Friday, March 29, 2024

Hunt for Successor 41:Live and let the poor die

Share

The face of poverty...A boy is photographed at a public meeting with rugged clothes in Katete

By Field Ruwe

I tip my hat to two gallant Zambian musicians, Petersen and Pilato, for their timely “Bufi” song. PF cadres and kaponyas do not know how to respond to the words watile ukapanga road; bufi! Watile ukatupele nchito; bufi! Ati fuel ika chipaa; bufi! Actually, kaponyas do not know how to react to the current friable political mood. They are as thunderstruck as the rest of us. They do not know what has hit them. What they thought was light at the end of the tunnel has turned out to be an approaching train. It has hit them hard below the belt and shattered their hopes and aspirations.

The Kiss of Death

First, let me say this; the word “subsidy” is sanctified—it is a lifeline; a bail-out. It is meant to help the poor cope with high costs of food and other essentials. Presidents who remove subsidies do so at their own peril. In 1986, KK tampered with subsidies on food and fertilizer. Prices of commodities skyrocketed and the disgruntled took to the street. It is believed that this was his kiss of death. In the early 1990s, some of his lieutenants, including president Sata, turned against him. They incited street vendors to riot, and before KK knew it, he was gone.
The appropriate term for “subsidy removal,” is “live and let die.” It is the “kiss of death” synonymous with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The term, often referred to as “subsidy reforms” or “subsidy cuts,” has been in existence since the 1970s. The catalyst of the term is Iran. In 1977, Iranians, unhappy with the pro-U.S. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, began a revolution that would last two years. On January 16, 1979, the Shah fled to Egypt and ended up in the U.S. Hundreds of Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 60 Americans hostage. In response, the U.S. president Jimmy Carter imposed an embargo on Iranian oil and drove prices of imports and exports up the roof.
African countries, including ours, were suddenly hit by inflation. Hunger and famine were widespread. IMF and the World Bank came to our “rescue.” The institutions’ money lenders were dispatched to Africa to dish out “low-conditionality loans.” One condition for lending was to remove subsidies on essential commodities. In Botswana they were turned away. The Botswana president told the IMF group that Botswana did not need to remove subsidies; that its people would “tighten their belts, pull together, and plough through the economic crisis with their cattle and diamonds.”

The Botswana president told the IMF group that Botswana did not need to remove subsidies; that its people would “tighten their belts, pull together, and plough through the economic crisis with their cattle and diamonds.

For 43 years subsidy reforms have not benefited a single African country

In Zambia, KK, faced with low copper prices, opened the doors for them even after Civil Rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson had appealed to him not to. Jackson, during his 1986 “Truth Trek to Africa” appeared on Television Zambia and denounced IMF/World Bank policies and lambasted the two institutions for removing subsidies and dragging poor countries into poverty and more economic woes. KK ignored his advice and joined the other 34 African countries.
For 43 years subsidy reforms have not benefited a single African country. President Sata must name one African country that has wiped out poverty as a result of subsidy reforms. If anything, countries have been returning to subsidies. In 2005, Ghana increased fuel prices by 50%. The move benefited mostly the rich and left the poor virtually unattended. The Ghanaian government abandoned subsidy reforms in 2008. In 2007, Gabon increased gasoline and diesel prices by 26% after a Stand-By Arrangement with IMF. By 2009, Gabonese government was unable to meet the IMF goals. Up to this day a third of the Gabonese population still lives in abject poverty.

The Truth about Subsidy removal

Removal of subsidies has absolutely nothing to do with the improvement of the country’s economy. If this were the case, countries that applied subsidy reforms in the 1980s and 1990s would by now be boasting of much higher GDP per capita. In truth, subsidy reforms are applied to cushion the IMF/World Bank loans and bring the debt to acceptable levels. President Sata should know this. He is being totally disingenuous by telling us that “maize subsidies have been a pillar for the huge economic inequality in our society as they only benefit the already well to do middlemen and not the targeted vulnerable groups of our society.” His statement plucked verbatim from the IMF/World Bank play book is unfair; if not an insult to our intelligence. It is a talking point imbedded in most of the IMF/World Bank reports.

