting on, is what the trial reveals about the new South Africa. What would have happened, if a similar incident had happened under apartheid? Well of course there would have been no Olympic champion, because South Africa was banned from the Olympics. There were plenty of Springbok rugby heroes though. What if one of them had shot his girl friend? The courtroom would have been the same - the system of a judge and two assessors would have been the same, since the democratic SA government has not re-introduced thee jury system. The judge would of course been an elderly white man, not an elderly black woman, but even the 1970's law under which Pistorius was charged would have been the same. Under apartheid there was of course the death penalty, and the jail to which Pistorius has been taken - the former Pretoria Central - was where the hangings were carried out. But, though the present judge said that there cannot be one law for the poor and disadvantaged, and another for the rich and famous, there definitely was one under apartheid - a white man under a capital charge was about 50 times less likely to be sentenced to death than a black man. So the fate of a 1970's Pistorius would likely have been fairly similar to the 2014 one - a moderate jail sentence, with no doubt special conditions vastly better than than of the ordinary inmate.
Actually, many of the high-profile homicide cases in late apartheid South Africa remained unsolved, perhaps because they had political involvement - for instance the grisly murder of the economist Robert Smit, despite a raft of conspiracy theories. Anybody remember any others?
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
A country of 170 million 'free of Ebola'
There are many observers - mostly outsiders but plenty of residents as well - who regard Africa as a continent of derelict infrastructure, where corruption rages and horrible diseases spread unchecked, until Western aid intervenes.
To those observers today we commend the news item: "Nigeria officially free of Ebola" - with its Ebola treatment centre now standing empty. How did this happen? Well, an Ebola sufferer did fly into Lagos from Liberia in July - he was an American-Liberian diplomat, Patrick Sawyer, ostensibly on his way to a conference, but probably to seek one of Nigeria's pentacostal 'miracle' healers.
Somehow he was spotted as being unwell, and taken to a hospital (not a specialist isolation facility) where he came under the supervision of one doctor Stella Ameyo Adedevoh, a lady who treated him, but who, much to the patient's fury, refused to let him leave the hospital. The Liberian government petitioned to have him released - so did a cohort of lawyers and pen-pushers. The doctor stood firm. After a few days, the patient died of Ebola and sadly, the doctor and eight of the other carers of the patient, who had not been equipped with space suits, became infected. Outside the hospital, in the teeming 20 million city of Lagos, anyone with whom the patient might have been briefly in contact with, was tracked and after three weeks, shown to be negative from the virus. The net result was that, although in the countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the death toll passed the 4000 mark, the grand total in Nigeria was 20 cases and 8 deaths. Sadly, Dr. Adedevoh and three of her assistants were among the fatalities.
Had the Liberian been allowed to leave hospital, as many bureaucrats wished, and allowed to roam free in Lagos while he was highly infective, the consequences might have been catastrophic. The virus could have spread uncontrolled among Nigeria's 170 million people. There could have been hundreds of thousands of cases and tens of thousands of fatalities. The actions of Dr. Adedvoh prevented this.
To this end Dr. Adedevoh's achievements and service to humanity should stand out in medical history to rank with the greatest women of the profession: Florence Nightingale, Mary Seacole and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. Don't forget her name.
To those observers today we commend the news item: "Nigeria officially free of Ebola" - with its Ebola treatment centre now standing empty. How did this happen? Well, an Ebola sufferer did fly into Lagos from Liberia in July - he was an American-Liberian diplomat, Patrick Sawyer, ostensibly on his way to a conference, but probably to seek one of Nigeria's pentacostal 'miracle' healers.
Somehow he was spotted as being unwell, and taken to a hospital (not a specialist isolation facility) where he came under the supervision of one doctor Stella Ameyo Adedevoh, a lady who treated him, but who, much to the patient's fury, refused to let him leave the hospital. The Liberian government petitioned to have him released - so did a cohort of lawyers and pen-pushers. The doctor stood firm. After a few days, the patient died of Ebola and sadly, the doctor and eight of the other carers of the patient, who had not been equipped with space suits, became infected. Outside the hospital, in the teeming 20 million city of Lagos, anyone with whom the patient might have been briefly in contact with, was tracked and after three weeks, shown to be negative from the virus. The net result was that, although in the countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, the death toll passed the 4000 mark, the grand total in Nigeria was 20 cases and 8 deaths. Sadly, Dr. Adedevoh and three of her assistants were among the fatalities.
Had the Liberian been allowed to leave hospital, as many bureaucrats wished, and allowed to roam free in Lagos while he was highly infective, the consequences might have been catastrophic. The virus could have spread uncontrolled among Nigeria's 170 million people. There could have been hundreds of thousands of cases and tens of thousands of fatalities. The actions of Dr. Adedvoh prevented this.
To this end Dr. Adedevoh's achievements and service to humanity should stand out in medical history to rank with the greatest women of the profession: Florence Nightingale, Mary Seacole and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. Don't forget her name.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
The last generation?
At the end of August and beginning of September, my grown-up married daughter who lives in the UK, in the very pleasant rural western county of Devon, came out to visit with her husband and her two children, the first time in Namibia for her children - my grandchildren - and the first time in 9 years for them. So recent, yet as time rushes by, seemingly so long ago - the sole memento of their visit being my grandson's punctured football still lying in the garden - my garden unfortunately being replete with spiky cactus plants.
They did all the normal tourist things, accompanied by me - and of course we went to Etosha, which I myself had not been to for ages. This is the best time of year, the end of the dry season, with animals clustering around the few waterholes, and no white mud which sets like cement in the engine compartment of your car! The amount of animals we saw was phenomenal - being literally mobbed by hundreds of zebras, and later, a quartet of lions sitting idly by the side of the road with two perched on top of a small bridge, just like carvings at the entrance to some stately home, and nobody in sight. Then, as a finale, we almost literally ran into a herd of elephants, on the normally uneventful tar road exiting the park via the Anderson gate.
