Spare Us from Further Humiliation and Put the Damn Expat Expulsion Circular on the Shelf.

By Agok Takpiny, Melbourne, Australia

The minister of labour Mr Ngor Kolong Ngor in the government of South Sudan issued a circular last week demanding that NGOs and other private businesses in the country must expel those expatriates who are doing jobs that can easily be done by the host country nationals (HCNs) by 15 October 2014 and filled those vacant positions with South Sudanese nationals.

This sparked an overly malicious outcry from our neighbours particularly Kenyans and Ugandans with some media outlets in those countries going as far as calling South Sudan a “kid who don’t know how to appreciate” and or a “person who bit a hand that feed him”. In addition, some individuals in social media from the aforementioned countries call South Sudanese primitives and monkeys.

However by looking at the current Kenyan president, his vice president and two former presidents and not to mention the influential opposition leader Mr Raila Odingga, I see myself (black South Sudanese) not so different from Kenyan in term of colour. Thus the monkey-like insult is simply misplaced and phony. Calling us people who don’t appreciate is also hypocritical, because if I sit down and try to reflect on what Kenyan people have done to South Sudanese during our 21 years civil war, I will not come up with a single good experience.

Kenyans have never been hospitable to South Sudanese despite the fact that the exponential growth of their economy in the last decade or so can be directly or indirectly attributed to South Sudanese. In 1990s UNHCR opened up a refugee camp in the middle of the most inhospitable part of Kenya (Kakuma) for South Sudanese refugees. Kakuma became the largest refugee camp in the world which created thousands of jobs for Kenyans.

The same UN turned Lokichoggio (a remote town in northern Kenya) into a coordination centre for South Sudan relief. Again thousands of Kenyans were employed, many small businesses including brothels were booming and Lokichoggio became a thriving major economics centre in Turkana district overtaking Lodwar. Furthermore other better-off South Sudanese flocked to “down country” including Nairobi, Eldoret, Kitale etc. and rented thousands of houses, they also took their kids to schools and pay schools fees.

Nevertheless, without appreciating the fortune which South Sudanese brought to Kenya, South Sudanese were openly subjected to some despicable harassments and police brutality. For South Sudanese, walking down on a street in Nairobi became a warrant for a kidnap-like arrest and to be release one must pay ransom/bribe to the police, it became a way of life for South Sudanese living in Kenya.

It was only after the signing of the CPA in 2005 when Kenyans began to treat us like brothers and sisters. The change of behaviour came about because Kenyan saw the opportunity to exploit South Sudanese, it works. The exodus to South Sudan has begun, vendors, “professionals” with fakes certificates, thieves, prostitutes, you name it, flocked to South Sudan in search for wealth.

You could hear them saying “look at these stupids South Sudanese, we are sucking them up kabitha and they don’t see it” “hahah” and they laugh. But can we blame them? We led ourselves down in the last nine years of combine autonomy and independent. Had we built at least three major cross country highways, had we built at least one major dam for both water and electricity, had we upgrade at least two major universities to the level of modern universities, had we at least laydown a foundation for modern farming, had we at least built one major food processing centre, and more importantly if we had been loving and treat ourselves with respect, Kenyan would have at least showed us some respect.

However, at the moment they don’t see themselves in equal term with us, our government may think there exist bilateral between Kenya and South Sudan base on mutual respect but in real sense there is nothing like that. Kenyans know whatever we import from them including goods, health, education, and holidays is a result of desperation and not that we prefer them over other countries. This perception will continue until the time they see us producing 50% of the things we normally import.

We must give credit where it is due, Ugandan were the only people who treated us with respect when we had nothing. No one was ever arrested on the street in Kampala because he/she was a South Sudanese, we were given the same right that Ugandan citizens have. Therefore they are the only people who have a very right to get angry with us if they feel they are being targeted or mistreated in South Sudan.

Back to the circular, the intention of the minister of labour was good, South Sudanese are loitering in Juba doing nothing while all the jobs are taken by the foreigners. No government in any country in any continent that would tolerate what is happening in South Sudan where the percentage of expatriates in the entire workforce is higher than that of the HCNs. However as usual, the minister of labour like many of his colleagues in ROSS just woke up in the morning and begun issuing the circular without thinking it through. The circular was poorly planned and badly written which subjected it to multiple interpretations, assumptions and misconceptions.

