Standards: a Comment on Comments

It is one wonderful Friday and after some time we are back to putting pen to paper. You might be wondering as to why I went AWOL (Google that if you do not get it). Well. I had a tummy ache and I was just tired. I am afraid I have run out of better excuses, but all in all, we are back. Sometimes people just get too busy for things that matter and that is what has been happening to me in the past two weeks. 

So much happened in the time I took my forced leave from writing. There was a heavy debate on language proficiency and intelligence after some lawmakers were caught grossly assassinating the Queen’s language in broad daylight. There have been demonstrations and negotiations with people throwing in a lot of propaganda and useful and useless comments alike. I have been away from it all and I was focusing on doing my work and educating the masses about science and research through any platform I was offered. It is now time for me to comment because as per the regulations, no issue can be declared over before the Richie of Richie Online comments on it. 

Shall we talk about the youngest member of parliament? Of course we should. Perhaps I should start by saying that she impressed me (and still does). I know people who are more educated and who supposedly mounted stronger campaigns but did not manage to win that seat. She is in parliament and that is a no mean achievement. I hope she represents her people well in parliament, if that is a thing. 

Let us take a left turn then. The praise she received as the youngest parliamentarian, however was short lived as she was to later receive a social media roasting of a lifetime for her poor command of spoken English. In a television interview clip that you probably have (or had) in your phone, she was seen expressing her joy over the building of a bridge that had made movement easy in her area. The video was shared with lots of laughing emojis and mean captions which prompted some sects of society to quickly move to her defense. I am that guy who likes to comment on comments, so rather than comment on her interview, I will comment on the comments that people made on the interview.

Others came in and quickly pointed out that the critics who had opened a heavy barrage of fire on the young lady were broke while she was swimming in money. Now that was a lame argument if you are to ask me. Unwarranted as the attacks on her already weak communication skills were, this counter argument was rather misplaced. Another group of humans, however went on to say that even some who were criticizing Fyness were doing it in broken English themselves. Now that wasn’t too bad an argument. It is close to being related to the subject matter, but what I like the most about it is that it is one jab against hypocrisy. 

I was rather amused by two more arguments that sounded a bit deeper. Some people, in their wisdom argued that the interview by the parliamentarian showed the failure of the system to screen for people who are supposed to be in the August House. Now that makes sense. If you are to think about it, parliamentary business is conducted in English and that makes the ability to communicate in English a basic qualification for being a parliamentarian. If you think of the actual job description of a member of parliament (osai zokugulirani mabokosi kapena kumanga ma bridge) which is making the laws that govern the land, you wouldn’t need to be much of a scholar to find the accentuation of the point I just made on English being important. I am not too sure as to how far my fellow young person went with education and how far one has to go with education for them to have masterly over English (considering that after six years of college I still have to ask Harry to draft me an application letter). That led to yet another interesting proposition. 

You probably guessed it because you or someone in your circle proposed the same thing, but people called for the inclusion of Chichewa in government business. I found that interesting because it took me back to the time I used to like reading the Together Magazine. In one of the old editions, there was a dossier on the inclusion of local languages in tertiary education and government business. In my view, that was yet another lame argument because of the motive behind it. I like to think that the call for the inclusion of local languages is meant to accommodate those who cannot speak the exotic language that is English and I have a problem with that. 

I will let those who say that communicating in English is not a measure of intelligence stone me on this but if anything, we are supposed to be raising the standards and ensuring that people who make decisions that affect the country are well conversant with basic national and international affairs. Having some sort of basic education is one of the qualifications that come into play and considering that we are considered anglophone, in which case our education is delivered in English, people who are in decision making positions should be able to communicate in English for an hour or two without getting a headache. The English proficiency in this case is just the basic thing. The more important thing is that people should have an understanding of governance systems and everything else that matters about their roles. Calling for the inclusion of local languages, then, indirectly removes one screening tool that could ensure that people who make decisions for us are savvy about what is best for us. I am not too sure that we can afford to dumb down things to the level where other who do not qualify can now participate. If that was the case, Richie Online articles would have been drafted in Chichewa and posted on electricity poles at Zingwangwa market. 

Before I forget, I should respond to the esteemed ladies and gentlemen that emphasize on the fact that English is not a measure of intelligence. That it very true but intelligence is not all that matters when you get to some posts. I am very intelligent (as some of you may know) but I would perform badly if you were to make me the chief auditor of your company. Point is that knowledge matters and being an MP requires knowledge. Unfortunately, some of you would argue with me because you are okay with your member of parliament rubber stamping a budget document or bill which he has no idea of. English may not be a measure of intelligence, but it highly correlates with knowledge. In the case of a parliamentarian, we need both. 

One guy called the Daydreamer once sent me a letter on this issue of English and if you did not read it, you should check it out. In his view, the standards of learning are dwindling and this has been manifested by the comparatively poorer command of English shown by products of the Malawi school system. I would like to think that this is the real cause of worry over one interview because there are a lot of us whose communication should have been better having gone through the system. 

I have spent a lot of time commenting on the negative comments. There was one positive one too. I saw a couple of bystanders indicating that it was not good to laugh at a young person who was struggling with English but to get them help. Now that might not be for you and me, but I believe the young parliamentarian needs that help. Further to that, she needs the insight, and she should realize that she will need to get better with her communication skills in English; not just for the interviews but also for her growth in various fields. That young lady has potential and she has a whole lot of opportunities ahead of her. I would hate to see her miss out because of a language or lack of knowledge. 

I would leave it right here, for now. One thing we should all learn from this is that there are standards for everything and we need to maintain high standards. Whenever there are people who are not up to our expected standards, trolling may not be the way to go. 

Let me go. Mawa ukwati.