The most moving image for me was at the Halali waterhole late one night. From out of the darkness into the patch of yellow sodium light around the inky black patch of water came an elephant and a rhino. They drank, almost motionlessly - for large animals does time run slower? - for half an hour. Again, there was nobody else watching - it was past the bed time of most doughty tourists. Then, equally slowly, they turned and walked solemnly away, the rhino first, then the elephant, until the darkness swallowed them. Was this a melancholy metaphor for extinction, and will my grandchildren be the last generation to see these monumental beasts in the wild?
We are lucky to live in a country where, just a few hours drive from the capital city, such sights can still be seen, and where poaching is to some extent controlled. My suggested solution to the rhino horn trade is to manufacture a synthetic horn - if synthetic diamonds now can routinely be produced I cannot see how this could be so difficult - indistinguishable from the original article, and then flood the market with it.
On the way back to Windhoek we took a detour to see the dinosaur footprints, about 60 km off the B1 between Otjiwarongo and Okahandja, on a farm which regrettably I cannot spell or pronounce. The farm is very isolated, owned by an eccentric German couple, as you might expect. Yet again, not another soul was around. You take a short walk to a sandstone river bed, and all of a sudden, quite unmistakeably, there are a set of three-toed tracks leading down into the grass, and a short distance away, a set of smaller tracks, which I took to be the footprints of a baby animal. Not so, they were made by two completely different species of dinosaurs. The impressions, in darker stone, look like tracks in the mud made only yesterday, but it is numbing to realise that the animal which left the marks did so 200 million years ago. Have you seen anything 200 million years old?
The same strands of life - literally, the DNA, connects eons of life in Africa, except of course it wasn't even Africa then but Gondwanaland - a vast chunk of continent comprising Africa joined to South America.
They did all the normal tourist things, accompanied by me - and of course we went to Etosha, which I myself had not been to for ages. This is the best time of year, the end of the dry season, with animals clustering around the few waterholes, and no white mud which sets like cement in the engine compartment of your car! The amount of animals we saw was phenomenal - being literally mobbed by hundreds of zebras, and later, a quartet of lions sitting idly by the side of the road with two perched on top of a small bridge, just like carvings at the entrance to some stately home, and nobody in sight. Then, as a finale, we almost literally ran into a herd of elephants, on the normally uneventful tar road exiting the park via the Anderson gate.
The most moving image for me was at the Halali waterhole late one night. From out of the darkness into the patch of yellow sodium light around the inky black patch of water came an elephant and a rhino. They drank, almost motionlessly - for large animals does time run slower? - for half an hour. Again, there was nobody else watching - it was past the bed time of most doughty tourists. Then, equally slowly, they turned and walked solemnly away, the rhino first, then the elephant, until the darkness swallowed them. Was this a melancholy metaphor for extinction, and will my grandchildren be the last generation to see these monumental beasts in the wild?
We are lucky to live in a country where, just a few hours drive from the capital city, such sights can still be seen, and where poaching is to some extent controlled. My suggested solution to the rhino horn trade is to manufacture a synthetic horn - if synthetic diamonds now can routinely be produced I cannot see how this could be so difficult - indistinguishable from the original article, and then flood the market with it.
On the way back to Windhoek we took a detour to see the dinosaur footprints, about 60 km off the B1 between Otjiwarongo and Okahandja, on a farm which regrettably I cannot spell or pronounce. The farm is very isolated, owned by an eccentric German couple, as you might expect. Yet again, not another soul was around. You take a short walk to a sandstone river bed, and all of a sudden, quite unmistakeably, there are a set of three-toed tracks leading down into the grass, and a short distance away, a set of smaller tracks, which I took to be the footprints of a baby animal. Not so, they were made by two completely different species of dinosaurs. The impressions, in darker stone, look like tracks in the mud made only yesterday, but it is numbing to realise that the animal which left the marks did so 200 million years ago. Have you seen anything 200 million years old?
The same strands of life - literally, the DNA, connects eons of life in Africa, except of course it wasn't even Africa then but Gondwanaland - a vast chunk of continent comprising Africa joined to South America.
Wednesday, October 08, 2014
Do you need an MBA (or even an Executive MBA)?
Last week I attended a breakfast presentation to launch a new Executive MBA programme run by the Harold Pupkewitz Graduate School of Business. First, there is an intrinsic problem with breakfast functions. Either people are really busy and have to get early to work, in which case they have no time to go to 'breakfasts', or they don't have to get up early, in which case they may skip breakfast also.
So that with most of these '7.30 for 8' functions in Namibia, at 7.35 someone has to waken the security guard to unlock, and turn on the lights. By 8 there are usually more organisers than attendees and only by 830 may proceedings get started. The Rector of the Polytechnic, with his well-known waspish sense of humour, pointed out that the targeted audience for this presentation was presumably either senior management or those interested in obtaining a higher qualification in senior management: both of whom really should, for starters, have a sense of time management.
But on to the more serious things. How important is an MBA? Even the brochure accompanying the function was a trifle defensive, admitting that many traditional MBA programmes centre on formulaic classroom treatments of highly simplified business problems. So every new MBA tries to be different, to stand out from the rest, to be more 'practical' and management oriented. The head of the Harold Pupkewitz business school, Professor Grafton Whyte, took the floor and in his engaging British accent, reminding me of that of the comedian Lenny Henry, gave an entertaining presentation of the programme - which is to be an EMBA - an 'executive' MBA - the HP graduate school of business already has an 'ordinary' MBA. This programme is to be given in block release format, only admitting top management with extensive business experience - not to students just looking to take some postgraduate business degree. To sceptics, Professor Whyte declared : "Ignorance is not Bliss", and promised that if participants in his programme get it right, "their salary will double in 5 years". But we are still talking about 'salaries' I wondered, i.e. employees, no matter how senior in the hierarchy. What about the top guys? Are they 'ignorant' and is an EMBA the right way to escape from a state of ignorance?
I thought of Peter Thiel, the iconic billionaire who invented Paypal and had a substantial hand in the founding of Facebook, who has just published a fascinating book called From Zero to One. He is famously dismissive of conventional business education, and offers $ 100 000 grants to the brightest IT and entrepreneurial prospects provided they ignore college and go straight into business. What would he say about MBA programmes? I think we could guess.
