Understanding China

China is a country that has a very rich and long history, captured excellently by John Bryan Starr in his book Understanding China. The focus of the book is to give the reader an overall look at the country’s history, economy, politics, people and culture. The book begins by describing its recent political history. For many years, China was not a part of the world economy because its leaders chose to close its borders to the world. The death of its famous leader Mao Zedong in 1976 began the changing of the political guard in China, along with the gradual opening of its economy to the world.

The book starts by discussing the leadership change that China has experienced in the last 30 years. Initially, Deng Xiaoping (a product of the Chinese Communist revolution and one of the founders of the contemporary Chinese political system) tried to install leaders in positions to succeed him upon his eventual retirement from duties of the State. However, he was unsuccessful in his first two attempts. Finally, he was able to bring in a leader Jiang Zemin, who was not like the old guard (born in the Chinese hinterlands, ill-educated and extremely conservative), but rather a hybrid of the old Chinese mentality and the more modern global outlook. The rapid change that has occurred in China over the last half century 30 has produced leaders with very different lives, careers, and experiences than their predecessors. The people who make up this new generation of leaders differ in training, perceptions, connections, and aspirations.

The book looks to explore three main questions, namely – What are the principal problems confronting China today? What is the capacity of the Chinese political system to deal with these problems successfully? And, given the answers to these two questions, how might the political situation play itself out in the near term. The book discusses the critical problems facing China’s leaders today. These critical problems are those the author believes will threaten the nation’s ability to continue on its current trajectory of economic development. The first is the issue of government state-owned enterprises loosing money. The majority of these industrial enterprises are kept afloat by the Chinese government with loans and subsidies. This is done mainly to keep people employed and keep up the face of being a socialist country. The next problem is that of the Chinese banking system. Estimates suggest according to the book that the four largest state-owned banks in China have made circa $200 billion USD in bad debt, by providing the funds that float the state-owned enterprises mentioned above. (However, recently in the news, it was mentioned that some of China’s big banks are currently in the process of launching IPO’s, so this might prove to be a means of shoring up their cash base.)

Another critical problem facing China is the issue of urban unemployment. As a result of the financial problems the state-owned enterprises are facing, a majority of the workforce is put on reduced hours or temporary furlough. The state employs a large workforce and as such their productivity is very low as there are too many people trying to do too few jobs. Further, the inflow of workers from the countryside into China’s big cities in search of lucrative work is a big issue facing the government. It is estimated that about 100 million workers can be categorized in this manner. The disparity between the have’s and have-not’s is another issue facing the Chinese government according to the author. The gap in the standard of living between those in the urban centers and those in the country side is large and growing. The issue of taxation by the local government upon that taken by the state is a major source of dissatisfaction in the countryside. They believe that they are taxed excessively to the detriment of their way of life. If left uncontrolled, this could spiral into a major problem as recent demonstrations have shown.

Food is the next critical problem that the Chinese government will face in the coming years. The amount of arable land in China is shrinking, while the population continues to grow. China feeds 20 percent of the world’s population on less than 7 percent of the world’s arable land. Further, economic development has meant that a lot of this land is being used for housing and commercial purposes in lieu of farming. They face a balancing act of controlling the population in the country and also increasing the amount of food harvested from year to year. This control of the population is proving to be quite worrisome for the Chinese government. They have instituted a one-child policy in China, which for the most part has controlled the population. However, the Chinese population is expected to reach 1.5 billion by 2015.

The problem of environmental pollution is another issue facing the Chinese government. A large proportion of the power plants that are used in China are made up of coal-fired power plants. The bituminous coal found in large quantities in China is exclusively used in these power plants, and is in fact a very large source of the pollution attributed to China. According to the author, 80 percent of China’s bodies of freshwater are polluted, and 90 percent of the water flowing through the city is non-drinkable. Lastly, the interactions between China and its territories – Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau is a source of continuous friction between the Chinese government and the peoples who live in these countries.

The book details some of the geographic similarities between the United States and China. China covers about 3.7 million square miles, almost the same as the USA at 3.6 million square miles. Also, the two countries sit on roughly the same latitude; as are Beijing and New York and also Shanghai and New Orleans. However, as much as they share some similarities, they have some major differences. Firstly, only about a third of the United States is taken up with mountains and desert, while in China the reverse is true. Forty percent of the United States has land available for cultivation, while China only has about 10 percent available. Also, the rivers in the United States run from north to south, while those in China run from west to east. The population of the United States is spread around the entire country (mostly along the coasts), while most of the population of China live on the eastern coast of China.