Removal of subsidies has absolutely nothing to do with the improvement of the country’s economy. If this were the case, countries that applied subsidy reforms in the 1980s and 1990s would by now be boasting of much higher GDP per capita.
While the statement is true to a large extent, it does not apply to the Zambian dire situation where the middle-class, with their meager wages, and the poor in shanties and villages, cannot afford high-priced essentials arising from subsidy reforms. The same IMF/World Bank analysts admit that “subsidy reforms do very little to prevent price distortion and damage to farmers in African countries.” In fact, in their report entitled “IMF Working Paper of 2010,” researchers Javier Arze de Granado, David Coady, and Robert Gillingham, observe that “eliminating subsidies can have a sizeable adverse impact on the poor households.” In our country “sizeable” is an understatement.[pullquote]

The same IMF/World Bank analysts admit that “subsidy reforms do very little to prevent price distortion and damage to farmers in African countries.

[/pullquote]

Impact of subsidy removal across the world

If subsidy reforms were beneficial they would not cause so much mayhem. In 2008, the impact of subsidy cuts triggered deadly riots in Haiti, Tunisia, Egypt, and across the Middle East and spread to south Asia. In 2011, Bolivian president Evo Morales reversed his decision to support subsidy removal after massive protests, wildcat strikes and mounting opposition pressure. Today, many countries have abandoned subsidy removal. Former Chief Economist of the World Bank, and recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Joseph (Joe) Stiglitz is right when he says that countries that sign up with the IMF and the World Bank end up with “a crashed economy; a destroyed government; and sometimes in flames with riots.”

Former Chief Economist of the World Bank, and recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Joseph (Joe) Stiglitz is right when he says that countries that sign up with the IMF and the World Bank end up with “a crashed economy; a destroyed government; and sometimes in flames with riots.”
In the same breath, Greg Palast of The Globalizer writes that politicians who succumb to such stringent economic reforms are susceptible to “briberization.” They end up selling off the country’s key assets—water, electric, and gas. They increase prices of essential commodities and raise interest rates. In return they get 10% commission. This reward, in millions of dollars, is put in the Swiss bank account. We hope and pray president Sata is not one such heartless and unscrupulous leader.

Empty promises to poor, hungry and desperate people

If the president is indeed transparent and truthful to the Zambian people as he claims, he must stop peddling unfair reforms. Before he was sworn in, he spent a good ten years promising Zambians that he would cure the ills of society, including poverty, disease, tribalism, nepotism, and corruption. Understandably, sugaring promises is a campaign gimmick essential to winning an election. However, this works well in developed countries where there is some latitude for breaking promises.

In a country like ours, it is immoral and unjust to make empty promises to a people who are hungry and have absolutely nothing. President Sata has done just that. Campaigning under the sobriquet “King Cobra” he used the platform to hoodwink a penniless people; people with no food; no clothes; and many with no shelter. “I will put money in your pockets in ninety days,” he declared and yet he knew it was an outrageous promise. Being desperate the poor took his utterances literally. When the 90-day deadline past, PF supporters asked to give him more time. It is going to two years, he has not only failed to honor his promise, but now he has removed their lifeline.

Pleasing IMF

It is possible that subsidy removal on maize and fuel was initiated after Minister of Finance Alexander Chikwanda’s trip to Washington D.C. in April this year. His meeting with the IMF/World Bank officials coincided with the latest survey by the IMF that shows that energy subsidies are a drain on the economy of a country and should therefore be replaced by other means of consumer aid. This, according to the report, is one of the major ways of alleviating budgetary pressures faced by government. The message was relayed to the president and he bought into it. He did not take a moment to think about our villagers and shanty dwellers—the very people who put him in office. Instead, he went ahead and embraced economic policies that have been a killer for many years. And knowing him, his word is always final. He expects us to obey.

