Nonsense Talk About Subsidy.
Amene Terh
I listened this evening, 11/11/11 to one of the presidential aides in an interview about the much talked about fuel subsidy removal on political platform and I felt like I should have been close enough to give him a quality knock on the forehead.
As you continue you will see the source of my annoyance.
This guy, for obvious reasons, think subsidy should go. He is part of the government, it will be suicidal for him to say otherwise. Below are his reasons why subsidy should go. You will find also why I believe his, and by inference government's argument doesn't amount to much.
1. There is a cabal in the oil industry that fraudulently claims subsidy for volumes of supply the government cannot proof, so subsidy has to go to sanitize the industry.
So the government knows there is a cabal, and they know them? Then go after them but no, to him, the subsidy law has handicapped the government to prosecute these people. Fine, who is responsible in ascertaining the quantity of oil brought in? If the government cannot proof the quantity brought in, that man is not doing his job he should go. On the other hand how do government know there are sharp practices? It is because the volume quoted on paper by the suppliers is not same with the physical volume seeing. Isn't this enough ground to prosecute these criminals called the oil cabal? This is a classical criminal breach of trust and contract (the learned ones, please tell me I am right). So in the end, the government has no reason whatsoever to remove subsidy and leave these people to roam free. Not dealing with them appropriately is a clear signal that the government only makes noise about fighting corruption, it is not fighting it. Also it shows how weak, ball-less and spineless the government is, shown by her fear to prosecute her own citizens. Most annoying is she has no nerve to even touch the lazy officials she pays to help her ensure the subsidy benefits the entire Nigerian populace when there is enough evidence they are not doing their job, and even conniving with the oil importers to defraud her.
2. When GSM came it was costly but due to competition it is now so cheap cattle rearers in the bush have it.
What nonsense talk! How can you compare fuel to GSM? How many Nigerians depend in one way or the other on telecommunication (GSM) for day to day survival? When GSM was costly, the poor masses could afford to patiently wait because it wasn't a necessity (and still isn't) and couldn't in anyway affect their daily lives no matter how much it was sold. But look at fuel; we must travel. Granted most commercial buses that travel long distances use diesel, but how about those short distance trips made by cars that run on fuel. In my village, we have only motorcycles and small cars that run on fuel. If the price of fuel goes up as a result of subsidy removal, the cost of transportation will definitely go up. There is no hospital in my village, so when one is sick, the cost of transportation alone will be enough to make the relatives shelf the idea of taking the sick person to the hospital. Besides we all know how the market people can use anything that affects the economy to hike prices, not minding whether it has a direct effect on the product they are selling. We are aware of upward reviews in price following every increase in the salary of civil servants. In fact, I have had an encounter with a trader who claimed the price of her garri has to go up because the dollar is now very costly. Can you beat that?
When this special aide was asked if subsidy removal will not lead to an increase in the cost of transportation he answered: how many vehicles used for transportation use fuel? He went ahead to say BRT buses don't use fuel, El Rufai buses don't use fuel, Ekene Dili Chukwu don't. He even asked rhetorically; how many of the so called masses living in Abuja use taxis (sic) and not El Rufai buses? So Nigeria revolves around Abuja and Abuja alone? No wonder when Boko Haram struck in Abuja, the security there was made water-tight, but the other states were left without adequate security resulting in a free reign for the group to give the nation a sallah gift in death of innocent and promising Nigerians in Yobe and Borno states. Mr Adviser, if you are not aware then be informed; if you have decided to forget then be reminded that, Nigeria is beyond Abuja. We have other towns and cities in Nigeria too; and it will interest you to note that some have a transportation system based purely on fuel. In Makurdi for instance, we have only small cars and 16 seater buses (in rare instances 18 seater) as the means of commuting with the town. The same goes for inter-town commuting. These run on fuel and not diesel. Fuel subsidy removal will double their fare, but I know you don't care because anything outside Abuja is not Nigeria.
3. He reacted to the sceptism that the money realised will go down the drain by echoing what all pro-subsidy removal prophets have been saying: credible and independent Nigerians will be appointed to manage the funds! Interesting but not in any way plausible. Let's look at the two words; credible and independent.
By saying credible Nigerians will be brought to manage the funds realised is an indicting statement on all serving and past leaders. The purposes for which the funds realised from the removal will be used for yearly budgetary allocations without anything tangible happening. If there has been no tangible improvement despite huge budgetary allocations it must mean the people saddled with the responsibility of implementing the budget are not credible.The question then is, why not bring in the credible people to manage the budget to give us results in the first instance to proof if you have more you will do more. Why must you remove fuel subsidy to give them to manage? But I suppose these credible Nigerians were taught how to manage proceeds from subsidy removal only so they wouldn't be able to manage money from other sources. If you are not able to bring credible people to manange what you have now for you and the nation, I doubt if when you have the subsidy money you will get them to manage it.