Due to the numerous peoples that make up China, one finds that the Chinese army is the only denominator that keeps everyone together. This fact has made the Chinese army very influential and strong. The author suggests that sometimes it seems like the army controls the Chinese government rather than it being the other way around. This apparent fact has led China’s neighbors to increasing their military capacities in anticipation of China’s eventual emergence as the next super power of the world.

Things to Do Before You're 40

My dad made a photocopy of this article in Reader's Digest back in 1985. He kept it with the intent of passing it's message to his then young son at the right time. He gave it to me about 6 years ago. I figure there is something in the article that resonated with him and possibly helped mold him before he turned 40.

I think it is a brilliant article and you should have a chance to enjoy it.

By Michael Korda, Reader's Digest, 1985

Make your own recipe for success - then sit back and enjoy it

It's a widespread assumption that work gets hader after 40. Of course, some things are harder, like getting up in the morning without aches and pains. But in most organizations work gets dramatically easier after 40.

The responsibilities may be heavier, but after 40 you should be valued for your experience, knowhow and judgment, rather than for the ability to work 18 hours every day. Most of the major rewards of success tend to accumulate after the age of 40 -- if you do the right things before that watershed birthday.

What are the right things? First of all, do your homework; learn everything you need to know about your business or profession before 40. For example, learned how to edit a manuscript, as well as the rudiments of publishing one, in my thirties. In short, I mastered my business at the appropriate age and have gone on to acquire more experience since.

By 40, Leonard Bernstein had written West Side Story and established a reputation as a brilliant composer and conductor.
By 40, Charles Bluhdorn had nursed his Gulf & Western Industries into a multi-million-dollar-a-year business empire.
Burning the midnight oil is OK at 20, maybe even 30, but nobody should have to lose sleep learning something new at 40 plus.

Second, develop your own style. Before you're 40 , learn what you're comfortable with, whether it's in the way you dress or simply the small touches that set you apart. You can experiment in your twenties and thirties, but establish your own style firmly by the time you're 40. No one appears more insecure than a man or a woman trying to redesign his or her "look" in mid-career.

Third, put your emotional life in order. It's hard enough to succeed without taking on personal problems that sap your energy and divert your attention. Besides, unhappiness is like a disease -- it gradually eclipses interest in everything else.

Of course, all difficulties can't be avoided, and one has to rise above them; but those who have managed to put their personal lives in order by the time they're 40 are generally in better shape for success than those who haven't. So if you're going to end a hopeless entanglement or get married, do it -- before the problems drag on into the fifth decade of your life, when you should be enjoying yourself and watching the investment you've put into your career begin to pay off.

Fourth, know your weaknesses. Accept the things you don't do well, can't stand, or won't do. If you're not comfortable with numbers, but enjoy creative work, don't force yourself to sit in a numbers job because it pays well or because it's what people expect. Get into the kind of work you enjoy before you're 40 or you're guaranteeing yourself an unhappy decade or two after that age -- and probably destroying your chance for real success.

Fifth, know your strengths. You'd better decide what you're good at, too, and recognize the things you enjoy doing.

When I was younger, I was often criticized for seeing both sides of a question -- to some, it made me appear wishy-washy. Now that I'm 54, however, I have long since realized that this is a valuable strength. Admittedly, it makes me a better adviser than executive, but that's all right -- an organization needs both. Whatever your role, knowing who you are and what you're good at is critical for success.

Sixth, make a start at putting away your "I quit" money. When I was much younger, literary superagent Irving Lazar once gave me a word of fatherly advice. "put away the first million you make," Well, a million dollars is more than I've been able to save, but the idea is a sound one. Nothing is so depressing as absolute dependency -- the knowledge that you can't afford to give up your job or take a risk in changing careers...that you're stuck.

Put enough away so that you have a safety net. You may never use it, but sometimes the only response to a situation is, "Gentlemen, I quit" -- and you'll hate yourself if you're not in a position to say it.

Seventh, establish a network. If by 40 you haven't built a network of friends, or at least people who rely on you and to whom you can turn, you're in trouble. These are colleagues for whom you do favours, whose projects you support, whose problems you listen to...and they do the same for you.