US,China and Russia largest subsidizers

While, admittedly, subsidies are a drag on economic growth, they make it possible for the poor to see another day. They are necessary everywhere even in developed nations. In fact the United States is the largest subsidizer of food and spends $502 million each year—that’s two thirds of the U.S. Department of Agriculture budget. The United States ensures no one goes to bed hungry. Poor families below a certain income, and the homeless, qualify for food stamps that enable them to purchase food products at retail.

As recent as February this year, China, which ranks as the second largest subsidizer at $279 million per year, was intensifying farm subsidy spending as an ongoing plan to promote self-sufficiency in grains. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is taking measures, as it has always done, to ensure that rural poverty and food insecurity are taken care of. Russia is the third largest subsidizer at $116 million per year.

[pullquote]Why can’t we emulate them and take care of our poor?[/pullquote]

Why can’t we emulate them and take care of our poor? Why can’t the president maintain fertilizer subsidies and strengthen our agricultural system? Why is he not talking about investment in agricultural science and technology? As usual the answer is “there is no money,” and yet there are many ways to raise funds to cushion subsidies. Here are but a few:

  1. First and foremost, he must trim his cabinet and abolish some of the ministries. It is laughable to see a man who heavily promoted the idea of small government do the exact opposite. He must use the “small government” methodology to raise funds to meet the demand for seed and fertilizer and make them affordable to both large and small scale farmers.
  2. Money realized from our mineral resources must be invested in education and pay lecturers a package worth their education and time.
  3. He must encourage city councils to buy local and long-distant buses or simply revive the United Bus of Zambia and acquire roadworthy buses for our traveling safety.
  4. President Michael Sata must recover $40 million from the Zamtrop account and invest in small scale industry for the poor. The money is there, somewhere, and it is ours.
  5. All wealthy citizens, including the president and cabinet ministers, must pay higher taxes, money which should go to the purchase of state-of-the-art equipment for our doctors at the University Teaching Hospital, so that our leaders are treated locally.
  6. Lastly, the money raised from tourism should go to rural health services, rural electrification, and clean water supply.

The president has dispatched his ministers to bore the people with lame excuses. Chase them away because they do not know what they are talking about. Tell them subsidy removal benefits them and hurts you. Tell them to go and tell the president that before he removes subsidies he must first protect your interest and ensure you have food and transport.

Field Ruwe is a US-based Zambian media practitioner, historian, and author. He is a PhD candidate at George Fox University and serves as an adjunct professor (lecturer) in Boston. ©Ruwe2012

49 COMMENTS

    • There are three reasons why fuel I think subsidy should be rejected. First the fuel subsidy benefit is regressive it goes to the rich. The more the machines or cars someone has the more fuel he/she consume meaning the more subsidy he/she takes. In other words, the richest group in this country (the entrepreneurs who own the huge amount of machines/cars) gets the biggest share of fuel subsidy while the poorest group gets the smallest share of fuel subsidy benefit.
      Second, fuel subsidy will lead to budget deficit. The rise of fuel price would lead to higher subsidy. Since the tax ratio cannot be boosted in short time, government has no choice to finance that subsidy by issuing sovereign debt or printing money(Leading to inflation).

    • There are three reasons why fuel I think subsidy should be rejected. First, the fuel subsidy benefits only the rich. The more the cars or machines someone has the more fuel he/she consume, meaning the more subsidy he/she take. In other words, the richest group in this country (the entrepreneurs who own the huge amount of machines/cars) gets the biggest share of fuel subsidy while the poorest group (the farmers who do not own even a single motorcycle) gets the smallest share of fuel subsidy benefit.
      Second, fuel subsidy will lead to budget deficit. The rise of fuel price would lead to higher subsidy. Since the tax ratio cannot be boosted in short time, government has no choice to finance that subsidy by issuing sovereign debt or printing money(Leading to inflation).