Of course good management training is essential to national development, and the growth of competent middle managers at least. But another anonymous quotation came into my head: the definition of an economist - the guy who know more about money that the person who has it.
It was an excellent breakfast though.
So that with most of these '7.30 for 8' functions in Namibia, at 7.35 someone has to waken the security guard to unlock, and turn on the lights. By 8 there are usually more organisers than attendees and only by 830 may proceedings get started. The Rector of the Polytechnic, with his well-known waspish sense of humour, pointed out that the targeted audience for this presentation was presumably either senior management or those interested in obtaining a higher qualification in senior management: both of whom really should, for starters, have a sense of time management.
But on to the more serious things. How important is an MBA? Even the brochure accompanying the function was a trifle defensive, admitting that many traditional MBA programmes centre on formulaic classroom treatments of highly simplified business problems. So every new MBA tries to be different, to stand out from the rest, to be more 'practical' and management oriented. The head of the Harold Pupkewitz business school, Professor Grafton Whyte, took the floor and in his engaging British accent, reminding me of that of the comedian Lenny Henry, gave an entertaining presentation of the programme - which is to be an EMBA - an 'executive' MBA - the HP graduate school of business already has an 'ordinary' MBA. This programme is to be given in block release format, only admitting top management with extensive business experience - not to students just looking to take some postgraduate business degree. To sceptics, Professor Whyte declared : "Ignorance is not Bliss", and promised that if participants in his programme get it right, "their salary will double in 5 years". But we are still talking about 'salaries' I wondered, i.e. employees, no matter how senior in the hierarchy. What about the top guys? Are they 'ignorant' and is an EMBA the right way to escape from a state of ignorance?
I thought of Peter Thiel, the iconic billionaire who invented Paypal and had a substantial hand in the founding of Facebook, who has just published a fascinating book called From Zero to One. He is famously dismissive of conventional business education, and offers $ 100 000 grants to the brightest IT and entrepreneurial prospects provided they ignore college and go straight into business. What would he say about MBA programmes? I think we could guess.
Of course good management training is essential to national development, and the growth of competent middle managers at least. But another anonymous quotation came into my head: the definition of an economist - the guy who know more about money that the person who has it.
It was an excellent breakfast though.
Friday, October 03, 2014
Whither Hong Kong?
The international news channels the last few days have been full of the crowds of hundreds of thousands of young people in Hong Kong - except of course on the China state-run CCTV where the subject was barely mentioned. All 'revolutions' have to have a colour or symbol - this was the 'umbrella' revolution, in contrast with the ill-fated orange, rose and other movements. The umbrellas of course were also practical in warding off police pepper spray and tear gas, as well as guarding against Hong Kong's stormy weather.
Many people may have been surprised that such mass dissent is allowed in China. The answer is course is that Hong Kong is a (very) special Administrative Area. For nearly 100 years it had been a British colony, an unsustainable situation with the rise of China as a global power, but when the territory was handed back to China in 1997, it was under a rather strange agreement of "one country, two systems", which meant that Hong Kong was allowed a degree of economic and political independence not enjoyed or even dreamt of on the 'mainland'.
China has honoured this agreement surprisingly well, appointing a 'chief executive' for Hong Kong but otherwise allowing the territory to do its own thing - it is after all the financial centre of China. Until now?
The present street demonstrations are about electoral procedure in Hong Kong - a universal suffrage electrion was agree for 2017, but candidates had to be per-screened by Beijing, This is what the first demonstrations were about, but the arguments have shifted, and now the demand is for the Beijing appointed chief executive to step down.
Slightly older people, at least older than students, will remember Tienanmen square of 1989, when, in the midst of the meltdown of most of the soviet block states, many hoped that China would evolve also into a free democracy. The immense square was full of thousands of excited people, waving banners and holding a white statue of the 'lady of liberty' aloft. The authorities seemed to be tolerating the demonstrations. Then, late one evening, the tanks rolled in. Hundreds, maybe thousands were killed (it will never be known) and the democracy movement was crushed.
The scenes in Hong Kong are now ominously reminiscent of Beijing 25 years ago. Could the central Chinese government crack down again? China is a very different place now - 25 years ago it was an emerging giant, but a largely unknown wild card in international politics, and with its huge economic potential as yet unrealised. Now it is the world's second largest economy, and the United States' largest creditor, a prediction that would have seemed fantastical in 1989. China places supreme importance, on order, conformance and stability, but will it crack down again? The eyes of the world are upon Hong Kong. Normally, China does not care what the rest of the world thinks, and has zero tolerance for any inference in its domestic affairs, but does it have too much to lose this time, economically and politically?
Last night, it was feared that things would come to a head - an irresistible force meeting the immovable object of Beijing. The demonstrators gave an ultimatum for the chief executive to step down - of course he did not, but instead offered talks with the student leaders (with his deputy!) - probably the most he could offer them, but as of this morning apparently enough to split the demonstrators slightly between moderates and hard-liners, and the situation seems to be defused to some extent.
Meanwhile did the government (either Beijing or Hong Kong) either make concessions or send in the tanks? It did neither - it 'encouraged' gangs of anti protestors, aka hired thugs, to break up at least some of the demonstrations.
The mainland communist party of course will tolerate nothing which might threaten its absolute grip on power. The main achievement of the demonstrators is that they succeeded in holding their protest, over many days, disrupting daily life in one of the world's most expensive business districts, and showing that mental independence is still very much alive on Chinese territory.
Many people may have been surprised that such mass dissent is allowed in China. The answer is course is that Hong Kong is a (very) special Administrative Area. For nearly 100 years it had been a British colony, an unsustainable situation with the rise of China as a global power, but when the territory was handed back to China in 1997, it was under a rather strange agreement of "one country, two systems", which meant that Hong Kong was allowed a degree of economic and political independence not enjoyed or even dreamt of on the 'mainland'.
China has honoured this agreement surprisingly well, appointing a 'chief executive' for Hong Kong but otherwise allowing the territory to do its own thing - it is after all the financial centre of China. Until now?