A network is not something you can establish overnight -- it takes decades of nurturing. In business as in politics, you need a lot of people, spread out in the right places, on whom you can depend -- because they can depend on you.

Eighth, learn to delegate. Many people don't -- or can't -- do this, and are thereby condemned to remain in subordinate positions. Delegation is half of success; a person who cannot delegate will find himself fatally handicapped. By the time you reach 40, you'd better be an expert at it, which means you have to pick the right people and trust them.

Ninth, learn when to keep your mouth shut. More careers are aborted by careless talk than by anything else. Learn to keep quiet and look wise -- people will naturally suppose that you know more than you probably do. Don't gossip, and don't talk about you plans. A reputation for keeping secrets outweighs the popularity that spreading gossip may win you. The further you go in your career, the more true this is. In higher management, secrecy is golden.

Tenth, be loyal. If you haven't established a reputation for solid, 100 per cent loyalty by the time you're 40, you'll be haunted by this defect for the rest of your career. A reputation for disloyalty is bound to make you unwelcome anywhere in business. Before 40, loyalty is its own reward; after 40 it pays off.

And always, keep your sense of humor. This side of heaven, nothing lasts for ever, not even success!

An address on Representative Government: Theory and Practice by Chief Obafemi Awolowo to Students' Parliament at Ahmadu Bello University, Dec 6, 1975

IT gives me double pleasure to address this parliament. In the first place, it is always stimulating to have an opportunity of this kind, when one is able to seize it, of addressing a gathering of intelligent, critical and discerning youths. In the second place, it is refreshing, after a decade of electoral abeyance, to talk to an assembly of duly elected people, albeit, in this case, a students' parliament.

In spite of the socio-political aberrations which black Africa as a whole has been experiencing during the past ten years or so, it will be agreed by those who have given thought to the matter that a freely-elected parliament is an essential of a civilized, dynamic, free and stable society. It is the only organ in any society, which can claim to comprise the accredited representatives of the people, and can, therefore, legitimately make laws for, and supervise the administration of the affairs of the people. It is also the most effective and acceptable organ which mankind has evolved for the promotion, at all times, of what Lincoln pithily described as 'the government of the people, by the people, for the people.'

Democracy is, in my humble view, the best form of government. This very assertion implies that it is not the only form of government; and I make it in the face of weighty denunciations by Plato, the father of political philosophy, and Aristotle. Both of them have expressed poor opinion of democracy as a form of government, presumably, as practiced in ancient Greece.

In the STATESMAN, Plato claims that democracy is 'in every respect weak and unable to do either any great good or any great evil.' And Aristotle, writing in the same vein in his POLITICS, described democracy as 'the most tolerable of the three perverted forms of government in contrast to oligarchy and tyranny.'

As I have just said, democracy is not the only form of government. It has had powerful rivals down the ages such as gerontocracy, autocracy, absolutism, tyranny, despotism, fascism, authoritarianism and oligarchy.

For purposes of clarity and scientific discourse, all forms of government can be grouped under three main heads: autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. Aristotle made a two-fold classification from which I most respectfully differ. Says he: 'There are generally thought to be two principal forms - democracy and oligarchy: the rest are only variations of these.'

If you accept my classification, you must begin to do a rigorous intellectual exercise from now on with a view to ascertaining, which of the three is best. I have already told you of my own standpoint, namely: that, of all the three, democracy is the best. I will now proceed to demonstrate in outline why I hold this view. In doing this, it is my intention to consider each of the three forms one by one. But before doing so, and in order that we may have a clear understanding of the comparative virtues or vices of the three, it is necessary that we should have a quick look at one basic principle.

A study of some of the writings of political philosophers from Plato and Aristotle, through Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, to Marx, Engels and Lenin, would appear to suggest that all philosophies or theories have certain basic underlying principles in common: the nature of man, and the concept of the structure and origin of the State. The basic principle with which we would concern ourselves in this address is the one relating to the nature of man.

Various political philosophers have ascribed different attributes to the nature of man.
Plato thinks that the ordinary men are both selfish and rational, and that all men should be viewed as potential tyrants. Aristotle speaks of the 'wickedness of human nature.'

