Kenya and the Abortion debate

Yesterday in one of our Dailies there was an "exposé" on abortion. The writer appeared amazed that this operation takes only a few minutes and it was "shocking" that in one case a woman had had six abortions and in one case she actually had it done over lunchtime and was back to class in the afternoon with nary a problem. There was also a claim that there are 29 abortions for every 100 live births. Abortion in Kenya is illegal, and many organizations are opting to educate Kenyan women, and men, on various family planning methods. Our religious organizations are pushing for the ineffective abstinence method, many corporations and NGOs are pushing for condom use while a small number (mainly religious) are pushing for faithfulness to a single partner. All of them are trying to put emphasis on prevention while, as usual in this country, they are ignoring the elephant in the room. The problem, I think, is not abortion but what leads one to abortion.

It is said that the replacement rate for a stable population is about 2.3 children per woman while in Kenya the rate is 4.38 children per woman (estimates as per 2011). This would imply that the population is growing at almost twice the replacement rate. As per 2011 estimate, Kenya is having 31.93 births per 1,000 persons and a 7.26 deaths per 1,000 persons an average increase of 24.67 per 1,000 persons. Our infant mortality rate is 43.61 per 1,000 live births, the maternal mortality rate of 5.3 per 1,000 and our HIV prevalence rate is about 6.3% with estimated deaths of about 80,000 per year.

Kenya also has a high religiosity index with over 98% of Kenyans professing some kind of deity. The three major religions (Christian Protestants, Roman Catholic and Islam) are estimated to be about 88% (though the figures for the Muslim population are disputed) while indigenous religions are about 10%. Some of these indigenous religions are an offshoot of Christianity. As of 2012 it is estimated that about 50% of Kenyans live below the poverty line. This figure has risen from 42% in 1992. The poverty rate is defined as living below 107 Kes (USD 1.25) per day. This is a country that has a health expenditure of 12% of GDP, 0.14 physicians per 1,000 persons and 1.4 hospital beds per 1,000 persons. The government spends about 20% of its budget on recurrent expenditure and only about 10% on development (2010. Sources KIPPRA).

Sex is a basic need, and all attempts to regulate and/or limit sexual activity only drives these activities underground. Kenya's highly religious and hypocritical society frowns upon sex outside of the "sacred" institution of marriage. Men are frequently frogmarched to police stations for "soiling" the marriage bed, women are stripped and beaten for straying, prostitution, casual sex and same sex liaisons are frowned upon, nay, forbidden. Women who give birth outside of marriage are frequently ostracised and considered loose. Society will shun the unmarried mother and women bear the brunt, and responsibilities, of single motherhood. For a strange reason the men who impregnated these women will frequently get off scot free or get an equivalent of a slap on the wrists. There are no social networks in place for taking care of extra children and there is a cultural folk tale that claims God provides for all children which absolves the general society the responsibility to taken care of them. Given the poverty levels it is also understandable that extra children might become an unbearable burden on the parents and society at large.

Given that the girl child will most likely drop out of school if she gets pregnant, with rapidly vanishing chances of continuing education after delivery, as well as the high chances of being thrown out of her parents home, it is actually more surprising that we do not have more abortion cases than are reported. In most cases the cost of maintenance and upkeep of the child will be borne by the woman, and even where the partner helps the income levels may severely limit the options available to the couple. With no safety net a couple facing the prospects of a child has to work out if they can realistically afford this child, not only in monetary terms, but also the social and health costs of maintaining this child.

Since women bear the brunt of this, and women also are the ones who carry this child I think it really should be in their interests to be given a choice whether, or not, to carry the child to term. A woman's choice should not be curtailed for religious and/or social reasons and since these same religious and social enforcers do not bear any of the costs of maintaining this child after delivery they should not be part of the decision whether, or not, a woman should carry a child to term. The choice ultimately is the woman's. She is the one who carries the child, she is the one who delivers the child and she is the one who will be required to take care of many aspects of that child. She thus should also be the one who decides whether, or not, the child is to be carried to term.