The present street demonstrations are about electoral procedure in Hong Kong - a universal suffrage electrion was agree for 2017, but candidates had to be per-screened by Beijing, This is what the first demonstrations were about, but the arguments have shifted, and now the demand is for the Beijing appointed chief executive to step down.
Slightly older people, at least older than students, will remember Tienanmen square of 1989, when, in the midst of the meltdown of most of the soviet block states, many hoped that China would evolve also into a free democracy. The immense square was full of thousands of excited people, waving banners and holding a white statue of the 'lady of liberty' aloft. The authorities seemed to be tolerating the demonstrations. Then, late one evening, the tanks rolled in. Hundreds, maybe thousands were killed (it will never be known) and the democracy movement was crushed.
The scenes in Hong Kong are now ominously reminiscent of Beijing 25 years ago. Could the central Chinese government crack down again? China is a very different place now - 25 years ago it was an emerging giant, but a largely unknown wild card in international politics, and with its huge economic potential as yet unrealised. Now it is the world's second largest economy, and the United States' largest creditor, a prediction that would have seemed fantastical in 1989. China places supreme importance, on order, conformance and stability, but will it crack down again? The eyes of the world are upon Hong Kong. Normally, China does not care what the rest of the world thinks, and has zero tolerance for any inference in its domestic affairs, but does it have too much to lose this time, economically and politically?
Last night, it was feared that things would come to a head - an irresistible force meeting the immovable object of Beijing. The demonstrators gave an ultimatum for the chief executive to step down - of course he did not, but instead offered talks with the student leaders (with his deputy!) - probably the most he could offer them, but as of this morning apparently enough to split the demonstrators slightly between moderates and hard-liners, and the situation seems to be defused to some extent.
Meanwhile did the government (either Beijing or Hong Kong) either make concessions or send in the tanks? It did neither - it 'encouraged' gangs of anti protestors, aka hired thugs, to break up at least some of the demonstrations.
The mainland communist party of course will tolerate nothing which might threaten its absolute grip on power. The main achievement of the demonstrators is that they succeeded in holding their protest, over many days, disrupting daily life in one of the world's most expensive business districts, and showing that mental independence is still very much alive on Chinese territory.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Flat-lining climate change
A new international climate change conference has come and gone in New york - so quickly you may not even have noticed it - after all it only lasted for one day. It was the first major conference on the subject since the infamous gathering in Copenhagen in 2009, which as the Washington post's foreign policy magazine says, "ended with a dismal, eleventh-hour whimper".
This meeting was an attempt to "defibrillate" an issue which has been flat-lining for several years, and was attended by over 100 heads of state, including the dutiful President Obama, but conspicuously absent were the heads of state of the new emerging big polluters, India and China, although the later did send a deputy prime minister.
There were a few big but almost ritualistic street processions and demonstrations leading up to the meeting, but from the meeting itself, hardly even a statement or communique.
If the issue of climate change, a few years ago, was literally such a burning issue, with bitter confrontations between climate change believers and climate sceptics, why does it arouse so little passion now? Is it so polarised and politicised, with emerging nations suspicious that the whole idea is a conspiracy by the old rich countries to inhibit their economic growth and hold them back? What right has the West to tell India to hold back their greenhouse gas emissions?
Is there the weary realisation that even if climate change is occurring, there is no proof that man's economic activities are responsible for it, and even if they were, there is nothing we can really do about it? The data that for the last five years or so there is little evidence of increase in temperatures or atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide?
Or the inescapable conclusion that at the present time 'green' energy is too expensive, unless offset by huge subsidies which cash-strapped Western governments are increasingly loath to come up with, and too miniscule to make any significant contribution to a country's total energy needs (in no case, do wind turbines provide more than 2% to electricity generation), and the cancellation or shelving of grand projects, such as that to bring solar electric power from the north African Sahara to Europe?
Clothes, social issues and everything else are subject to fashion, and climate change is well, so... 2004, like Al Gore - remember him?
It seems that even the real problems of climate change will be shelved for at least another half century or more. The fact is that the world is living, as Jack Lew said, in a golden age of fossil fuels. There is still plenty of oil, and with fracking, a huge amount of gas. When the last drop of oil or the last cubic centimetre of gas is burned, the world will turn to green energy. Until then, not seriously.
This meeting was an attempt to "defibrillate" an issue which has been flat-lining for several years, and was attended by over 100 heads of state, including the dutiful President Obama, but conspicuously absent were the heads of state of the new emerging big polluters, India and China, although the later did send a deputy prime minister.
There were a few big but almost ritualistic street processions and demonstrations leading up to the meeting, but from the meeting itself, hardly even a statement or communique.
If the issue of climate change, a few years ago, was literally such a burning issue, with bitter confrontations between climate change believers and climate sceptics, why does it arouse so little passion now? Is it so polarised and politicised, with emerging nations suspicious that the whole idea is a conspiracy by the old rich countries to inhibit their economic growth and hold them back? What right has the West to tell India to hold back their greenhouse gas emissions?
Is there the weary realisation that even if climate change is occurring, there is no proof that man's economic activities are responsible for it, and even if they were, there is nothing we can really do about it? The data that for the last five years or so there is little evidence of increase in temperatures or atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide?
Or the inescapable conclusion that at the present time 'green' energy is too expensive, unless offset by huge subsidies which cash-strapped Western governments are increasingly loath to come up with, and too miniscule to make any significant contribution to a country's total energy needs (in no case, do wind turbines provide more than 2% to electricity generation), and the cancellation or shelving of grand projects, such as that to bring solar electric power from the north African Sahara to Europe?
Clothes, social issues and everything else are subject to fashion, and climate change is well, so... 2004, like Al Gore - remember him?
It seems that even the real problems of climate change will be shelved for at least another half century or more. The fact is that the world is living, as Jack Lew said, in a golden age of fossil fuels. There is still plenty of oil, and with fracking, a huge amount of gas. When the last drop of oil or the last cubic centimetre of gas is burned, the world will turn to green energy. Until then, not seriously.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
A forgotten Namibian world record?
