Friday, January 1, 2010
Profiling the Nigerian for Terrorism
Farouk Mutallab by his misguided and deplorable attempt to blow up an airline on Christmas Day in the US, thrust all 140 million Nigerians onto the global stage for scrutiny once again for another socially unacceptable behaviour.
That Nigeria has a bad image on the global scene is no longer news. Before him, the 419 scam generation had succeeded in earning us the shameful label of the Scam Mecca of the world. Then there is our unfortunate political evolution that has entrenched corruption and bad governance as synonymous with Nigeria.
Sick display of ill-gotten wealth by military dictators and supposedly democratic politicians further confirmed us as a nation of questionable values. Throw in the Niger Delta militancy, incessant religious crisis and gross bribery scandals spanning three continents and some mega conglomerates and you could safely conclude that the Nigerian nation is a safe harbor for all anti- social behaviour.
Surprisingly however, such a conclusion could not be farther from the truth. In spite of the seemingly endless list of criminal and anti-social characteristics of Nigerians, one of the most definable traits of a Nigerian is a passionate love for life. This trait transcends ethnic, religious and cultural divides and can safely be assumed to be written in the Nigerian DNA.
By nature, a Nigerian abhors death because our cultural orientation presents death as a defeat of destinies. If a Nigerian dies at less than 70 years old, it is a family and communal tragedy. Young deaths are believed to be untimely and thus a stigma that could affect the status of such a family as other families avoids any relational interaction with the one who loses its members untimely.
The Nigerian by nature does not commit suicide. Suicidal tendencies are immediately concluded to be demonic or extraterrestrial influences on such persons. Suicide is not a psychological imbalance to the Nigerian society. It is a satanic oppression which is dealt with by prayers and other spiritual antidotes.
Depression is not a mental state in the Nigerian context. It is a spiritual attack that only God can overcome; not anti-depressants. A Nigerian who attempts or commits suicide stigmatizes his family and generations for life. Nigerians don’t marry into a family with a suicide or mental depression case as it is assumed that the tendency could be hereditary.
That is why, as the world tries to unravel the Farouk Mutallab phenomenon, it would do well to search for his motive in everything else but his Nigerian lineage. It just did not come from there because it does not exist there.
It would also be an error to profile the Nigerian along terrorist parameters as it would be a sad waste of time and resources as the Nigerian lacks the moral fibre to hold ideological or religious beliefs at the expense of his life.
Simply put, the Nigerian could cause others harm as long as it does not affect himself or his family but to blow up a plane with him as one of the victims is definitely not Nigerian.
The Nigerian’s aggression only goes as far as his life is not threatened. The minute any resistance or activity becomes life threatening, the Nigerian backs off and prefers to live with the injustice than lose his life.
This is what is responsible for the continued oppression of the masses by the political class. The politicians know this trait and capitalize on it to keep holding on to power in corruption, election rigging and bad governance. If the Nigerian valued life a little less, maybe a sustained resistance would have rid us of the incessant politicians whose primary aim is to loot the treasury.But the Nigerian’s passion for life has become his stumbling block for progress as he would rather live in oppression than die for principle.
That is why Farouk Mutallab may be Nigerian by birth but definitely not Nigerian by orientation.
The Nigerian culture has high social and communal collateral. In Nigeria, no man is an island. It is absolutely essential to the Nigerian that he be accepted within his social circle. It is this need for acceptance that is the root motivation for scams and criminal activities. The influence of peer status is very heavy on the average Nigerian mind. If a peer is affluent, there is unspoken pressure on his contemporaries to rise to the challenge; thus the trend to cheat, steal or scam to gain social status and acceptance.
In the converse, it is this same social collateral that keeps majority of Nigerians morally upright as it is a stigma for you or your children to be morally corrupt. That is what informed Farouk’s father to act proactively by reporting his son’s questionable lifestyle even before he did anything wrong.
Even the obviously corrupt do everything to hide their real activity thus the tendency to have cover-up businesses or live abroad and only come home sparingly so no one can scrutinize their activities.
The Nigerian spirit is one of resilience not revolution. The Nigerian spirit is self preservation and not sacrificial. It is the trait that condemns us to our present state of underdevelopment in spite of abundant resources. Nigerians don’t sacrifice anything for a common good or goal, especially not our lives. No Nigerian runs towards death in ideological oblivion. It is not in our character.
The natural emergence of supposed ‘experts’ on the global scene claiming to understand and profile the Nigerian due to Mutallab’s botched attempt at terrorism could mislead the world into chasing shadows like Bush misled Americans to chase non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Looking for an Al-Qaeda base in Nigeria will be an exercise in futility as the cultural environment is too hostile to their ideological motivation.