    • Third reason is that the opportunity cost of fuel subsidy is too high. In 2012 government had to spend KR 750 million to subsidize the fuel price, most of it is perceived by the rich. Meanwhile there are a lot of pro-poor programs or projects such as basic infrastructure, health, and education which are supposed to get a bigger portion.

    • Imwe ba Lt wasup with this moderation thing ? Show my other two points on this issue.Don`t spoil the mood of my debate.

    • Did you know that the WTO talk collapsed because richer countries especially the USA have refused to remove subsidies on the industries especially agriculture?

      Neoliberal policies so called free market have led to serious social issues in South America and Sub Saharan Africa.

    • @TheEngineer(Australia) i`m not for a complete removal of all subsidies.Some are strategic as they can help to cushion the economy and people in the low bracket of the social class.The one on fuel surely makes sense and government is spot on to remove it.The fertilizer one was okay though.

    • Fuel is a primary input to the industry of an economy. The problem is that you think fuel is only about driving a car.

      Major industries like mining use massive fuel. Manufacturing as well as agriculture. Its the major driver of inflation besides electricity.

      Do not confine your thinking to fuel being driving cars. Did you know that the whole of North West province of Zambia ia powered buy industrial diesel plants? What will happen to the cost of electricity? Unless government will subsidise it, it has to go up.

    • @Zebige, your point on the benefit of the subsidy on fuel going to the rich man or woman who has many cars does not hold because such a person will most probably be the one charged with the reponsibilty of moving the ‘poor’ farmer from his village into town to access his or her input, and back again to the village. Of course there will be more than one such farmer in this vehicle, hence the rich man would have passed on his share of the fuel subsidy to the poor farmers by way of cheaper fares. When the subsidy is taken away, this vehicle owner will either decide to remove his vehicle from this route or continue on the route but at a higher fare. The poor farmer is obviously hurt whichever way!! Even if these many cars were for personal use, you will agree that the benfit will still be…

    • @TheEngineer(Australia) you shouldnt forget that economics is a cause and effects thing.You shouldn`t just think about the effects of increased fuel but also think about the positives that could be gained by putting the money saved from subsidies to good use.For example that KR 750 million which was spent last year on fuel subsidies could help in making proper roads,schools and hospitals.It is an open secret that those cars and machines you are worrying about must move on roads and that the operators needs to be healthy(hospital) and well knowledgeable(schools).Everything has prons and cons but it is the execution that matters.This is a good thing.

    • Zebige

      Your assumption is that the money saved will be put to good use… Thats a very BIG assumption.

    • @Linda thanks for that input you are spot on, just like TheEngineer(Australia) has a point too.Maybe i have too much faith in my government ,but the thing is it depends on how the money saved is invested in infrastructural development and other cardinal areas in the economy.Yes subsidies if not well executed can lead to inflation and pressure on the low income earners ,but the secret here lies in how the government will go about bridging that gap.I trust the miles Sampa team to do a very good job.It is too early to judge.Remember that the benefits of this move is not something you see overnight.It takes a bit of time.I will personally judge this government after five years.For now all i can say is, Aluta continua !!

    • @Linda thanks for that input you are spot on, just like TheEngineer(Australia) has a point too.Maybe i have too much faith in my government ,but the thing is it depends on how the money saved is invested in infrastructural development and other cardinal areas in the economy.Yes subsidies if not well exe-cuted can lead to inflation and pressure on the low income earners ,but the secret here lies in how the government will go about bridging that gap.I trust the miles Sampa team to do a very good job.It is too early to judge.Remember that the benefits of this move is not something you see overnight.It takes a bit of time.I will personally judge this government after five years.

    • Lt come on.Again you have disturbed this debate by again moderating my comment.I don`t even insult but you are doing this to me ? My engineer i will come back bro after these LT guys filter my comment.Otherwise my assumption maybe a bit ambitious but i trust the Chikwanda/Sampa combination will do wonders.Have a pleasant day, i have to go back to work.