Those who follow football, with special reference to the woes of Manchester United (how could they get beaten 5-3 by the minor side of Leicester after having been 3-1 up?) may have missed a game on Sunday, because it was not part of the English Premier League but the lesser known Capital 1 Cup, and I am not sure it was even broadcast live on DSTV. It was a game of Liverpool against another northern city of Middlesborough, and thirty 30 kicks were needed to decide the game, Liverpool eventually the victor by 14 to 13.
It was rightly hailed as an epic shoot-out, but it was not the longest of all time in a professional match. That honour belongs to Namibia. I actually don't remember it - maybe I was out of the country at the time, but it was January 2005 and the match was KK Palace v FC Civics Windhoek - KK Palace won 17-16, a shoot-out involving 48 kicks, after a 2-2 draw after full and extra time.
This is a tally officially acknowledged as a world record. KK Palace ultimately held their nerve to win the cup. According to the Times of London, Titus Kunamuene, the head of competitions at the Namibian FA, spoke for many inside the ground when he told CNN: “At the end of the game, everybody was more relieved than anything else.”
See: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/article4216623.ece
It was rightly hailed as an epic shoot-out, but it was not the longest of all time in a professional match. That honour belongs to Namibia. I actually don't remember it - maybe I was out of the country at the time, but it was January 2005 and the match was KK Palace v FC Civics Windhoek - KK Palace won 17-16, a shoot-out involving 48 kicks, after a 2-2 draw after full and extra time.
This is a tally officially acknowledged as a world record. KK Palace ultimately held their nerve to win the cup. According to the Times of London, Titus Kunamuene, the head of competitions at the Namibian FA, spoke for many inside the ground when he told CNN: “At the end of the game, everybody was more relieved than anything else.”
See: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/article4216623.ece
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Independence for Scotland?
Scotland is the northern half of the island of Great Britain (why 'Great' Britain? not because of past imperial glories but to distinguish between Lesser Britain, which is Brittany in France). It has achieved a fame and character totally out of proportion to its size - barely five million people, a tenth of the population of Britain and a tenth of its economy - but everyone throughout the world knows about kilts, bagpipes and whisky and Scottish food such as shortbread and 'haggis'. Scottish inventions include the steam engine, tarmac roads, television, the telephone, antibiotics; not to mention Maxwell's discovery of the laws of electromagnetism, without which modern civilisation would not be possible. Its people speak English with a very distinctive accent and they also have their own ancestral language (Gaelic). If you go there it does actually feel like a different country. But - does it deserve independence from the rest of the 'United Kingdom' - comprising at present England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island? (southern island having of course long since broken away to form its own republic, after centuries of blood and oppression from their supposed unionist compatriots).
Scotland today votes in a referendum on independence. If it votes 'yes' - and as you have maybe read in the media, the polls are very close, the consequences will be serious, some may say calamitous. How did it come to this? A couple of years back, David Cameron considering himself a consummate politician, thought he could scupper the independence movement in Scotland, by offering a referendum which he thought he was certain to win, given that the supporters of independence were in a definite minority. That was the case until a few weeks ago, when poor tactics by the 'no' to independence campaign, allowed the 'yes' movement to appeal to the heart and emotions of the Scottish people (and by definition, 'yes' always sounds more positive than 'no') so that now the result is too close to call, as they say on TV. So the whole affair might backfire on Mr. Cameron, and if it does, he will go down in history as the British prime minister who lost half his country.
The domestic debate on this issue centres around the local economy, the national health service etc, but what concerns us at a distance should be the matter of separatist movements around the world, which generally cause great suffering, social disruption, damage to the economy and often leading to armed rebellion, displacement of populations and civil war, with no good end result. We can think of the Biafran war in Nigeria, the 'tamil tigers' in Sri Lanka, the FARC in Columbia and of course our own abortive Caprivian 'independence' movement, which after fifteen years is still dragging through the courts, and refugees still living in Botswana.
Although the independence movement in Scotland has so far been non violent, it cannot be denied that if it succeeds the consequences will be serious, firstly to Scotland itself, because many of the big businesses and financial institutions there have threatened to move 'south of the border' if Scotland breaks away. The rest of the UK will be weakened (can for instance the 'less-united Kingdom' retain its permanent seat on the UN security council?) the EU will be weakened, the Western alliance will be weakened, and many countries in the world will be concerned about the 'inspiration' this will give to their own separatist movements, for instance in Spain.
Meanwhile China and Mr. Putin must be quietly smiling at the sight of a western country trying to pull itself to pieces. China does not tolerate separatists - it is one of their most serious crimes - can you imagine a referendum on Tibetan independence? - and the Ukraine crisis has arisen because Russia considers Ukraine to be a historic and cultural part of itself, so that its move towards the west and the EU is countered as a 'separatist' movement which cannot be countenanced.
Let us hope that sanity prevails and the 'no' to Scottish independence succeeds today. But either way, damage will have been done.
Scotland today votes in a referendum on independence. If it votes 'yes' - and as you have maybe read in the media, the polls are very close, the consequences will be serious, some may say calamitous. How did it come to this? A couple of years back, David Cameron considering himself a consummate politician, thought he could scupper the independence movement in Scotland, by offering a referendum which he thought he was certain to win, given that the supporters of independence were in a definite minority. That was the case until a few weeks ago, when poor tactics by the 'no' to independence campaign, allowed the 'yes' movement to appeal to the heart and emotions of the Scottish people (and by definition, 'yes' always sounds more positive than 'no') so that now the result is too close to call, as they say on TV. So the whole affair might backfire on Mr. Cameron, and if it does, he will go down in history as the British prime minister who lost half his country.
The domestic debate on this issue centres around the local economy, the national health service etc, but what concerns us at a distance should be the matter of separatist movements around the world, which generally cause great suffering, social disruption, damage to the economy and often leading to armed rebellion, displacement of populations and civil war, with no good end result. We can think of the Biafran war in Nigeria, the 'tamil tigers' in Sri Lanka, the FARC in Columbia and of course our own abortive Caprivian 'independence' movement, which after fifteen years is still dragging through the courts, and refugees still living in Botswana.