Firstly, jobs that the minister would want to be reserve or vacate for South Sudanese should have been precisely defined. The continuous attempt by the foreign minister to clarify the circular make it even more confusing. For example the foreign minister in his effort to clarify the circular explained that “by executive directors, we mean executive secretaries and secretaries, and by public relations positions, the circular meant receptionists and other front desk workers, as well as protocol officers” (www.sudantribune.com).

This is embarrassing, where on earth can EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR mean EXECUTIVE SECRETARY? Yes English language is not our language and nobody expect us to speak it like the English people do but in writing, the errors we are expected to make would be grammatical but not writing different words with entirely different meanings and expect people to know what you mean which is totally different. Executive director is the very top person who is responsible for steering the company, he/she is the one who make decisions.

Executive Secretary on the other hand is a person who keep the executive director’s briefcase (office manager). Mixing or confusing the two positions indicate the lack of deliberation on the circular and that should be enough to discontinue it.

Secondly, the circular should have never been retrospective, that is, it need not to apply to those foreigners who are already employed. The process of employing a new employee and train him/her take a minimum of six months before he/she can do the job independently with confidence. Thus giving businesses and NGOs one month to terminate their existing workers and hire new workers is dreadful. It will send a very bad message to businesses and that can simply scare away potential businesses from investing in South Sudan.

If the labour minister and the government led by president Kiir is genuinely caring about the rampant unemployment among South Sudanese and they want to tackle it retrospectively? Here is what need to happen: the government need to introduce graduate program. To eliminate the chronic nepotism, the government can hire internationally renowned companies like Deloitte which is already in Juba to run the graduate program; or if the money is an issue, they can also ask UN or its affiliate like USAID to help in running the graduate program.

The government will need to enter an agreement with all NGOs and private businesses in regard to how the graduate will be employ. In the agreement, businesses and NGOs will have to give the government the list of the positions which are currently occupied by expatriates’ employees, the government will then take the list to the graduate program coordinator. The graduate program coordinator who must not be South Sudanese will then advertise the positions and conduct all the employment process. The only graduate need to apply will be South Sudanese, both at home and in diaspora.

These graduates will then be taken by NGOs and private businesses and assigned the very person (expatriate) who is holding the position to train and make the transition as smooth as possible. This apprenticeship like training will need to continue for one year and after that the expatriate will need to be redundant and get his/her payout. While in training with the business or NGO, the government need to pay this graduate for one year until he/she take over from the expatriate.

Businesses or NGOs must not be compel to pay the wages of South Sudanese graduate while in training because the whole thing is not their initiative. To prevent private businesses and NGOs from exploiting such a system, any position that has become vacant must be advertise separately, it need not be included into graduate program although it must as well be given to South Sudanese nationals.

The aim of the graduate program would be to find competent South Sudanese who would replace expatriates in private businesses and NGOs, it would continue until there are no more expatriates holding common positions (positions other executive director) in those private businesses and NGOs which are operating in South Sudan.

As with other expatriates who are holding nonprofessional positions, the government can just sit back and wait for each one of those expatriates to have his/her work permit expire and then refused to renew it again.

Disclaimer: views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author. Agok Takpiny is a concerned South Sudanese in Melbourne Australia. He can be reached on agoktakpiny@ymail.com

Are we Justifying that South Sudan is a Young Nation?

By Mapuor Malual Manguen

From rags to riches: the amazing transition of the foreign workers in South Sudan

Just a day after Labour Ministry issued Order directing NGOs and private companies to hire competent South Sudanese in certain positions currently occupied by aliens, South Sudan’s government made a disgraceful U-turn. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Dr. Barnaba Marial Benjamin said his government will not expel foreign workers.

In effect, the previous order issued by Labour Minister, Mr. Ngor Kolong Ngor is annulled and buried in the dustbin of history of similar circulars.

Dr. Marial argued that the labour ministry was still in the process of working on employment regulations that would give skilled locals a fair chance to get jobs in private companies and non-governmental organizations. This argument appeared to contradict or veto an earlier circular issued by the labour ministry giving an October 15 notice as deadline for declaring mentioned positions vacant.

If Dr. Marial’s argument that there was no government policy ordering foreign workers to give up certain positions by October 15 is anything to go by, why did Labour Ministry issued that Order in the first place? Was this Ministerial Order issued prematurely? Didn’t the Minister of Labour make consultations with other stakeholders to assess its legality and ramifications in the region?