In THE CITIZEN, Hobbes writes:'The dispositions of men are naturally such, that except they be restrained through fear of some coercive power, every man will distrust each other.'
And in the LEVIATHAN, he declares that men love liberty, but they love to dominate their fellowmen as well.

Locke holds the view that man is not evil, but inherently good. For Marx and Engels, human nature depends on the prevailing patterns and conditions of production and distribution of wealth. These brief references are enough to show that the nature of man is one of the underlying principles of political philosophy. I make no attempt to improve upon what Plato and others have said on the subject. But I want to try and supplement their views.

Human nature can be viewed from the standpoints of biology, psychology, religion, mysticism, and politics. But since the province of this talk is representative government, we must follow the examples of the great political philosophers and confine ourselves to the realm of psychology.
The first thing to note about man is that, apart from his body, he has a mind. Through the objective and subjective processes of his mind, he can consciously perceive objects and interpret them; he can also, through the same processes, make decisions and, by the exercise of his will, execute them.

The second thing to note is that he also has instincts. According t McDougall, OUTLINE OF PSYCHOLOGY, 'An instinct is an innate disposition which determines the organism to perceive any object of a certain class, and to experience in its presence a certain emotional excitement and an impulse to action which find expression in a specific mode of behavior in relation to the object.' Put in simpler terms, instincts are innate or inborn natural forces, which compel the individual to act in specific ways in certain circumstances.

It will be seen that whilst the individual consciously controls and directs the objective and subjective processes of his mind, he has the compelling tendency to be controlled and directed by his instincts. He must give expression to his instincts; whether the expression is positive or negative is another matter. If he does not, he will either perish or his personality will be seriously damaged. In other words, the compelling promptings, passions and emotions of instincts can only be repressed or suppressed by the individual or the human race at his or its own peril.

Leslie Weatherhead in PSYCHOLOGY AND LIFE details FOURTEEN manifestations of the three instincts of SELF (10), SEX (2), and HERD (2). Of the fourteen manifestations, TWO are more germane to our present discussion. They are ACQUISITION and COMBAT. They both come under the generic instinct of SELF. Nature compels man to acquire or desire - to desire food, shelter, clothing, power, etc; all these things are essential for the survival of the individual or of the human race. But nature also compels him to fight with all the means at his disposal, if anything should stand between him and he objects of his desires, or threatens what he has already acquired.

Now, it would appear that all political philosophers are agreed that OF ALL HUMAN DESIRES THE DESIRE FOR POWER IS THE STRONGEST. In other words, OF ALL THE TEN MANIFESTATIONS OF THE INSTINCT OF SELF, THE MOST POWERFUL IS ACQUISITION - ACQUISITION OF POWER.

Let us make no pretence about it, every human being loves power, power over his fellowmen in the State, or in business enterprises; or, failing that; power over his wife and children, or over his brothers, sisters, and friends; or, in the case of children, power over his playmates. Of these categories of power, the desire for power over ones fellowmen is the strongest. Those who are, for the time being, kept out of this category of power will make a bid for it, as soon as they believe they have the necessary means of combat to attain their ends. The means of combat chosen will depend on the rules for periodic change in the power structure, or on lack of such rules.

Having disposed of the basic principle relating to the nature of man, we will now proceed to describe, in outline, the characteristic features of AUTOCRACY, OLIGARCHY, and DEMOCRACY.

AUTOCRACY is a form of government in which political power is vested in one man. OLIGARCHY, on the other hand, is a form of government in which political power is vested in a few people. Whilst DEMOCRACY is a form of government in which political power is vested in the entire people.

Practically, all the governments in Africa today, including South Africa and Rhodesia, are autocratic and oligarchial in their forms. It is claimed for these forms of government that they are more dynamic, quick and precise in taking decisions, and equally swift and more thorough in implementing them.

There are no entrenched rules of the game regarding the modes of accession and succession to power.

Most of the time, the Autocrat accedes to and remains in power at his own will without the pre-consent of the rest of the people. So do the Oligarchs. And once in power, they employ various devices and machinations to keep others out. Some of them do make a pretence to democracy, by rigging electoral processes as a means of prolonging their tenure of office.
As we have seen, whatever the Autocrats or the Oligarchs do, human nature cannot attune itself to a state of affairs in which it is permanently excluded from the exercise of power. The result is that, wherever autocracy or oligarchy prevails, there is an built-in instability which erupts in unexpected violent change of power structure, which change is sometimes bloody, and occasionally bloodless.