Although the independence movement in Scotland has so far been non violent, it cannot be denied that if it succeeds the consequences will be serious, firstly to Scotland itself, because many of the big businesses and financial institutions there have threatened to move 'south of the border' if Scotland breaks away. The rest of the UK will be weakened (can for instance the 'less-united Kingdom' retain its permanent seat on the UN security council?) the EU will be weakened, the Western alliance will be weakened, and many countries in the world will be concerned about the 'inspiration' this will give to their own separatist movements, for instance in Spain.
Meanwhile China and Mr. Putin must be quietly smiling at the sight of a western country trying to pull itself to pieces. China does not tolerate separatists - it is one of their most serious crimes - can you imagine a referendum on Tibetan independence? - and the Ukraine crisis has arisen because Russia considers Ukraine to be a historic and cultural part of itself, so that its move towards the west and the EU is countered as a 'separatist' movement which cannot be countenanced.
Let us hope that sanity prevails and the 'no' to Scottish independence succeeds today. But either way, damage will have been done.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Investment for dummies
Apologies for any infringement of copyright first of all, as I am sure the above must be a title of a book, or many.
I attended a very pleasant breakfast presentation given by EMH Prescient, the fund managers. This was informative and featured many formidable looking graphs, a bit much to take in on one sitting. However I was mainly preoccupied with the thought - why does the ordinary person never seem to make any money on the stock exchange, 'funds' or other 'investments'?
There is the old joke that whenever there is a big investment conference, the fund managers arrive in their Mercedes and Bentleys, and the clients arrive in their Toyotas. In question time I referred to my wife's experience as a generic example of an unhappy 'investment' experience Some ten years ago she had an amount of £60000 (currently about N$ 1 million) to invest. She had an experienced financial consultant, and bought a few speculative stocks but mostly international blue chips, in hard currency. The investment was monitored fairly often, but the net result at the end of ten years was that the £60000 had turned into £45000, in fact she would have been far better of keeping her funds under the bed. At least she didn't lose all her money. How can this be?
To try to understand this, I met up again with Melanie Allen, the MD of EMH Prescient, to ask the question -what goes wrong with investors and investments, at least when 'amateurs' make them? Melanie replied that several points must be borne in mind. Firstly, the investment regulatory environment has been tightened up considerably from a few years ago. Then, for instance, anyone, a retired teacher or policeman could rent a one roomed office and put a plate on the door saying Financial Consultant. Now, this is less easy and will soon be legally impossible.
Second, it is impossible for an ordinary person to know all the factors, which can range from technical to financial to political, to the global economy and to subjective public perception, which affect a company's stock price. Yes, some shares do increase by 10% overnight, but the amateur investor is not going to get that 10% - it is swallowed up by the professionals. You do need to take the advice of consultants, or spread the risk over a portfolio containing a wide spread of interests.
Third, there is the tendency to think that fields are 'greener' the further away they are. In other words, they like to invest in international stocks quoted in foreign currencies. Not only are the factors affecting the stocks price of global corporations even more impenetrable, you run the further risk of being burned by exchange rate fluctuations. Fourth, investors should be patient and stay with with investment for the medium or long term. If you have put funds away for a five year period, do not panic over their performance after the first year etc.
Then there is the suspicion that the average person will never show a profit from your investment, because any profits will be eaten up by consultant and fund manager fees. The answer is that you get what you pay for. It is cheaper to buy your groceries wholesale, but many people find it a soulless experience trudging around a remote warehouse buying goods in inconvenient packing and quantities. It is much nicer to go to your local friendly retail supermarket. Of course, rich people can have housekeepers who will choose what is needed and do the shopping for them. If you wish to go through a 'pyramid' of financial advisers and investment consultants, each of these of course will take their commission. But you can go straight to a wholesaler such as EMH, select one of their managed funds, and leave it to them.
Demand regular statements on your investment. Query mysterious fees, like when you take your car for a routine service but the bill contains unexpected extras, or of course a restaurant bill which adds an amount for a tip but which says at the bottom that 'service is not included'.
The baseline goal is to protect your little bit of money from inflation. Putting your cash under the bed will not help with this - neither will putting it in a bank or post office or bank savings account (how can it - the bank and even the post office must make money out of your savings, so that the interest they give you must be less that your savings' net worth). But inflation is relative and may differ for every person: if you are into photography and buy a lot of camera equipment, the inflation rate of this is important to you - if you never take pictures this is irrelevant.
Having said all of this, I recall an experiment which was conducted recently in the UK (there have probably been many) where ten expert financial advisers were retained to design a stock portfolio for Mr. Average Investor, over a period of two years. Then a portfolio was chosen purely at random, maybe with a roulette wheel. After two years, the random portfolio had performed better than the average of all the expertly chosen stocks. So there you are. Personally, I have still some money saved with the Post Office.
I attended a very pleasant breakfast presentation given by EMH Prescient, the fund managers. This was informative and featured many formidable looking graphs, a bit much to take in on one sitting. However I was mainly preoccupied with the thought - why does the ordinary person never seem to make any money on the stock exchange, 'funds' or other 'investments'?
There is the old joke that whenever there is a big investment conference, the fund managers arrive in their Mercedes and Bentleys, and the clients arrive in their Toyotas. In question time I referred to my wife's experience as a generic example of an unhappy 'investment' experience Some ten years ago she had an amount of £60000 (currently about N$ 1 million) to invest. She had an experienced financial consultant, and bought a few speculative stocks but mostly international blue chips, in hard currency. The investment was monitored fairly often, but the net result at the end of ten years was that the £60000 had turned into £45000, in fact she would have been far better of keeping her funds under the bed. At least she didn't lose all her money. How can this be?
To try to understand this, I met up again with Melanie Allen, the MD of EMH Prescient, to ask the question -what goes wrong with investors and investments, at least when 'amateurs' make them? Melanie replied that several points must be borne in mind. Firstly, the investment regulatory environment has been tightened up considerably from a few years ago. Then, for instance, anyone, a retired teacher or policeman could rent a one roomed office and put a plate on the door saying Financial Consultant. Now, this is less easy and will soon be legally impossible.