The world will do well therefore to concentrate its efforts at defeating terrorism on nationals with enough moral fibre to hold ideological views enough to die for it.
We Nigerians don’t die for anything or anyone. If the Lord Jesus Christ was a Nigerian, the world would never be saved from sin.
Nigerians would rather live than die for anything. The less than one percent with questionable character may find smart ways to defraud the world but even they want to live to enjoy their loot.
Simply put, Farouk Mutallab does not represent the spirit of Nigeria because Nigerians don’t die for anything.
Monday, September 21, 2009
NCC Phone Blacklisting Service: Matters Arising
A few weeks ago, I had raised some questions on the compulsory 40kobo monthly surcharge NCC had approved for Netvisa, a licensed service provider to manage the CEIR phone blacklisting service. For those who might not be aware, the phone blacklisting service is one of the strategies NCC plans to help curb phone theft which was estimated at 2 million phones annually.
For this, NCC in agreement with some stakeholders in the industry approved a compulsory surcharge of 40kobo per subscriber every month to provide the service. While the service is laudable and timely, my reservations bordered on the compulsory status of the surcharge, especially when there were claims that the service providers offered to provide the same service at no cost. While 40kobo is negligible to each subscriber, the cumulative total over more than 60million subscribers would tally up to over 300million every year!
Legitimate questions about NCC’s logic for opting for a third party to provide a service that was already available on individual networks and might only require a directive for all networks to interconnect in order to share the information, however was seen as a malicious plan to sabotage the project by some people at NCC and surprising enough, quite a few consumers.
Almost all the comments posted on CAFON’s social network site http://cafonnigeria.ning.com accused me of colluding with phone thieves or defending interests other than the consumer’s. It appeared that the issue had polarized Nigeria’s consumer base as so many other consumers were insistent on NCC either providing the service for free or at least at lower costs and definitely not compulsorily.
An evaluation of the two opposing views revealed that consumers took a position based on their level of enlightenment as majority of the nays spoke only from the need perspective while the yeas were more concerned with the strategic relevance and long term sustainability of the service.
It was very enlightening because it allowed me to see the difference awareness, information and enlightenment makes in dealing with consumer issues. One consumer actually asked me why I was so concerned about what happens 2 years up the road. Why can’t I wait until then? Exactly the sentiments of the regulators.
Does one need to wonder why nothing appears sustainable in Nigeria when it seems we are comfortable with making short term plans on long term issues?
Phone theft has been for over 7years now and will probably be a problem 7 years down the road but our desire and strategy is to solve the immediate now and deal with the future when it shows up.
Why not plan to solve it for at least 10 years instead of 2? Knowing the Nigerian economic equation, chances that the cost would decrease over the years is slim. So after 2 years, we might end up paying a naira or two for the same service with no added value.
It is worth noting that the Minister of Information and Communication was reported to havedirected a freeze on the execution of the project to review the package. That is a welcome development.
One however hopes that the Minister will vigorously pursue this review to either get the service free for the consumer or at least reduce the initial cost to the consumer.
It would be even better if the service can be available to consumers on as needs basis or if an additional benefit of insurance can be worked into the deal.
One common recurring reason why the nay consumers seemed to want the NCC option was because they didn’t trust the service providers to faithfully implement the service because of the fact that they make money on Welcome Back packs.
Whenever a consumer loses his phone, he pays from N300 to N800 to retrieve the SIM depending on the provider. According to the nay consumers, this income stream might influence the efficacy of the service because the providers want to keep selling Welcome Back packs.
The issue raised more questions for me on the regime of charges NCC endorsed for these networks. With the level of vibrancy in the sector, one would think that certain practices would have been abolished because they are unsustainable.
It puzzles me that consumers are still paying for the SIM card separate for the network service. In the first instance, the SIM card is the property of the network as stated in the contracts attached to the packs. It just happens to be the means through which I get access to the product I want to buy i.e. airtime. If the Network decides, it can withdraw my SIM at will because it is their property.
How come Nigerian consumers are being made to pay for an item that they can never own? It’s like the doctor charging you for the syringe separate from the injection! Shouldn’t it be part of the cost since you can’t get the injection without the syringe anyway? SIM cards all over the world are considered part of the cost of service not treated as a separate product.