It is conceded that, under autocracy or oligarchy, there is a good deal of dynamism as well as quickness and precision in decision--making and its implementation. But because of the absence of those checks and balances which can only be supplied by a wide diffusion in the exercise of power, and by the free expression of public opinions concerning the affairs of State, those at the helm of these forms of government, however good they may be initially, sooner or later lose their original sense of mission, and degenerate.

When the degeneracy reaches a certain level, or when those who also aspire to autocratic or oligarchical power have acquired adequate means of combat, a sudden and frightful change of guards or revolution is brought about. With the new change begins a new cycle: starting with rapid ascent; then slow descent, then precipitous decline; and again a sudden frightful damage.
As we have noted, democracy is a form of government in which power is vested in the entire people.

In the ancient Greek City States, attempts were made, without much success as the writings of Plato and Aristotle clearly depict to practice pure or direct democracy, under which all the citizens of a City-State assembled to deliberate and decide on their affairs.
It goes without saying that in any modern state which has a large population and has a variety of complex problems, it is inadvisable and, in any event, impossible to practice pure or direct democracy.

The problem which confronts the protagonists of democracy has been this: to fashion an institution or institutions which will ensure the participation of the entire people in the affairs of their government without such a government losing in operational and functional dispatch and effectiveness.

The democrats have found solution to this problem by the device of INDIRECT DEMOCRACY OR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

Under this form of government there are definite and entrenched rules of the game.
Periodically, the entire people are allowed to choose those who will be entrusted with law making and the administration of their affairs, at local, State and Federal levels, as the case may be. Only the adults are eligible to go to the polls to cast their votes. But it is well known that all non-adult articulate citizens do play a tremendous part in influencing the outcome of the elections.

A period of TWO to FIVE years has been chosen in civilized countries for the tenure of such elected persons. The reason for this is not far to seek. TWO to FIVE years is not too long a period to wait to change the representatives and have new ones, if necessary.
To ensure that the elected representatives are the truly accredited representatives of the people, it is essential that elections are conducted in a free and fair atmosphere. An atmosphere in which individuals and ideological groups are quite free, unhindered, and uninhibited in the expression and communication of their views to the people who have the duty eventually to decide who and which of the ideological groups can best represent their interests in making laws for them and in administering their affairs in the ensuing four or five years. Where such an atmosphere as this is non-existent, then whatever emerges will not be a truly representative government.

Furthermore, it is impossible that during the four or five years of office, the elected representatives may become remiss in the faithful observance of their mandate. To these ends, checks and balances have also been devised, though they are not always in frequent use.
There is the system of RECALL, under which an elected representatives who persistently violates his mandate can be made to vacate his seat in the Assembly or Parliament, if a prescribed number of electors from his constituency make representation to that effect.
There is what is known as the INITIATIVE. In this case, a prescribed number of the people in the State or Federation can make representation that a particular law should be enacted. And when they do, the Assembly or Parliament will be obliged to initiate processes for the enactment of such a law.

There is also a system of REFERENDUM. The Constitution may provide that certain matters should be submitted to the people for their decision in a REFERENDUM. On the other hand, an Assembly or Parliament which is sensitive to the people's wishes may refer a major issue of policy to the people for their decision in a REFERENDUM. This was done recently in Britain on the issue as to whether or not Britain should join the European Common Market.

The most powerful check of all is that which is supplied by public opinion freely expressed through the press and the mass media, and on the rostrums, subject only to the restraints which may, from time to time, be imposed within the well-known ambit of the Rule of Law.
I think I have said enough on this subject - REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT: THEORY AND PRACTICE - to stimulate your thoughts and even provoke a debate among you. I do not seek conformity, but I do intend to generate a process, which may lead to a better understanding of an important and topical subject, and of the experiment in representative or parliamentary government on which you have embarked.

I would like to end by congratulating the members of your parliament on their success at the polls. I hope that, during your tenure, you will be faithful to your mandate.

The most powerful check of all is that which is supplied by public opinion freely expressed through the press and the mass media, and on the rostrums, subject only to the restraints which may, from time to time, be imposed within the well-known ambit of the Rule of Law.