  1. How I wish our leaders, ploiticians could have the brains and intelligence to see through this piece of information given to them freely.

  2. Neoliberal economics as preached by the World Bank and IMF whom Chikwanda seems to have been converted to during his summer world bank meeting have never benefited any country. Infect per capital income of countries which have implemented neoliberal policies has dropped from 3% to 1.2% between 1960 to 1980 when the World Bank/IMF aggressively pushed these polices.
    All former USSR countries are now much poorer off under neoliberal policies that the were in the old Soviet Union

    In Africa neoliberal policies have led to a drop of per capital income in North Africa of -0.2% annually and in Sub Saharan Africa by -0.7%

    Countries which have economically advanced India, China, Brazil have never implemented neoliberal economic policies

  3. Neoliberal economics as preached by the World Bank and IMF whom Chikwanda seems to have been converted to during his summer world bank meeting have never benefited any country. Infect per capital income of countries which have implemented neoliberal policies has dropped from 3% to 1.2% between 1960 to 1980 when the World Bank/IMF aggressively pushed these polices.
    All former USSR countries are now much poorer off under neoliberal policies that the were in the old Soviet Union

    In Africa neoliberal policies have led to a drop of per capital income in North Africa of -0.2% annually and in Sub Saharan Africa by -0.7%

    Countries which have economically advanced India, China, Brazil have never implemented neoliberal economic policies and rely heavily on subsidies to grow their industries

    • You can say that again , may be ruwe is an intellectual but a miniature one ,the chap has failed to complete his PhD in two years let alone 4 years but wants to think that a govt that took over from a very corrupt regime that ruled the country for 20 years must turn Zambia into a properous middle income country with subsidies on consumption. Just because he subsidized by his wife works hard as a medical doctor to provide for him and his family. Mr Ruwe is a pretender , he makes no decent money as writer or tutor it is his wife who looks after him. I have not seen any failure by PF, but i have seen numerous capital projects initiated which FTJ’s MMD did not do in two years when they formed Govt and definately failed to do in 20 years. PF is building Universities and health facilities and…

  4. I do not see how the removal of subsidy will beneft the poor when the same poor people will be made to pay more in bus fares, buy maize flour at higher prices,high electricity tariffs[ there are many poor people who need elctricity],school fees,water bills etc…..Do people understand the concept of multiplier effect? Already prices of almost all commodities have gone up and the masses are complaining. An elastic has a limit beyond which, it will extend no more. The effect on farmers is obvious.A lot of our small scale farmers will not be able to buy fertilizers and ,therefore , will not grow as much as in the previous years and consequently,there willl be low yields. And then scarecity of food will be another off shoot. and then the more the prices will shoot up. Subsidies gave big yield

  5. This article is worth tons of gold. Thanks Field, this is exactly what most of us have been saying on this blog but for the pedantic who do not have vision and understanding only to rubbish us. Subsidy removal on fuel is detrimental to the economy and would bring a landlocked country that ours is to its knees as it spirals ALL the prices if services and goods out of control. The business owners will have stealth price increases on everything in the guise of transportation costs. You don’t need an economics degree to understand this!!!!

  6. This article is more of a history lesson than anything.I see no reason why the author should base his argument over events that happened many decades ago.Lessons were learn`t from there no wonder it is up to the government to make sure that a similar thing doesn’t happen this time around.Otherwise thank you for rekindling those old memories.

    • @ king please learn to read articles and understand them. Yes he has brought historical events but I wonder whether the Egyptian scenario that brought Mubarak down is also historical. I wonder whether the scenario of China, Venezuela, India and Brazil is history. I also wonder whether the scenario of the USA is history. i think people are placing to much faith in this Government. If Mr. Chikwanda was such a genius, why did he allow the economy of Zambia under KK collapse? what is it about this PF Government that makes people think they are geniuses? Is this not the same group that failed under Chiluba? Zebige my bro I like your writing but I think your trust in this PF Government is overly misplaced.