I remember buying a Lebara pay-as-you-go pack at Victoria Station in London recently. The hawker charged 5 pounds for the pack and when I activated the number, my initial credit was exactly 5pounds; not 4 pounds fifty after deducting 50p for the SIM pack! I recall paying N40, 000 for my SIM card in 2001! No airtime was even included then! N40,000!
Thank God for the competitiveness of Glo mobile that crashed the price to 200, forcing other networks to reduce their prices too. If something that once cost 40,000 could come to cost as little as 200 in a 5 year cycle, one does not need a calculus to determine that some exploitation was definitely going on somewhere.
Yes, we could sing the early adopter song in the marketing cycle but the disparity is too great and in the economies of scale, the cost of producing the SIM pack should be negligible enough by now that it can be absorbed as part of running costs. But will the networks, which are in business to make money, willingly let go of this additional income stream without prompting?
Probably not, so NCC needs to rigorously engage them with a view to constantly minimize cost of service to the consumer. Or what do you think?\
It is bad enough that we pay for the tool needed to get the service but it becomes questionable when the service provider seems to be profiting from a consumer’s misfortune by charging a premium to restore a service that already caused great loss to the consumer (phone, other personal items if it was a case of armed robbery, valuable information, etc).
No wonder the nay consumers would rather pitch their fortune with NCC’s compulsory 40kobo monthly surcharge than take the free offer from the service provider. Who wants to take a chance with anyone who appears to profit from one’s misfortune?
While NCC is at this issue of Phone Blacklisting Surcharge, can they review this practice of paying to retrieve a stolen line too? After all, the service providers cannot charge for it without NCC’s consent and approval and I want to believe that the regulator’s primary responsibility is to look out for the consumer while ensuring a competitive business environment for the service provider.
In fact, Nigerian consumers should no longer pay for acquiring a SIM card either for a new line or replacing a lost one. Whatever value is placed on the SIM pack should be loaded in full on the line as airtime. If we pay N300 for a new SIM, the airtime on that line must be N300 in full, no less.
For the service providers, it makes good business sense to seize the moment and display some consumer sensitivity on this matter before it becomes a directive from NCC. And please, let no one chant the “cost of business in Nigeria is too high” mantra at me.
After all, as “harsh” as the Nigerian business clime is reputed to be, profit margins here sometimes are quite juicy ( I recall reading about one GSM network declaring over 400billion profit before tax in a half year cycle a few years back!) The supposed harsh costs are borne by the consumer anyway so let us share in the benefit too.
Another argument in favor of free SIM card is also the fact that all networks still have loads of technical issues that result in consumers being charged for services not delivered e.g. drop calls, bad connection while the counter is running, etc.
That is like making money for nothing. Since we must endure this until their facilities are functioning better, they could at least pass some of that free money back to us by giving us a break on the SIM card end.
It is also just and fair that no consumer should pay for something which will never belong to him. We are interested in airtime… not the tool to get it!
For this, NCC in agreement with some stakeholders in the industry approved a compulsory surcharge of 40kobo per subscriber every month to provide the service. While the service is laudable and timely, my reservations bordered on the compulsory status of the surcharge, especially when there were claims that the service providers offered to provide the same service at no cost. While 40kobo is negligible to each subscriber, the cumulative total over more than 60million subscribers would tally up to over 300million every year!
Legitimate questions about NCC’s logic for opting for a third party to provide a service that was already available on individual networks and might only require a directive for all networks to interconnect in order to share the information, however was seen as a malicious plan to sabotage the project by some people at NCC and surprising enough, quite a few consumers.
Almost all the comments posted on CAFON’s social network site http://cafonnigeria.ning.com accused me of colluding with phone thieves or defending interests other than the consumer’s. It appeared that the issue had polarized Nigeria’s consumer base as so many other consumers were insistent on NCC either providing the service for free or at least at lower costs and definitely not compulsorily.
An evaluation of the two opposing views revealed that consumers took a position based on their level of enlightenment as majority of the nays spoke only from the need perspective while the yeas were more concerned with the strategic relevance and long term sustainability of the service.
It was very enlightening because it allowed me to see the difference awareness, information and enlightenment makes in dealing with consumer issues. One consumer actually asked me why I was so concerned about what happens 2 years up the road. Why can’t I wait until then? Exactly the sentiments of the regulators.
Does one need to wonder why nothing appears sustainable in Nigeria when it seems we are comfortable with making short term plans on long term issues?
Phone theft has been for over 7years now and will probably be a problem 7 years down the road but our desire and strategy is to solve the immediate now and deal with the future when it shows up.