This, however, does not absolve the men of any responsibility towards the child. Inasmuch as a man has contributed to the conception he should also contribute to the discussion, advice, upkeep and maintenance of this child. Whereas the woman should, and must, have the ultimate choice whether to carry the child to term or not, the man, too, can state his preferences on the issue. He is an interested party, and while he may not, and should not be, the ultimate decision maker his opinion does count. He has, as our learned friends put it, locus standi.

Leaving abortion as illegal only drives the practice underground. Women, and men, will opt for an abortion for many reasons and they will procure one regardless as to its illegality. The only purpose making it illegal serves is to condemn many poor and uninformed women to premature deaths from botched or incompetently done abortions, or condemn many children, and mothers, to a lifetime of poverty and suffering with not much chance of escaping the poverty trap.

At this stage in my life I probably would not advise any woman who may have been impregnated by me to abort however if I had over my regulation 2.3 children the scenario would probably change. It is easy for one who is living in relative comfort with most of the basic necessities assured to say women should, and must, not abort, however one should have a level of empathy for other people. What do you expect a woman in school who knows her parents will disown her to do? What do you expect that woman in the slums who is already feeding 12 children to do? What do you expect that woman whose career and further prospects would be shattered by a pregnancy to do?

Religious groups cite the absolute sanctity of life in their opposition to abortion. This argument however falls flat when you consider the number of goats, cows, bacteria, chicken, viruses or even humans that are killed through human action, and inaction. It is hypocritical to claim sanctity of life when thousands of children are dying every say from preventable deceases, when thousands more are starving to death and when thousands of mothers are dying from childbirth and childbirth related complications. We seem to be more bothered about the rights of the unborn than we are about the rights of those living. We are moved more by the plight of an aborted foetus than we are by the face of a hungry child.

Perhaps let us first ban poverty, let us declare poverty a crime against the state and punish those who keep people in poverty with the same terms we punish those who procure an abortion. Let us ban social hypocrisy, let us ban hunger, let us ban ignorance and those practices that prevent us from enjoying our sex without guilt or shame. Let us make it easier and cheaper for us to control conception, let us educate our children on sex, let us ban our prejudiced views and make it easier for everyone to access information, services and satisfaction from our sexual activities. Then we can go on to ban abortion. I can assure you, though, you'll be banning an obsolete practice.

Rape and Sex in the Kenyan context

Of late there have been various stories in the media of rape committed on children and persons who are not only known, but are relatives of the victim. Rape is one subject that fascinates me. Firstly because it one of the few subjects that I am incapable of being fully rational about, and secondly it’s also one of the few crimes that I intimately know quite a number of victims.

In Kenyan law rape is dealt under Cap 3 of 2006 and is defined as:

3. (1) A person commits the offence termed rape if -
(a) he or she intentionally and unlawfully commits an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs;
(b) the other person does not consent to the penetration; or
(c) the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind.

Section 3 puts the minimum penalty as ten years and the maximum as life. Personally I’d prefer the maximum being death (but as I said earlier I am not exactly rational about this)

Section 4 on the other hand puts an interesting twist to the tale:

4. Any person who attempts to unlawfully and intentionally commit an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs is guilty of the offence of attempted rape and is liable upon conviction for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.

Thus by law while attempted rape starts off with a lower sentence it can escalate into the maximum that is allowable as the case is when charged of rape.

Rape is such an unnecessary crime. Our society has glorified and mystified sex to an extent that some people get the impression that not only is sex a mysterious act but it confers mysterious powers on the person who carried out that act (usually male). There have been cases where people think that having sex with a virgin is a cure of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and gonorrhoea, or even that it will grant you success in certain ventures, and even that if you proceed on a journey, or engage in a sport, sex might bring bad luck on your endeavour. There are people who will not have sex on religious days, who will only have sex on religious day and even those who will only have sex when the star signs are potent. Some people even believe that having sex will impair your thinking and sap your strength. There is also the feeling that sex gives you power over others and many rapists consider that having forceful sex will enhance their power over their victims. Unfortunately many victims also have the same belief. On the other hand society restricts, in the name of morality, other ways of reliving sexual pressure and will frown upon a person who either goes to prostitutes or masturbates oneself. Society puts unrealistic limits on what is allowable in sex, and expects that all will adhere to this even where there is no victim.