Let us make no pretence about it, every human being loves power, power over his fellowmen in the State, or in business enterprises; or, failing that; power over his wife and children, or over his brothers, sisters, and friends; or, in the case of children, power over his playmates. Of these categories of power, the desire for power over ones fellowmen is the strongest.

Indigenous Talent, Energy, and Multinationals

I was reading somewhere recently about Nigeria's lack of indigenous energy and construction firms. I happen to work at a rather big engineering, construction, & project management company in the US and I can see some of the issues Nigeria is facing in terms of not having an indigenous multinational company - at least from this side of the fence so to speak. Nigeria desperately needs a "Fluor" or a "Kellogg Brown and Root"! Every big project that could potentially employ a large sector of white collar Nigerians gets contracted out to he who can handle the so said "contract" and the associated accelerated schedule. In Nigeria's case this is usually a "Julius Berger" or some other multinational company. The country desperately needs to develop it's in house talent and hopefully over time create increasing employment opportunities for all Nigerians. At this point in time, Nigeria is shipping in ex-pats left and right for every single thing. We all know these ex-pats cost a lot of $$. The privatization initiative should be an opportunity to really develop our talent base in Nigeria. If we were paying out in naira instead of dollars, it would definitely help and not hurt the Nigerian economy.

Furthermore, the power issue (Energy) hurts me the most. It is imperative that Nigeria get its act together with its energy initiative. I have read different articles recently about proposed power plants to be erected all over different parts of the country. I recently worked on a big $2.3 billion power project in Turkey. The project added almost 4000 megawatts to the Turkish power grid. Now consider the total cost and the amount of power that was added to the Turkish grid. For some perspective, Turkey has a population roughly of about 70 million people, and we were adding in 25% of their total power output. Can you believe that? 25%! Now consider Nigeria....We can use the last official figure of 120 million people as a base. Now what is our total power generated you ask? - not even 4000 megawatts. We consistently run on anywhere between 1500 - 2500 megawatts. I believe Nigeria has a total generation capacity in the neighborhood of 3500 megawatts. Although, recent reports have us generating a few more megawatts due to some recents upgrades in generation ability.

The company I work for would probably not have won the Turkish project if it were not in a joint venture with a Turkish company. A part of the contract was to ensure that the Turkish people benefited from the project. Thus, the company had minimal ex-pats over from the US and mostly local (Turkish) engineers throughout execution. If Nigeria has a company that can compete with the foreign firms, and/or go into joint ventures with them, the country stands to benefit immensely in the long run. It would eventually build up the talent in the company and possibly make inroads into the local projects of other West African countries. Almost all foreign countries do the same thing - they support their own! When an American company like Fluor or GE is bidding for a job in Germany, you can bet your a$$ that Siemens is in on it - the German government will do everything in its power to ensure they (Siemens) get the job - competitively of course.

My point here I guess is that I applaud the idea to get a Nigerian (multinational type) energy and construction company going. Yes, it could be regarded as an opportunity for some in government to embezzle money and yes, some of the eventual big guys in this company would be in a position to rake in a lot of money. However, the big picture here is that the company will be there years after these folks are long gone. At that point a lot of people will have moved up in the company, and our young talented Nigerians from all our Universities and polytechnic should have a place to go right out of school. This is truly what we need.

There will always be the super rich, so we should not loose sight of the big picture when it comes to developing a base for our own talent.

Salmon or Sea Bass?

A friend sent me an e-mail a while back about a Nigerian article on why men cheat on their wives. The article centered on a discussion among five mutual friends in regards their marriages. The youngest of the men just turned 40, while the oldest was 50. The article goes on to elaborate about the difficulties each of them were having in their marital lives.

The article goes into how each of the men either had a girlfriend(s) outside of their marital homes or were planning on marrying these young ladies or "first generation university graduant" as one of the men put it. Anyway, the reasons each man gave for cheating on his wife varied from a lack of attention from his wife, a lazy wife that did not cook, a wife that ignored his emotional needs, a wife that showed no interest in what the man was doing, to a purely sexual affair.