Independent: does that word sound familiar? We have an independent judiciary; is it independent? The legislature is supposed to be independent, is it? Worst of all, we have INDEPENDENT National Electoral Commission (INEC), how independent is it? Go fool someone else! It is not by saying a body is Independent that makes it independent.These credible men and women will be appointed and paid. Who will do this? If your answer is the executive, then let's forget about independence. It is not just in the character of the Nigerian government to have independent agencies.
The local governments depend on the states which in turn depend on the federal government. Where is the independence? Even though we are continually told these are different levels (tiers) of government.
4. When he was questioned on what the money from the subsidy will do, Mr Adviser said the money is very small, so it won't be changing our lives overnight. Wait a minute! Either this man isn't part of this government or I didn't hear him right. Oga Presido is saying to continue with subsidy will cripple the economy, but here is his aide saying the money is small. Is Nigeria so broke that spending that small amount yearly will cripple the economy? Please tell me something better. This one is too fake. I see this as a pre-emptive move. When the so called subsidy is gone and the development it was to be put to is not seeing, it will be easily explained that the money wasn't that big, so it must accumulate for you to see the changes. I don't buy it. No way!
5. Refineries are not working and the government is not talking of making them work. The government's reason is that the turn around maintenance have become a drain pipe. Incredible! Why can't the government plug that pipe so that the refineries work? Better still, arrest and prosecute those who were awarded the turn around maintenance contracts that got the money but didn't deliver. Is the government afraid of its own citizens? Besides, I don't agree with the argument that government can't run businesses. Shenzhen Zhijun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd in China is owned by the Chinese government. This company has grown to a point it manufactures pharmaceuticals on behalf of several companies across the globe. What's more, it is the only Chinese pharmaceutical company with EU certification for cephalosporin antibiotics manufacture. There are several other government owned companies that are growing giving proof that it is not the involvement of government in business that is the problem, but the way it is run. It is the manner the individuals saddled with the responsibility of managing these government companies that ruin them. Government on her part shows no interest in bringing to book those individuals that run her companies aground.
I am yet to hear one, just one good reason why the subsidy has to go. All I have heard is so disappointing I have lost confidence in this government's ability to change for the better the life of the citizenry.
The government has no reason whatsoever to withdraw subsidy. Remove subsidy for what?
This guy, for obvious reasons, think subsidy should go. He is part of the government, it will be suicidal for him to say otherwise. Below are his reasons why subsidy should go. You will find also why I believe his, and by inference government's argument doesn't amount to much.
1. There is a cabal in the oil industry that fraudulently claims subsidy for volumes of supply the government cannot proof, so subsidy has to go to sanitize the industry.
So the government knows there is a cabal, and they know them? Then go after them but no, to him, the subsidy law has handicapped the government to prosecute these people. Fine, who is responsible in ascertaining the quantity of oil brought in? If the government cannot proof the quantity brought in, that man is not doing his job he should go. On the other hand how do government know there are sharp practices? It is because the volume quoted on paper by the suppliers is not same with the physical volume seeing. Isn't this enough ground to prosecute these criminals called the oil cabal? This is a classical criminal breach of trust and contract (the learned ones, please tell me I am right). So in the end, the government has no reason whatsoever to remove subsidy and leave these people to roam free. Not dealing with them appropriately is a clear signal that the government only makes noise about fighting corruption, it is not fighting it. Also it shows how weak, ball-less and spineless the government is, shown by her fear to prosecute her own citizens. Most annoying is she has no nerve to even touch the lazy officials she pays to help her ensure the subsidy benefits the entire Nigerian populace when there is enough evidence they are not doing their job, and even conniving with the oil importers to defraud her.
2. When GSM came it was costly but due to competition it is now so cheap cattle rearers in the bush have it.
What nonsense talk! How can you compare fuel to GSM? How many Nigerians depend in one way or the other on telecommunication (GSM) for day to day survival? When GSM was costly, the poor masses could afford to patiently wait because it wasn't a necessity (and still isn't) and couldn't in anyway affect their daily lives no matter how much it was sold. But look at fuel; we must travel. Granted most commercial buses that travel long distances use diesel, but how about those short distance trips made by cars that run on fuel. In my village, we have only motorcycles and small cars that run on fuel. If the price of fuel goes up as a result of subsidy removal, the cost of transportation will definitely go up. There is no hospital in my village, so when one is sick, the cost of transportation alone will be enough to make the relatives shelf the idea of taking the sick person to the hospital. Besides we all know how the market people can use anything that affects the economy to hike prices, not minding whether it has a direct effect on the product they are selling. We are aware of upward reviews in price following every increase in the salary of civil servants. In fact, I have had an encounter with a trader who claimed the price of her garri has to go up because the dollar is now very costly. Can you beat that?