Given the stigma associated with sex, many rape cases in this country go unreported, or if reported are only reported to councils of elders or family patriarchs and the “shame” is cleansed with arcane and superstitious rituals to prevent further curse on families. Rape, especially when it’s a man raping a female, is considered more of a stain on the family than a crime. This is especially so when the perpetrator is a member of the same family as the victim. Many African societies do not even recognise rape in the context of marriage, and they even claim that the victim has a role to play in exciting the assault and in some cases instead of giving justice to the victim they require the victim to make some sort of amends, for a consideration to the family, to appease her “sin”. The various claims of short skirts or exposed skin being a justification for heated passions are a case in point.

Prevention is haphazard and usually involves asking the potential victims to dress in a “non provocative” manner, avoid going near men or even live in seclusion so that male passions are not inflamed by the sight of a woman. For some rather strange reason men are considered unable to control themselves when faces with a sight of a woman, regardless as to the state of dress. A lot of cultures treat this as an excusable misdemeanour as they believe that the victim must have done something to excite the man and the man is understandably unable to control his reactions. This just goes to further victimise women as responsible for the crimes that are perpetuated on them.

In my rather limited personal circle I know of five women who have been raped. One was raped in the process of a robbery while the other four have been raped by close relatives. In one sad case she was repeatedly raped by her male cousins and uncles over a period of several years from the relatively young age of nine. The only action that was carried out when this was discovered was to call pastors and village elders to cleanse the bad spirits that she brought to the family. Because she developed at a rather young age it was taken that she tempted these relatives to rape her and only God, and the elders, can suitably solve this situation. Much as she seems to have recovered from the ordeal you still see glimmers of this experience from her actions and relationships with persons of the male persuasion.

The strange thing is that the law is rather strict with persons of this sort and it provides for a maximum sentence of life for these acts,

Cap 3 of 2006 of the laws of Kenya in Section 20:

20. (1) Any male person who commits an indecent act or an act which causes penetration with a female person who is to his knowledge his daughter, granddaughter, sister, mother, niece, aunt or grandmother is guilty of an offence termed incest and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years:
Provided that, if it is alleged in the information or charge and proved that the female person is under the age of eighteen years, the accused person shall be liable to imprisonment for life and it shall be immaterial that the act which causes penetration or the indecent act was obtained with the consent of the female person.

Notice that whether consent is given or not one is liable to life imprisonment if the girl is under the statutory age of eighteen. Thus a father having sex with his daughter, or an uncle having sex with his niece, or a grandfather having sex with his granddaughter would serve a lifetime sentence as long as the girl is below eighteen years and it will not matter that the girl consented to the said act. Thus the various cases we have been seeing in the news are pretty simple. All one needs to prove is that an act of penetration occurred and the perpetrator is liable to life imprisonment. What surprises me is that this does not seem to be done. Give the severity of the punishment it is even more surprising that chiefs, elders and the police let the perpetrators to get off with the legal equivalent of a slap on the hand.

The law, on the other hand, is lenient when it comes to “committing an indecent act” with a child and only provides for a maximum sentence of ten years if that child does not pass the test of relationship.

Cap 3 of 2006 Section 11. (1) Any person who commits an indecent act with a child is guilty of the offence of committing an indecent act with a child and is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.

This seems to imply that if you rape a child of four years, as happened recently in Kenya, and the child is not related to you then you will be able to get out when that child is fourteen and continue molesting her. This punishment, I think, is inadequate. In a strange twist under the penal code Cap 63 section 162. Any person who:

(a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or

(b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or

(c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature,

is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years:

So thus while you will get ten years for defiling a child of four years who is not related to you, you can get fourteen years for having anal consensual sex with an adult woman who does not pass the test of relationship, and you only get twenty one years if you coerced or lied to that person into having “unnatural” sex with you.

I rest my case.

Christianity and Freethought

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".

Now there are quite a number of people who believe that if one is a Christian then one cannot be a freethinker. First let’s get a few things said right at the beginning. If one forms an opinion that God exists on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism without basing it on authority, tradition or dogma then one can be said to have used the process of freethought in order to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god. Freethought does not imply that the opinions you get will be truthful, or even that they will stand all the tests of future evidence. However a freethinker should be able to change their opinions and conclusions when new evidence does appear.