It must be noted that none of the men have plans to divorce their wife. They were prepared, however, to battle it out with their wives if they ever found out. Anyway,...I thought the article was quite interesting and humorous at the same time, so I forwarded it on to a few female friends. As expected, cheating is a very sensitive subject matter, especially to the Nigerian woman. A compilation of their responses are as follows:

1. Men cheat because they lack self control and they are spoilt. (bottom line) They marry a salmon, they know that they are marrying a salmon, all of a sudden they want sea bass, mahi mahi, rockfish, halibut and the list goes on. They also go out looking and don't stop till they get another type of fish. For the most part they know they love their salmon, but they want a sea bass as well, and won't stop till they HAVE both. By nature women (well most, as women cheat too) don't have that problem, we just accept that we married a shark and deal.

2. Basically, the pressure is on a woman to keep her husband, since he lacks self control. She has to become a sea bass, a mahi mahi, a halibut (although she is a salmon) to please him since he (through no fault of hers) has decided that he wants another type of fish. Unfortunately, not all women have the uncanny ability to do so (i.e. be someone/something else). Some women stay EXACTLY as they are. They have no desire to improve or reinvent themselves. They are not forward thinking (which is ok). Unfortunately, this is just the way God made them and they have no desire to be anything else but the same boring Sade that Supo married. Unfortunately, Supo may decide that he cannot take boring Sade anymore. Albeit, she was boring when they married.

3. As the head of your house hold, it is unacceptable for your wife to be rude to you. (per the article) If she is, you, as a man need to check yourself. If your wife respects you, trust me, she will do what it takes to please you. Women need to feel protected, men need to be cow-tied to (i.e. feed his ego). If a woman does not feel you are holding your own as a man, she may become rude etc. Per the article, the man's solution is to cheat. I think that is a sign of weakness on the man's part. Since I can't handle my salmon, let me go and handle this halibut (who is too young to see my flaws) she may respect me. No doubt some women are just bad. This is why I say know what you are attaching to before you do so.

4. Men change (become worse) in the marriages too.....Women do not decide that they are going to cheat because of that. However, if a man losses his wealth and becomes a looser, if he married a woman that wants a lot in life, trust me, she will cheat.

5. Most men (people) get married due to pressure (no clue what they were getting married to....That my spouse "will do" attitude when really they are not satisfied). They never really look inside and ask (self) what they want from life and whether the person they are about to marry will fit what they want to be in life. If you are nice, is she nasty?, If you are fun and deary, is she boring and will not take risks? Are you getting what you want? This is why no matter how bad Bill Clinton is or can be....Hillary will never leave him. They are soul mates. Is Bill spoilt? Yes! He married for ambition and gets all else outside. He has always (even after 3 years of marriage) cheated on Hillary. She has always accepted it. He knows that. He knew that when he married her. His eyes were open.

Nigerian Secondary School System

I read an article in the Nigerian Tribune this morning about the changing of Nigeria's Primary and Secondary education system from the 6-3-3-4 system that I grew up knowing to what is now called the 6-9-3 system of Universal Basic Education (UBE). I remember a time way back in 1986 when the Federal Government also had a similar idea of changing our educational system and succeeded in increasing the length one of my secondary school years from a regular 12 month cycle (two terms) to a 16 month cycle (three terms), only to change it back again after about a year.

The change back then succeeded in doing nothing! Instead of moving ahead in class, I ended up wasting about 5 months marking time in the same grade and basically learning nothing. All that being said, I fear that the Federal Government is going about revamping our educational system without looking at the past mistakes of prior governments nor correcting the core problem of undereducated and untested pupils.

There has been no information to the public as to how this new system is going to be handled nor what the curriculum is to be composed of. It is my belief that the role of the Ministry of Education is not the periodic revision of the educational system, but rather setting up checks and balances in the testing of our wards in all arms of the educational system. I do agree that the curriculum needed to be revised and made more in line with a 20th Century education. However, what good is this new curriculum if the students are not properly tested along the way.

Furthermore, what role does the West African Examinations Council play in this new curriculum? Are the new guidelines for examinations going forward been discussed? Who should be the blood hound to the government on education? Is there an independent educational body like WAEC that would administer large exams? Or is WAEC still in the loop?

I truly believe that the testing of our wards should in fact be the focus of the Ministry of Education. Too many times as evident in most of the country, a majority of the students passed out of our numerous Federal Government colleges are not fit to start a University education. There should be no reason why we would need to scrap the "JSS" exams. The role of this exam was to ensure that students were competent in the basic education needed for everyday life. By getting rid of this weed-out process in the educational chain, we pose the risk of leaving students behind.

This is truly a concern for me - I guess we all have to just wait and see.