When this special aide was asked if subsidy removal will not lead to an increase in the cost of transportation he answered: how many vehicles used for transportation use fuel? He went ahead to say BRT buses don't use fuel, El Rufai buses don't use fuel, Ekene Dili Chukwu don't. He even asked rhetorically; how many of the so called masses living in Abuja use taxis (sic) and not El Rufai buses? So Nigeria revolves around Abuja and Abuja alone? No wonder when Boko Haram struck in Abuja, the security there was made water-tight, but the other states were left without adequate security resulting in a free reign for the group to give the nation a sallah gift in death of innocent and promising Nigerians in Yobe and Borno states. Mr Adviser, if you are not aware then be informed; if you have decided to forget then be reminded that, Nigeria is beyond Abuja. We have other towns and cities in Nigeria too; and it will interest you to note that some have a transportation system based purely on fuel. In Makurdi for instance, we have only small cars and 16 seater buses (in rare instances 18 seater) as the means of commuting with the town. The same goes for inter-town commuting. These run on fuel and not diesel. Fuel subsidy removal will double their fare, but I know you don't care because anything outside Abuja is not Nigeria.
3. He reacted to the sceptism that the money realised will go down the drain by echoing what all pro-subsidy removal prophets have been saying: credible and independent Nigerians will be appointed to manage the funds! Interesting but not in any way plausible. Let's look at the two words; credible and independent.
By saying credible Nigerians will be brought to manage the funds realised is an indicting statement on all serving and past leaders. The purposes for which the funds realised from the removal will be used for yearly budgetary allocations without anything tangible happening. If there has been no tangible improvement despite huge budgetary allocations it must mean the people saddled with the responsibility of implementing the budget are not credible.The question then is, why not bring in the credible people to manage the budget to give us results in the first instance to proof if you have more you will do more. Why must you remove fuel subsidy to give them to manage? But I suppose these credible Nigerians were taught how to manage proceeds from subsidy removal only so they wouldn't be able to manage money from other sources. If you are not able to bring credible people to manange what you have now for you and the nation, I doubt if when you have the subsidy money you will get them to manage it.
Independent: does that word sound familiar? We have an independent judiciary; is it independent? The legislature is supposed to be independent, is it? Worst of all, we have INDEPENDENT National Electoral Commission (INEC), how independent is it? Go fool someone else! It is not by saying a body is Independent that makes it independent.These credible men and women will be appointed and paid. Who will do this? If your answer is the executive, then let's forget about independence. It is not just in the character of the Nigerian government to have independent agencies.
The local governments depend on the states which in turn depend on the federal government. Where is the independence? Even though we are continually told these are different levels (tiers) of government.
4. When he was questioned on what the money from the subsidy will do, Mr Adviser said the money is very small, so it won't be changing our lives overnight. Wait a minute! Either this man isn't part of this government or I didn't hear him right. Oga Presido is saying to continue with subsidy will cripple the economy, but here is his aide saying the money is small. Is Nigeria so broke that spending that small amount yearly will cripple the economy? Please tell me something better. This one is too fake. I see this as a pre-emptive move. When the so called subsidy is gone and the development it was to be put to is not seeing, it will be easily explained that the money wasn't that big, so it must accumulate for you to see the changes. I don't buy it. No way!
5. Refineries are not working and the government is not talking of making them work. The government's reason is that the turn around maintenance have become a drain pipe. Incredible! Why can't the government plug that pipe so that the refineries work? Better still, arrest and prosecute those who were awarded the turn around maintenance contracts that got the money but didn't deliver. Is the government afraid of its own citizens? Besides, I don't agree with the argument that government can't run businesses. Shenzhen Zhijun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd in China is owned by the Chinese government. This company has grown to a point it manufactures pharmaceuticals on behalf of several companies across the globe. What's more, it is the only Chinese pharmaceutical company with EU certification for cephalosporin antibiotics manufacture. There are several other government owned companies that are growing giving proof that it is not the involvement of government in business that is the problem, but the way it is run. It is the manner the individuals saddled with the responsibility of managing these government companies that ruin them. Government on her part shows no interest in bringing to book those individuals that run her companies aground.
I am yet to hear one, just one good reason why the subsidy has to go. All I have heard is so disappointing I have lost confidence in this government's ability to change for the better the life of the citizenry.
The government has no reason whatsoever to withdraw subsidy. Remove subsidy for what?
No comments:
Post a Comment