    • What Mr. Luwe has done is called literature research to give a clear picture of where were we have been, where we are so that he can defend his position with facts not just mere statements. And he has done a good job!

  7. Ruwe: stop peddling falsehoods. All reputable local and international economists confirm that government’s decision to remove subsidies is the right thing to do. Your jealous will ultimately be your bane. Just come back home to Zambia to cure your apparent frustration at life in the diaspora, bwana.

  8. @Narrant, you don’t seem to be in Zambia and yet you want Field to go back there just to remind himself why he left in the first place. i would spare myself a round trip. I think you should go back as you seem to think all is fine with the way government is going about issues.

  9. Old Classmate Field, you could be wrong! Even simple Development studies does not support subsidies. The biggest challenge is that while Govt could mean well by phasing out subsidies on fuel and maize to raise money for purported development projects, like the way some roads and health facilities are being repaired seriously in L/stone, the fear is the bottomless drain of resources through Allowances to Govt Leaders and Officials on frequent out of station tours. Some ordinary workers have never received any allowance of any sort in working life. Govt allowances to privileged few are building mansions everyday while we the people are daily encouraged on promisory notes. If only Govt should stop subsidizing the Leaders who are already comfortable for once and address our plights.

  10. @Kings, today’s events are tomorrows history. There’s no history without the present my dear learned friend. As in ‘lion king’ the past can hurt but we can learn from it! I am in the UK, the economy is down, we just escaped a double deep recession, growth is a taboo word, bleak is now bleaker but subsidies live on. These subsidies are not in small measures that I can promise you. People’s rents being paid and money to spend yet the country has a trillion pounds worth of debt. My late sister once told me ‘ati mwaice wandi! shimo tukabweshya, shimo shakufwanasho! You get my drift?

  11. Excellent article..I hope some one can give this to the president and ministers to read.It would be a good idea to ask any minister praising the subsidy removal to mention at least 5 countries in Africa that have succeeded with subsidy removal.Also Zambians should ask about that obese cabinet we have.Good one Field!

  12. history is what the author is telling us.subsidy removal is welcome and will work in zambia.wise up.dnt live in the past

  13. LOOKS LIKE, WHENEVER THESE GUYS AT IMF AND THEIR ALLIES WANT TO GET RID OF A GOVERNMENT AND LEADERS, THEY ADVISE THEM TO REMOVE SUBSIDIES.

    • NO!!!!! it is NOT WHEN THEY WANT TO GET RID OF A GOVT! – IT IS ONLY WHEN THEY SMELL STUPIDITY IN ABUNDANCE, DO THEY DANGLE “Apparently Easy money” to the WILLING!!!!!!!!

    • You live in the West, how many of your friends that have “MAXXED OUT” their Credit cards are millionaires????????????? You get my drift????

  14. What a poorly researched article! Ruwe cannot even name the type of subsidy which has been removed. Consumption subsidy can bankrupt any country with a sizeable population. He talks about Botswana and conveniently omits to mention that it has the lowest population in the continent. Ghana is an oil producer from 2007 and not these fake claims he is making.
    The govt has not removed production subsidies for farmers the same way America and Europe subsidies its farmers. Good economics apply productions subsidies not consumption subsidies and Ruwe has failed to mention if China subsidies its consumption for its 1 billion plus residents, $200m /day?! The figures given for subsidies in China and USA are outdated! These countries spend billions on food production subsidies not consumption.

    • Listen to yourself man!! If Production IS CHEAP DUE TO SUBSIDIES, PRICES OF PRODUCTS WILL BE LOWER – THUS PRODUCTS, in this case FOOD WILL BE CHEAPER!! THUS IN EFFECT FULLY SUBSIDIZED!!!!!!! FUEL subsidised, allows for affordability of the poor IN ALL REALMS!! I.E. Transport, Price of Food at Market, etc etc !!!!!! YOUR PRINTED ECONOMICS TEXTBOOK or THEORY IS OUTDATED BY AT LEAST 20YEARS!!!!