Christianity is usually taken as a dogmatic religion that relies on tradition and authority to come to conclusions and opinions. However this is a narrow definition of Christianity. In my opinion anybody who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Christian. A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah. On the other hand Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed. People who adhere to any of these ideologies are Christian, even though the latter will certainly not be called Christian by many sects of this religion. However one must admit that these self-same sects consider all other similar sects as not Christian either.

Regardless as to which definition of Christianity you use being a freethinker would not necessarily mean that one cannot be a Christian. Traditional Christianity demanded that one relied entirely on dogma and tradition to have an opinion. People who follow this ideology were required to wait for interpretation of every even and portent from authority. Thus everything, including observable fact, had to be interpreted in light of dogma. This kind of Christian can certainly never be a freethinker. However it was this oppressive ideology that gave rise to freethought as we know it. Modern Christianity is not that oppressive and there are variants that do not take logic and reason as an anathema to faith.

For most of us our first glimmer to understanding the world came from persons who had experienced it before us. They gave us their observations and opinions and we grasped them as essentials to life. We get an education in a similar manner and since the world is too large for us to experiment on everything we get most of our “facts” in a similar manner. This is a practical way to gain knowledge. A freethinker, however, is willing to question each and every “fact” of learned experience and using logic reason and empiricism should be able to validate these “facts”. If the premises are faulty, or the methods of perception are inaccurate, the results may not be factual however they would be results that are reached using the process of freethought and the person, regardless as to the accuracy of his opinions, would be a freethinker.

This process of query does not necessarily lead to abandonment, or rejection, of all previously held opinions, neither does it guarantee that previous information will be proven invalid. Thus it is entirely possible that a freethinker will end up with the conclusion that not only does God exist, but that the Christian thought is the way to approach that god. Logic is based on certain “certainties” and empirical observation is limited by perception. There are axioms that are the basis of any logic train and there is perception that underlays any empirical observation. If these axioms are changed or perception changes the same “facts” would lead to different opinions. And these changes are the reasons you have schisms of thought and religion.

As the keen of eye would have noticed, not all Christians are theists. Isn’t that, in itself, a paradigm shift, isn't it?

Crime and Punishment

I know I'll get in trouble for this but here goes.

Let's start by defining some of our terms.

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

Legally

A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state as a felony or misdemeanor. A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.

Crimes are 'mala in se,' or bad in themselves, and these include all offences against the moral law; or they are 'mala prohibita,' bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent.

There are significant differences between a misdemeanor and a felony offense. A felony is defined as a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or by death
Felonies are typically the most serious crimes in any system of criminal law. However, any crime that has a sentence of only a fine or confinement in the local jail does not necessarily qualify for a felony.

In comparison to felonies, misdemeanors are less-serious crimes. They are generally punishable by a fine or captivity in jail for less than one year. Often, misdemeanors are handled by special courts with abbreviated procedures.

Prostitution: The giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
Performing for hire, or offering or agreeing to perform for hire where there is an exchange of value, any of the following acts: Sexual intercourse; sodomy, or; manual or other bodily contact stimulation of the genitals of any person with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires of the offender or another.
The common lewdness of a woman for gain.

Now lets look at some of our crimes. In the Penal code Cap. 63 Chapter 1
153: (1) Every male person who
(a)    knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution; or
(b)   in any public place persistently solicits or importunes for immoral purposes,
is guilty of a misdemeanour; and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section the court may, in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded, sentence the offender to corporal punishment.

154: Every woman who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution, or who is proved to have, for the purpose of gain, exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that she is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with any person, or generally, is guilty of a felony.

Firstly, what is the crime here? Getting payed for sexual favours. And exactly why is it a crime? Notice also that while a male person who "knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution" commits a misdemeanor, it is considered a felony for a female person who "knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution". Case of double standards, or is it gender discrimination?