Second, it is impossible for an ordinary person to know all the factors, which can range from technical to financial to political, to the global economy and to subjective public perception, which affect a company's stock price. Yes, some shares do increase by 10% overnight, but the amateur investor is not going to get that 10% - it is swallowed up by the professionals. You do need to take the advice of consultants, or spread the risk over a portfolio containing a wide spread of interests.
Third, there is the tendency to think that fields are 'greener' the further away they are. In other words, they like to invest in international stocks quoted in foreign currencies. Not only are the factors affecting the stocks price of global corporations even more impenetrable, you run the further risk of being burned by exchange rate fluctuations. Fourth, investors should be patient and stay with with investment for the medium or long term. If you have put funds away for a five year period, do not panic over their performance after the first year etc.
Then there is the suspicion that the average person will never show a profit from your investment, because any profits will be eaten up by consultant and fund manager fees. The answer is that you get what you pay for. It is cheaper to buy your groceries wholesale, but many people find it a soulless experience trudging around a remote warehouse buying goods in inconvenient packing and quantities. It is much nicer to go to your local friendly retail supermarket. Of course, rich people can have housekeepers who will choose what is needed and do the shopping for them. If you wish to go through a 'pyramid' of financial advisers and investment consultants, each of these of course will take their commission. But you can go straight to a wholesaler such as EMH, select one of their managed funds, and leave it to them.
Demand regular statements on your investment. Query mysterious fees, like when you take your car for a routine service but the bill contains unexpected extras, or of course a restaurant bill which adds an amount for a tip but which says at the bottom that 'service is not included'.
The baseline goal is to protect your little bit of money from inflation. Putting your cash under the bed will not help with this - neither will putting it in a bank or post office or bank savings account (how can it - the bank and even the post office must make money out of your savings, so that the interest they give you must be less that your savings' net worth). But inflation is relative and may differ for every person: if you are into photography and buy a lot of camera equipment, the inflation rate of this is important to you - if you never take pictures this is irrelevant.
Having said all of this, I recall an experiment which was conducted recently in the UK (there have probably been many) where ten expert financial advisers were retained to design a stock portfolio for Mr. Average Investor, over a period of two years. Then a portfolio was chosen purely at random, maybe with a roulette wheel. After two years, the random portfolio had performed better than the average of all the expertly chosen stocks. So there you are. Personally, I have still some money saved with the Post Office.
Friday, September 12, 2014
The Internet is not making us dumb
There was an article by the journalist Janice Turner a while ago in the London Times. It was stimulated by the statistic that in Britain the average teenager now spends more time on-line, whether by phone, tablet or even PC, than they do sleeping, or watching TV, and reverts to the venerable question: "Is the internet making us dumb (or dumber)?" Of course this is an impossible question to research since it would be now totally impractical to create a test group of children without on-line exposure and compare them to a group typical of the iphone and ipad generation. And anyway how do you define and measure 'dumbness'?
Rather one presumes this article was a reproach to young people to switch off their devices sometimes, and get out there and 'get a life'. This may be reasonable in Europe where there is a bewildering choice of sporting, cultural, theatrical, festival activities and movies available more or less 24/7, in every area, and clubs and groups devoted to every interest.
But let us rather consider Windhoek, which has, at time of writing so far as I know, uniquely among the world's capital cities except maybe in Saudi Arabia:
and think what we (the lucky ones, with network connection) would do without the internet, and how boring life was before its arrival here. Now we can read whatever international newspaper we want, any day, any time, we can download any music or movie we want (pace DSTV) and watch or listen to it at any time, we can find any of ten of thousands of recipes we would never find in any cookbook, we can post all al pictures online and never lose another photograph, we can keep in touch with any or all of our friends, and tweet our opinions on any subject via the social media (whereas before it could take years to track down an old school friend) play on-line games with anyone in the world, find the most obscure information or quotation with a couple of swipes or clicks (whereas before it might takes days to find an encyclopaedia in a library).
No, for us, the internet is not make us dumb. We would be exceedingly dumb without it, and giving network access to all our population is a necessity for national development.
Rather one presumes this article was a reproach to young people to switch off their devices sometimes, and get out there and 'get a life'. This may be reasonable in Europe where there is a bewildering choice of sporting, cultural, theatrical, festival activities and movies available more or less 24/7, in every area, and clubs and groups devoted to every interest.
But let us rather consider Windhoek, which has, at time of writing so far as I know, uniquely among the world's capital cities except maybe in Saudi Arabia:
- No movie house (even the small one in Swakop seems to have vanished)
- No Indian restaurant
- No Chinese restaurant (there are a couple of small take-aways)
- No public library (there was one I think, which was refurbished and reopened but was again closed due to enterprising customers coming in the evening and using its secluded corners for sex)
- No specifically child-friendly facilities or activities
- No Sunday newspaper, except for the one imported from South Africa
and think what we (the lucky ones, with network connection) would do without the internet, and how boring life was before its arrival here. Now we can read whatever international newspaper we want, any day, any time, we can download any music or movie we want (pace DSTV) and watch or listen to it at any time, we can find any of ten of thousands of recipes we would never find in any cookbook, we can post all al pictures online and never lose another photograph, we can keep in touch with any or all of our friends, and tweet our opinions on any subject via the social media (whereas before it could take years to track down an old school friend) play on-line games with anyone in the world, find the most obscure information or quotation with a couple of swipes or clicks (whereas before it might takes days to find an encyclopaedia in a library).
No, for us, the internet is not make us dumb. We would be exceedingly dumb without it, and giving network access to all our population is a necessity for national development.
Monday, September 08, 2014
The complexity above us
Many of our compatriots, even those or especially those who do not fly and have never flown, must sometimes wonder at the complexity of the skies above us, where thousands of aircraft criss-cross the globe every day (for a stunning animation of this see www.flightradar24.com) without incident or mishap, punctuated only rarely by a foul-up or tragedy.