Why not plan to solve it for at least 10 years instead of 2? Knowing the Nigerian economic equation, chances that the cost would decrease over the years is slim. So after 2 years, we might end up paying a naira or two for the same service with no added value.
It is worth noting that the Minister of Information and Communication was reported to havedirected a freeze on the execution of the project to review the package. That is a welcome development.
One however hopes that the Minister will vigorously pursue this review to either get the service free for the consumer or at least reduce the initial cost to the consumer.
It would be even better if the service can be available to consumers on as needs basis or if an additional benefit of insurance can be worked into the deal.
One common recurring reason why the nay consumers seemed to want the NCC option was because they didn’t trust the service providers to faithfully implement the service because of the fact that they make money on Welcome Back packs.
Whenever a consumer loses his phone, he pays from N300 to N800 to retrieve the SIM depending on the provider. According to the nay consumers, this income stream might influence the efficacy of the service because the providers want to keep selling Welcome Back packs.
The issue raised more questions for me on the regime of charges NCC endorsed for these networks. With the level of vibrancy in the sector, one would think that certain practices would have been abolished because they are unsustainable.
It puzzles me that consumers are still paying for the SIM card separate for the network service. In the first instance, the SIM card is the property of the network as stated in the contracts attached to the packs. It just happens to be the means through which I get access to the product I want to buy i.e. airtime. If the Network decides, it can withdraw my SIM at will because it is their property.
How come Nigerian consumers are being made to pay for an item that they can never own? It’s like the doctor charging you for the syringe separate from the injection! Shouldn’t it be part of the cost since you can’t get the injection without the syringe anyway? SIM cards all over the world are considered part of the cost of service not treated as a separate product.
I remember buying a Lebara pay-as-you-go pack at Victoria Station in London recently. The hawker charged 5 pounds for the pack and when I activated the number, my initial credit was exactly 5pounds; not 4 pounds fifty after deducting 50p for the SIM pack! I recall paying N40, 000 for my SIM card in 2001! No airtime was even included then! N40,000!
Thank God for the competitiveness of Glo mobile that crashed the price to 200, forcing other networks to reduce their prices too. If something that once cost 40,000 could come to cost as little as 200 in a 5 year cycle, one does not need a calculus to determine that some exploitation was definitely going on somewhere.
Yes, we could sing the early adopter song in the marketing cycle but the disparity is too great and in the economies of scale, the cost of producing the SIM pack should be negligible enough by now that it can be absorbed as part of running costs. But will the networks, which are in business to make money, willingly let go of this additional income stream without prompting?
Probably not, so NCC needs to rigorously engage them with a view to constantly minimize cost of service to the consumer. Or what do you think?\
It is bad enough that we pay for the tool needed to get the service but it becomes questionable when the service provider seems to be profiting from a consumer’s misfortune by charging a premium to restore a service that already caused great loss to the consumer (phone, other personal items if it was a case of armed robbery, valuable information, etc).
No wonder the nay consumers would rather pitch their fortune with NCC’s compulsory 40kobo monthly surcharge than take the free offer from the service provider. Who wants to take a chance with anyone who appears to profit from one’s misfortune?
While NCC is at this issue of Phone Blacklisting Surcharge, can they review this practice of paying to retrieve a stolen line too? After all, the service providers cannot charge for it without NCC’s consent and approval and I want to believe that the regulator’s primary responsibility is to look out for the consumer while ensuring a competitive business environment for the service provider.
In fact, Nigerian consumers should no longer pay for acquiring a SIM card either for a new line or replacing a lost one. Whatever value is placed on the SIM pack should be loaded in full on the line as airtime. If we pay N300 for a new SIM, the airtime on that line must be N300 in full, no less.
For the service providers, it makes good business sense to seize the moment and display some consumer sensitivity on this matter before it becomes a directive from NCC. And please, let no one chant the “cost of business in Nigeria is too high” mantra at me.
After all, as “harsh” as the Nigerian business clime is reputed to be, profit margins here sometimes are quite juicy ( I recall reading about one GSM network declaring over 400billion profit before tax in a half year cycle a few years back!) The supposed harsh costs are borne by the consumer anyway so let us share in the benefit too.
Another argument in favor of free SIM card is also the fact that all networks still have loads of technical issues that result in consumers being charged for services not delivered e.g. drop calls, bad connection while the counter is running, etc.
That is like making money for nothing. Since we must endure this until their facilities are functioning better, they could at least pass some of that free money back to us by giving us a break on the SIM card end.
It is also just and fair that no consumer should pay for something which will never belong to him. We are interested in airtime… not the tool to get it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