The crime is a person willingly offering sexual services to another willing person (who is not a spouse) for some gain (usually monetary). If we removed the word sexual this would define almost any service that is offered. In cases where gratification is given, for example, cleaning a house, massage, running errands, driving one around, giving somebody a bath, offering butler services, secretarial services or even ushering, a person offers services to another wiling person (who is not a spouse) for some gain (usually monetary). Why then is the former treated different from the latter?

The Sexual Offences Act 2006 states in the preamble "An Act of Parliament to make provision about sexual offences, their definition, prevention and the protection of all persons from harm from unlawful sexual acts, and for connected purposes"

In the case of prostitution, willing that is, who is the person hurt? The client gets a service, the supplier gets due recompense and they both go away happy. The only entity that suffers here seems to be the government since it does not tax this illegal act that harms no one. And in this case the suffering is self inflicted.

Some objectors will point out that a number of these prostitutes are doing this job because of poverty, or lack of education, or even because they cannot get other jobs. However that argument is invalid because quite a lot of us are in other, legitimate, professions because of poverty, lack of education or simply because we cannot get other jobs. Any person claiming that all secretaries wanted to be secretaries, or that all drivers aspired to be drivers, all accountants wanted to be accountants, or even that all police-persons aspired to be so would be economical with the truth. Are we going to abandon these professions too just because a some people failed to have them as their dream careers? Why are we wasting security, legal and judicial resources prosecuting crimes that have no victim, or even a complainant that can justifiably say their rights, freedoms or property have been abrogated? Do we not have actual crimes to prosecute? Serious ones like serial murderers, grenade throwers and resource stealing MPs fail to be prosecuted because we have inadequate or indifferent resources and yet we regularly get sweeps in town to get rid of prostitutes while one street down some hapless Kenyan is getting "ngetaed" on the way home.

Secular Morality

In one of our various discussions over what I prefer to regard as Kenya's favourite drink we touched on the issue of morals. The majority consensus was that morality cannot exist without religion. To quote one of the debaters “Secular morality is an oxymoron”. This got me thinking, can we really have morality without religion? Would secular morality in itself simply be a form of anarchy? Perhaps we should begin by trying to find out what “Morality” is.

According to Wikipedia:
Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous.
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation.
Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics, the field that encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

According to Dictionary
Moral: Adjective, of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
In my opinion none of these precludes having a secular morality. Morality, in itself, cannot be said to be religious, neither can secular morality be defined to be anarchy.

I would imagine that secular morality would define a system of conduct that enables a human being to live in society in a manner that enhances rather than destroys the fabric of human interaction, and the development of human potential. Granted that many of the principles that we consider moral are also in almost every religious book, it does make it hard to distinguish between religious morality and secular morality, that in itself, however, should not invalidate the concept.

Morality should be based on a few fundamental precepts. The right to life and the right to freedom. This implies not only that the individual has these rights, but also that the society he interacts in as well as humanity at large is guaranteed these freedoms. Not only should the individual have these rights but should acknowledge that other entities, too, have those rights. The only limitations should be when these selfsame rights abrogate the rights of others in this respect.

Most (not all) of the religious precepts ignore the second and limit the first except where it is expedient for it's purposes. All religions have some form of moral precepts. Not all agree, but in many cases those precepts do have a lot of similarity. But this is about secular morality, nor religious morality.

Given the fundamentals, there a a few questions that would arise from that. What moral precepts would guarantee these basic rights? In my honest opinion some of the so called “controversial issues” like homosexuality, abortion or even the right to kill in special circumstances can be answered by ensuring that the basic principles are taken care of while ensuring no person or group of people are capable of removing these rights, and if they attempt to they would have, at the very least, have abrogated their rights to freedom.

Most people take the golden rule as the ultimate morality. The golden rule says “do unto others as you would want to be done unto you.” I tend to disagree with this. Consider a person who loves pain and is into pain inducing activities as a turn on. Would somebody else, who is not into pain and such, really want to be done unto as that one would want to be done unto? The golden rule really should be “do unto others as they would like to be done unto them.” What you do unto others should be as per their preferences, not as per yours. What you do unto yourself, however, is as per your preferences.

Capital punishment cannot be a morally desirable issue. Capital punishment is an unrecoverable form of punishment which (if proven unjustified) can neither be reversed or adequately compensated. As such it should not be an option society should have at it disposal.

Imprisonment, while it does abrogate the right to freedom, should be used in cases where people abrogate the rights of others. Banishment from society and it's products would be a better option though it can only become practical when we find areas we can banish people to. Mayhaps when we discover other life supporting planets, or even if the population ever falls to a level where we can afford to have vast tracts set off and sealed for these persons.

Abortion should be limited to the persons who actually carry these babies. Persons who have nothing at stake, other than a hypothetical interest in genetic continuity or voter expansion. What is in my body is mine until it leaves my body, and as such it is my responsibility to either nurture it or terminate it. It should not be the responsibility of other third parties, whatever stake they may imagine they have unless I am no longer capable of making these decisions for myself.

Some “sins” like fornication, adultery, homosexuality et al should not really be an issue at all. After all whatever is done between consenting adults in their own privacy is really a matter between those adults. In the case of adultery (defined as a sexual act between at least two persons, one or more of whom are a married to a person outside this liaison) is really a matter between the parties concerned and should not be an issue for society at large.

Certain “commandments” like Do Not Steal, Do Not Kill fall under the right to freedom and the right to life. Persons should have freedom to accumulate, or not accumulate, articles they consider valuable and it would be morally improper to either curtail this activity or profit unfairly by removing them from that person without their free consent or otherwise. And persons should be left to live the life they want to live.

Incidentally, it should also be within that person's rights to terminate their own life in any manner they feel like, inasmuch as it does not directly infringe on the lives, or rights of others. This means that jumping out of my fifth floor window and bashing yourself to death on my new Toyota Premio is a no no. So would shooting yourself in the premises you are renting from me in such a manner as to create damage to my premises. However if you want to hang yourself from the nearest tree the only good thing the “good Samaritan” can really do is give you a stout rope as an aid.

The biggest advantage secular morality would have is that since it is not set in stone by some being it can evolve as society evolves, and it can adjust itself to situation that are new and strange without in themselves being broken. A new rule is simply set up against the fundamentals, and if it fails the fundamentals then it is immoral, if it doesn't then it is moral. Isn't that so much simpler?

Why are we harassing our Kenyan MPs?

Today, finally, my faith in Kenyan MPs was affirmed. Now I'm entirely sure they are fighting for our rights. It is evident that Kenyan MPs know exactly why they are in parliament and, from the media coverage, so do the Kenyan people who put them there in the first place.

The first story to bring this to mind was the recent move by MPs to block this grossly unfair move by the former Minister of Finance, Kimunya, to tax their meagre allowances. The acting Minister, without regard for his fellow MPs attempted to bring back this unfair measure to the parliament, and the MPs rightly promised to block government spending if this move was tabled. Just imagine, the minister was putting honourable MPs at the same level as ordinary Kenyans. Doesn't he understand they are honourable MPs. Rules for other Kenyans cannot apply to them too! I mean, how many Kenyans can be called honourable? In fact doesn't the minister understand that all MPs have funerals to contribute to and harambees to attend?

Think of it this way, if the MPs were to be treated as Kenyans then how would they go back to their constituencies and still be called Mheshimiwa. Doesn't he realize every time they go there they have to be made clan elders, have homecoming parties and goats have to end their lives for their sake! Thinking of it even the ka-fuel allowance they are given cannot cater for their expenses. They need to be given something like 300 bob a kilometre for this.

Then there is this issue of campaigns. They have spent a lot of money campaigning for ODM and PNU. In fact it was reported that a certain MP spent almost 20 million bob campaigning for ODM, and that was all the money he had. Sad thing is when the Right Honourable got in this MP was not given any ministerial post! Imagine. 20 million down the drain like that. He should have had a ministerial post or at least an assistant minister. Some people who didn't spend as much are ministers and they certainly do not deserve that.

In fact all Kenyans should support him in his complaint about ODM not giving his people ministerial posts. All that money spent cannot surely go to waste. If they do not get these posts then they should go back to the communities and move all the communities out of ODM into a new party. That will show ODM who the real power is. Maybe then the right honourable can come negotiate with them.