  15. People are confusing welfare payments with subsidies. In welfare countries, we have to contribute National insurance contributions every month for 2 years before you are entitled to the benefit system of getting welfare checks if are not working. This is basically your money, it has nothing to do with government policy on subsidy. The 5 solutions given by Ruwe can subsidies Zambians for a week! $40m divide 13m people, you get $3 , $1 for mealie and $2 for fuel. The question is what happens when the $40m is used? Ruwe is not a good analyst and researcher, short term solutions like he is suggesting are only meant for political appeasement. He is America, where the price of gasoline has been rising since last year but the govt has never talked about introducing fuel subsidy to help people.

  16. People arguing against Ruwe seem to have kept their heads stuck in the textbooks they read!! Ruwe is right!! Talk of Greece – perfect European mirror of what has happened to third world countries!!! I have ALWAYS SAID, SATA & PF MADE A VERY BIG MISTAKE TO APPOINT A DINOSAUR To run our finances!!!! HE IS APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLES THAT WERE APPLIED IN THE 70’s THAT GOT US DOWN TO WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE KICKED OUT KK!! Magande’s & his understudy, Musokotwane’s work has all been UNDONE in less than 3 years!!! With his famous statement, “WE ARE IN A HURRY TO BORROW MONEY FAST!!!” Without an inkling of how we will pay it back!!! The World has just emerged from GFC – the principles that got the world to that point – were BORROWING WITHOUT THE CAPACITY TO PAY BACK!!!!!!!

  17. The problem we have in our country is that we love short termism ,inadequate economy management ,too much politicking , lack of focus by both opposition and ruling party , a culture of laziness (which explains why some people want freebies to continue and are missing RBB)easy and/or instant gratification and under investment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure development . We do have the intelligentsia but most of them are hypocrites and HH is one of them , the man does not care about the poor , he only wants to use them which is why he would condemn the removal of subsidies when seasoned economists (better ones than him )like Fundanga, Magande,Kabaghe and other well meaning citizens have supported this move by government. I know that if it was RBB he was not going to…

  18. I know that if it was RBB he was not going to do this because he wanted to be popular , PF is doing this for posterity not popularity and I pray that GOD grants them good health,His strength and favour so that they may deliver on most of their promises so that they may rule forever and avoid giving chance to some selfish leaders who only care about their selfish or egocentric ambitions. Fact is ,the actual poor people in rural areas do not drive cars neither do they eat APG or National Milling, they grind their own maize, from the population of 13 million , how many people drive ? Only those that can afford , I think it is time us Zambians started paying for things. I know that Mr Ruwe will not agree with me on this one but I am not regretting supporting the good or progressive…

  19. Field Ruwe is no authority to say anything about subsidies , he is but a common cadre of HH . In his last article he was busy explaining his qualifications yet he failed to explain that Summa cum laude is the highest honor followed by Magna cum laude , I find it hard to believe if Ruwe truly acquired these grades because how honestly can he fail to distinguish between the two?  summa cum laude  GPA of 3.89 is supposed to actually be magna cum laude and then magna cum laude GPA of 4.0 is supposed to be summa cum laude . Question is what is the population of Zambia ? 13m , and why many of the 13 million people drive ? what about people who eat APG milling or National Milling? The poor people you claim to care about grind their own maize using hammer mills , I think it is time Zambians…

  20. Field Ruwe is no sharp intellectual but a political nicompoop highly paid by UPND to slander the great PF , i know that Michael and PF will deliver on most of their promises before ruwe completes his 5 year PhD program may be he will start earning enough to help his spouse who has been looking after him

Comments are closed.

Read more

Local News

Discover more from Lusaka Times-Zambia's Leading Online News Site - LusakaTimes.com

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading