Political Perspective
DESPITE a series of investigations and commissions into State-Owned Enterprises (SOE's) regarding bad or corrupt management, as well as scrutiny of wage packages of the top earners at these parastatals, the public is hardly any more enlightened now than it was prior to these hearings. Since Government does not appear to get a handle on how to maintain transparency on, or how to curtail, huge salaries, they may want to look at the issue of a maximum wage, in much the same way as they've determined a minimum wage for certain sectors of the economy.
AGAIN in parliament this week there was talk on the subject of
board members of parastatals, amongst others, queries as to how
they are chosen, and - never mind what they're paid - whether they
have any idea of their roles and functions.
I've probably got different views on this subject than most MPs,
and in the first place, I believe that those people appointed to
various boards, should at the very best be knowledgeable about the
business of the institution they serve in order to facilitate
better overall control of the parastatal in question.
Board members are paid high stipends per sitting and the least
the taxpayers can expect is the appointment of people who know what
they're doing! Again it may come down to the necessity of merit
playing an important role in affirmative action, for how can we
expect well-managed enterprises if we're putting people at the helm
who don't know what the heck they're doing? This applies both to
the boards of the institutions in question as well as the chief
executive officers.
And it's a situation that will only go from bad to worse when
'comrades' are given preference if the Kapia's of this world have
their way! To hear then, parliamentarians talking about the need
for 'training' of board members and CEO's is bizarre beyond belief
in my view.
With the high salaries and remuneration being paid, surely it is
not too much to expect these people to know what they should be
doing.
If they still have to be 'trained' in their jobs, then our
economy must go from bad to worse.
It's one thing to emphasise the necessity of a trained
workforce, and this is indeed a priority; but I object in principle
to the state having to spend huge amounts of money 'training' CEO's
who are already earning top dollar.
Likewise board members.
It's all well and good to want to represent various
constituencies on various boards, but not at the expense of
expertise surely? And this is a factor which has, in all
likelihood, contributed to the demise of so many parastatals
today.
If the combined boards and CEO's don't know what they're doing,
then can one, in all conscience, expect anything more than a mess?
And we can have commissions and investigations and probes ad
nauseam, but unless we identify the real problems, there is
unlikely to be any improvement.
If the argument is that we don't have this calibre of qualified
Namibians to take over, then the training should take place prior
to the appointment, surely, in the form of understudy to the job or
otherwise.
I've had brief experience on the Board of the NBC, and although
some non-media members made an effort to acquaint themselves with
broadcasting issues when accepting their positions, others simply
didn't give a damn and really did not contribute to furthering the
aims and objectives of the state broadcaster! Probably a similar
scenario is in place at other parastatals and when handpicked
appointments are made mainly on the basis of party loyalty, then we
have even more reason for concern.
So Government could well decide on a maximum remuneration for
CEOs.
Why not, after all? If they can determine what a pensioner can
live on; or a farm worker for that matter, then likewise they can
try and trim the massive budgets of parastatals by paying decent
wages, but not allowing astronomical packages for people who
collect 4x4's and then go on to cook the books because they can't
afford to pay for them.
And while they're about it, they could also try and identify the
right people for the right positions; at the very least those who
have the acumen to learn about the institution they preside over,
rather than promise to 'train' people who have already ostensibly
qualified for the job in question.
After all, it's not the employees of these corporations who're
messing up.
It's management who doesn't know what its doing.
I've probably got different views on this subject than most MPs,
and in the first place, I believe that those people appointed to
various boards, should at the very best be knowledgeable about the
business of the institution they serve in order to facilitate
better overall control of the parastatal in question.Board members
are paid high stipends per sitting and the least the taxpayers can
expect is the appointment of people who know what they're doing!
Again it may come down to the necessity of merit playing an
important role in affirmative action, for how can we expect
well-managed enterprises if we're putting people at the helm who
don't know what the heck they're doing? This applies both to the
boards of the institutions in question as well as the chief
executive officers.And it's a situation that will only go from bad
to worse when 'comrades' are given preference if the Kapia's of
this world have their way! To hear then, parliamentarians talking
about the need for 'training' of board members and CEO's is bizarre
beyond belief in my view.With the high salaries and remuneration
being paid, surely it is not too much to expect these people to
know what they should be doing.If they still have to be 'trained'
in their jobs, then our economy must go from bad to worse.It's one
thing to emphasise the necessity of a trained workforce, and this
is indeed a priority; but I object in principle to the state having
to spend huge amounts of money 'training' CEO's who are already
earning top dollar.Likewise board members.It's all well and good to
want to represent various constituencies on various boards, but not
at the expense of expertise surely? And this is a factor which has,
in all likelihood, contributed to the demise of so many parastatals
today.If the combined boards and CEO's don't know what they're
doing, then can one, in all conscience, expect anything more than a
mess? And we can have commissions and investigations and probes ad
nauseam, but unless we identify the real problems, there is
unlikely to be any improvement.If the argument is that we don't
have this calibre of qualified Namibians to take over, then the
training should take place prior to the appointment, surely, in the
form of understudy to the job or otherwise.I've had brief
experience on the Board of the NBC, and although some non-media
members made an effort to acquaint themselves with broadcasting
issues when accepting their positions, others simply didn't give a
damn and really did not contribute to furthering the aims and
objectives of the state broadcaster! Probably a similar scenario is
in place at other parastatals and when handpicked appointments are
made mainly on the basis of party loyalty, then we have even more
reason for concern.So Government could well decide on a maximum
remuneration for CEOs.Why not, after all? If they can determine
what a pensioner can live on; or a farm worker for that matter,
then likewise they can try and trim the massive budgets of
parastatals by paying decent wages, but not allowing astronomical
packages for people who collect 4x4's and then go on to cook the
books because they can't afford to pay for them.And while they're
about it, they could also try and identify the right people for the
right positions; at the very least those who have the acumen to
learn about the institution they preside over, rather than promise
to 'train' people who have already ostensibly qualified for the job
in question.After all, it's not the employees of these corporations
who're messing up.It's management who doesn't know what its doing.