Then there is this Waki thing. How can anybody even imagine that honourable MPs can go to court over this. This is prosecution of their communities. After all it's the communities that were fighting for their rights. The MP as a leader was simply helping the people fight for their rights. Any attempt to arrest an honourable MP will be considered as an attack on the community and will be resisted. In fact we will move our communities out of the government and form our own parties in opposition. Who is this Waki fellah anyway to sit judgement on honourable MPs?

Indeed the MPs are in parliament to take care of our interests. That reminds me, where is the number of this Nguyai fellah. After all I come from his village, I'm sure there is a small parastatal somewhere he can fix me in. I don't want much, just a chairmanship or two. I mean we are practically neighbours...

My cousin Obama

The whole world has been following the Obama story, and here in Kenya we have been following very keenly the developments and victory. After all Obama is a son of K'Ogelo. That village where he comes from, you know. As is common with us, we have adopted Obama, renamed streets, schools, villages, churches and even babies after our great son. Grown up men have changed their surnames and even those of us who couldn't are busy trying to see by which route Obama and family could be related to us. His Jaluo speaking grandmother has suddenly become an ambassador and now has an office, an interpreter, a spokesman, a family spokesperson and a whole new staff corps to look after her newly created status.

However we in Kenya are still completely puzzled by the American electoral system. After all we are a democratic country and we know Democracy. We know how it is done and the Americans seem to have their system all wrong and undemocratic. There is this issue of the Electoral College. We think it is akin to the Kivuitu's (Electoral Commission of Kenya chairman) of this country. But strangely they also vote. We know the Kivuitu's are supposed to arrange the elections so that the 'right' winner wins. They are supposed to read the electorate (read rig) so that the people’s choice wins. But these Americans actually let their Kivuitus vote, and more than a month after the rest have voted! So how do they read the electorate in the correct persons favour?

Then there is the campaign. None of the candidates promised anything sensible. If they had done the right thing (Kenyan style) Obama should have promised a multi-lane highway all the way from Washington DC to California. He should have promised that he will remove development away from Texas to California since the incumbent must certainly have been developing only Texas. He should have promised all government jobs would go to Californians and all government projects will go only to sons of California. He should have promised that even the dustbins in California will have electricity installed for the homeless and the council of California will stop harassing small business persons (read hawkers) so that they can lay their wares right in the doorways of the giant supermarkets that are taking away jobs from their neighbourhood.

The funding of the campaign was even more amazing. Politicians are supposed to be rich people otherwise they wouldn't be running for office. We watched with amazement as people contributed their five and ten dollars to fund the campaign kitty. How can that happen? Obama is running for the highest office in the land, he is supposed to fund the potential voters. We expected him to be liberally throwing money around to ensure voters will vote for him. We expect him to send representatives to the local bars with wads of cash to by free rounds for potential voters. We expected him to start projects just before the election in his home area to show how serious he is. We expected him to be dishing out copious amounts of cash to potential voters and promising that when he gets there more will be coming our way! How can he even accept these small amounts of money from voters!

We expect him to attend all harambees and contribute generously. We expect him to attend all funereals and promise to educate the children of the deceased. We expect him to promise that no stone will be left unturned in the search for the deceased killers. Who cares if we know he died of some incurable disease. We expect him at the same funereal not only to contribute generously but also to praise the area senator and tell us to vote for him as well since he needs him to bring development to our people.

And the actual voting? Rubbish. That was not voting. How can you have results almost as soon as the polling stations close? Where were the party agents, the missing form 16A's, the missing names from the electoral list, or even the intimidating presence of party youth to ensure you voted for the right person. Where is the agent dishing out one dollar to every person entering with dire warnings to vote for the right person? And what was this pressing on screens to vote? You are supposed to vote on paper and put in a voting box pre-filled with the correct number of votes to ensure a win! That was certainly not a real election. Where were the politicians throwing chairs at the electoral agents?

About Obama being my cousin? Certainly he is. He's my mother's sister's roommate’s ex-boyfriend's sister's mother-in-law's cousin thrice removed on her father's side by the uncle's friend's brother who was playing football with Obama's cousin's best friend’s uncle's father-in-law's cousin's ex-girlfriends who's best friend comes from K'Ogelo.