Why does government usually take decisions with negative impacts on the average citizens?
By Akol Abiong, Juba, South Sudan
Tuesday, May 21, 2019 (PW) — During 2010 Sudan national elections, South Sudanese citizens were having high expectations from their leaders in person of Salva Kiir Mayardit. After a while South Sudanese leaders willingly took unexpected path, which has left ordinary citizens in dilemma about the future of their country. In March 2018, the government led by Salva Kiir decided to shut down the Vivacel operator company, citing failure to comply with regulations and policies.
Information minister and government spokesman Michael Makuei Lueth told media outlets that the largest telecom company had failed to pay over $60 million in tax since its establishment, prompting the government to shut it down. However, multiple sources told the news that the government wanted shares owned by top opposition officials in the firm stopped immediately and then transferred to officials supporting the government in Juba, a demand reportedly rejected by the management of the mobile network operator.
When you make comparison between government argument and different sources, one would come up with conclusion that ordinary citizens are going to be the victims of the elephant fight and indeed it became true. The question that always trigger on my mind is that why did the government live the company to operate for over 10yrs without paying tax?
Indeed, the answer will be either the government has no problem plan in regard to revenue collection or targeting the company on the political grounds. The government took a dangerous decision without having thoughts on the economic implications on their citizens to shut down the company, which was acting as one of economic strong wing in the country.
The company was alleged to employ over five thousand employees across the country apart from small-scale businesses (transfer agents and dealers). If government were to have good economic analyst to review economic power of the company towards citizen, they would have resort to negotiation instead. The decision itself was against President Kiir manifesto of 2010, which talk of economic development through private sector.
Let me quote from H.E manifesto which says”. I shall endeavour to encourage the private sector to play an active role in economic development”. This will be in keeping with the SPLM policy of “taking towns to the villages”. Presidential manifesto clearly stated if private sectors are encouraging then the economic power of the nation would be felt at the grassroots level which shall be in line with the policy and vision of SPLM.
Let us assume that five thousand employees working with Vivacel Company have an average of 6 or more beneficiaries benefiting from each employee, then the decision has affected an average number of thirty thousand or more in a row. A country with hyperinflation will not dare to take such a decision to shut down one of the economic power point benefiting such a huge number.
The government officials took 4.4 billion without any accountability according to presidential letter to 75 top officials in 2012. So what is these 60 million all about in contrast to the lives of thousand beneficiaries?
In August of the same year the government again took decision to close down another economic power point, which was serving an average of over three thousand employees. With the above assumption the decision has again affected eighteen thousand beneficiaries in the same row. It has contributed negatively in the national economy on the claim that the business owner was the national security threat.
I understand that the protection of national sovereignty is the sole responsibility of every citizen and when there are national security threats then they should be dealt with without affected an ordinary citizen on the same line. I may not dwell much on this issue because the case is already in court and it will be the decision of the court to rule in favour of any.
In April 2019, national ministry of health, which is seen by the general public as one of the institution running in speed gear, took a ridiculous decision to reduce the incentives of national staffs working with health partners across the country amid the economic meltdown. The decision has affected many citizens’ nationwide and there is much public outcry all over. The president at his capacity didn’t say anything about it so far.
Although I understand that H.E the president is busy with Revitalise agreement on the resolutions of the conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCISS), he should intervene in such a situation where many are dying without medical attention across the country. In 2010, we agreed with him (president) on his manifesto saying “The provision of quality health care for all citizens shall be a top priority of my government.
I shall endeavour to establish public health care facilities in both urban and rural areas. The rehabilitation of the existing hospitals and the establishment of teaching and referral hospitals and including intensive care units shall be a priority of my government. My government will also encourage universities in the Southern Sudan to establish public health, nursing and midwifery units/departments and to heighten awareness on the scourge of HIV/AIDS and its management”.
It is now difficult for one to imagine how difficult the situation is with those who have nothing to afford private clinics. For example, Mingkaman in Eastern Lake state is serving close to 80,000 IDPs. The camp has only one health facility (PHCC) functioning under the Italian organization known as CUAMM. The PHCC has been closed for one month plus and many beneficiaries are dying without being attended to and one would wondered why do government usually take decision which have negative impact on average citizens.
To serve the lives of those in need is most important than keeping money in the account for no use. The little done by health partners shouldn’t be led down by the government of the people. Yes, there are some health practitioners who can be willing to help their own people with or without anything but that situation should be when there is nothing. If I may ask a simple question, what does Dr Riak Gai (minister) and Makur Koriom (undersecretary) wants to do with reduce remaining balance?
My assumption will be that the money will go into the usual path of South Sudanese instead of serving lives. Health is one of the basic necessities of an average person in any country and therefore, we shouldn’t be subjecting our citizens into such suffering when we know the truth. We can be able to get money but can’t be able to return back the live lose in this one and half month. South Sudan has already high mortality rate in the global context and government shouldn’t contribute to it and the high tension in all the states across the country.
In conclusion, Dr Makur Koriom and his boss should reverse back the decision and reinstate the reduce amount of the health practitioners. We are not interested to know whether you are right or wrong but the true of the matter is the lives of South Sudanese suffering across the country should be serve as soon as possible.
The write is the graduate BSc in Statistics and Demography, college of Social and Economic studies, university of Juba, can be reaching @ email address: abyong60@gmail.com
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made is the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website. If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website do reserve the right to edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a short biography, email address, city and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