This is achieved not only by airframes and jet fuel, but by some of the most sophisticated computer technology and information systems on earth. Systems that do not just direct and navigate the aircraft, but ensure they do not collide with each other, and find each one a landing slot at the airport of destination,even at airports which handle hundreds of flights per hour. Long before anyone had heard the word internet, SITA, the airlines technical organisation, had a communication network and email system which linked the globe. The first online interactive system was SABRE, developed for American Airlines in the US in the 1960's to automate their reservation system, and thus cater for thousands more passengers and fill their flights more efficiently. SABRE and other systems still exist, with fiendishly complex yield management systems, which enable anyone with access to a website such as expedia.com to request a journey between the most obscure destinations on the planet, on any required date, and have the best fare displayed within a couple of seconds, to be booked immediately, if desired.
There are still glitches. Try to explain why, when my daughter's family were confirmed booked on the 'South African Express' (seemingly not the same as SAA) from Cape Town to Windhoek, and even received an email the previous day inviting them to check in online, they arrived at Cape Town airport at 4.30 am for the 6 am flight, only to be told that not only was the flight cancelled, but the route was cancelled, several months before. They had bizarrely printed out boarding passes for a non-existent flight.
Of course, there are more serious gaps. Since a delivery van can have its position tracked anywhere in the country at any time to within a couple of metres, you might assume the same holds for aircraft during their flight. Surprisingly, this is not so: planes flying over land are tracked by conventional radar, but if they fly long haul over the great oceans, they fly alone. Any accident will necessitate a long an arduous search on the bottom of the sea for the 'black boxes', which are still basically 1970's recording devices.
This of course brings us to the search for MH370, which has just resumed, at a cost of another US$25m. What are the chances of finding it now? It was said that our knowledge of the topography of Mars is some 100 times more accurate than our knowledge of the floor of the Indian Ocean, and the months of delay have been caused by attempts to better map the latter, which at least has scientific value of its own.
But how difficult will it be to locate the remains of the airliner? Imagine that South Africa was uninhabited; a lunar wilderness covered with 3000 metre mountain ranges and vast sludge and rock filled valleys and ravines. Now imagine the whole being submerged in 5000 metres of water. Now search that for some pieces of aluminium. What are the chances? And if they do, what are the chances of discovering the causes of the disaster, especially if due to human factors?
Monday, August 25, 2014
DSTV - one man's struggle
DSTV - 'Doomed from the Start' Television?
(or Multichoice - what is the difference?)
One man’s vain struggle against DSTV
Is broadcast television a dying medium?
I came back from overseas, to read about the consumer fury with Multichoice/DSTV, thought it was a bit exaggerated, but found it was my personal problem too, as my decoder, economically put on ‘hold’ during my absence, could not be started again.
In the meantime it seems the whole ‘system’ had been changed, so that all the old accounts had been abolished, most of the facilities changed, services suspended and any payments made had disappeared into a black hole.
Not being able to get through (2705222 I found is the most dreaded number in Namibia), decided to go down to the Multichoice office early the next day.
Before opening time, a queue of despondent subscribers was already forming outside the door, like a Greek unemployment office. When the office opened, the line moved with glacial slowness. The minutes dragged by. A considerate thought is the provision of white chairs for pensioners to sit on while in the queue, and it is rumoured that a Red Cross resuscitation unit will be on hand for anyone who keels over while waiting. One bright point was the newly reopened coffee bar in the reception area, which plans to run a trolley service up and down the queue offering coffee and cake to sustain the waiting customers.
Finally I got to the head of the queue, where a harassed assistant said that my payment had gone to my ‘box office’ account, though I I had no idea what ‘box office’ was. (Tip: if you make an online payment to Multichoice, print it out and get a commissioner of oaths to sign it). Anyway, he said my decoder was now on.
Went home, no TV. I returned next day to the office (luckily I am semi-retired) and this time asked to see a manager. They showed me upstairs (why does a place which basically is just to take your money, need such a large building?) and to the public relations manager, an extremely nice lady who promised to have my service connected straight away, which she did. I suggested that DSTV should enact one of their programmes Undercover Boss where the general manager of Multichoice in Namibia could disguise himself, - this might be difficult - and stand in the queue downstairs to record his impressions.
She also promised me an email setting out the precise changed brought about by the new system, which was not forthcoming. As for the service – that cut off again after three days.
As far as I can tell, although I only heard it from the guy behind me in the queue, that it is no longer possible to put an account on hold, no longer possible to change your ‘bouquet’, and (since the speed point machines were out of order the last time I was in the concourse) not possible to pay by card.
Economic theorists and philosophers (such as one finds in the queue at Multichoice) opine that the problem lies in the nature of monopoly – Multichoice has no serious competition in Namibia or in many other parts of Africa and there may be some truth in this. DSTV (Multichoice) now makes the Department of Home Affairs look like an example of swift and friendly customer service.
I solved the problem by borrowing the decoder of a friend who was going away, but the whole situation provided some food for thought. Is broadcast television a dying medium? Just like DVD rental shops seem to be vanishing? More and more people are acquiring an internet connection at home – it is no longer the province of the elite. Consider – for N$ 499 per month you can get a good home internet connection with wifi, from Telecom or MTC. You can get inexpensive Android tablets for less than N$ 1000. Members of the family can download and watch movies for free (without paying outrageous ‘box office’ fees on top of a N$ 700 subscription, plus charges for multiple accounts). If you want to watch TV, most modern sets have a USB input, and will play your downloaded movie, watch videos, pictures or slide shows or whatever you want, without again having to fork out to Multichoice.
Maybe DSTV hope to survive until the 573rd series of Big Brother Africa. Meanwhile 2705222 continues to give a faint engaged signal, 24/7.
Anyway, if this weekend you have no DSTV, not to worry. Switch off, go out, and reflect on who you personal hero is, on Heroes’ day. Have a good holiday.
STOP PRESS. It's Sunday 7th September and I have just got through on the phone to Multichoice and had my service connected by another very nice lady. All's well that ends well.
STOP PRESS. It's Sunday 7th September and I have just got through on the phone to Multichoice and had my service connected by another very nice lady. All's well that ends well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)