If these questions were not asked or unanswered before issuing Order, was it meant to gauge public mood? Or are we justifying our usual phrase that “South Sudan is a young nation?”

The way it was responded depicts weakness of the government. It exposes the government to more foreign interferences in its internal policies because this U-turn makes the government as weak as an institution which can just give in to any foreign pressure.

The negative interpretations, mockery, vilifications, threats and intimidations of South Sudan by neighboring countries of Uganda and Kenya shouldn’t have been responded in such an embarrassing way. Some sorts of dignified withdrawal of Kolong’s Order should have been devised to face-save image of the country.

To relax the October 15 deadline, the whole Circular should not be wish away just like that. Four months or so extension deadline should save both sides’ interests. It may give enough time to the would-be affected companies to adjust to new policy without disrupting their programs.

On the other hand, the government of South Sudan would be able to complete its employment regulation policies after which it will lay out strong grounds to defend its future undertakings on employment.

Moreover, four months extension deadline may serve a strong warning to private companies and NGOs that it is no longer “business as usual;” that they should not continue to overlook qualifications of local expertise as pretext of bringing aliens to take up South Sudanese jobs.

The author is journalist, blogger and political commentator based in Juba. He can be reached at mapuormanguen85@gmail.com

Journalists should stop cheap Facebook fame and do their job of free speech campaign

By Biar John

This piece will begin by defining freedom of expression. There is no freedom of expression in South Sudan, so the elaboration will be on the importance and limits of freedom of expression, and the balance that should be created to make it exits, to allow free debate on issue affecting everyone in South Sudan. Freedom of expression as applied in this article includes ‘freedom of press.’ The article will conclude by lambasting journalists for trivializing their roles and responsibilities for Facebook popularity hunt which ends in nothing but squabbles between they and their fans.

According to the online business dictionary, freedom of expression refers to the right to express one’s ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication and without deliberately causing harm to others’ character and/or reputation by false or misleading statements, and without government’s interference while it is being practiced. Thus, free speech would be speech that creates a positive, and not negative, scenario in both long-terms and short-terms in a society.

Throughout the history of the democratic societies such the USA, it has been the ability to freely express ideas that has led to progress according to Yale University Journal of law and humanities. In the context of south Sudan, the ability to allow a voice for ones’ own ideas as well as access the ideas of others should be one which provides multiethnic societies with the ability to interact freely and move forward.

The corruptors’ fear that ‘offensive’ ideas will necessarily spread if given a voice is a conclusion which does not follow from its premise. Allowing for free expression also allows for free debates. As a result, when an idea emerges, that is deemed morally repugnant it should not be censored but, instead, allowed a voice. We then rationally debate these ideas and those that have no rational foundation are quickly treated unworthy; dismissed and we all then understand why that view should not be held.

With varying tribal groups in south Sudan there are varying opinions and beliefs; our societies need to have unlimited freedom of expression to be able to say any and everything regarding themselves as well as other groups in order to mitigate the previous and current situation of war.

The country requires less protection of public figures regarding their political reputation in order to encourage free public debate. There should be open forum for debates in all 10 states so that citizens take part in the conduct of public affairs through dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves.

It is very understandable that there are limits to freedom of expression. In every other country of the world, governments may be obliged to put restrictions on their citizens’ freedom of expression in time of instability. For instance, during times of rioting or civil unrest the government may place restrictions on freedom of expression in order to constrain violence. This may be for the safety of the people but it may also be justifiable to limit freedoms of some individuals, if they are politically disintegrating, in order to preserve the political system that is in place.

The best example of this justifiable limitation to freedom was seen in the recent killing of a black teenager by the name Michael Brown in the USA. On hearing the death, the public started a protest which became a riot, and eventually gave into property damage, looting, and killings. The government of the state responded heavy-handedly by sending in the army when the police could not handle the situation properly.

In countries like UK, Australia, US, and more, the limits of freedom of expression are intertwined together with public safety, societal, and governmental stability. Always the safety citizens come first. Individual’s freedoms and rights sometimes conflict so someone’s must be limited. By limiting certain rights in the society ensures that everyone has access to the same rights. For that matter, the right to freedom of expression can be limited if that freedom is being used to constrain another’s freedom as a result of attacks upon them.

But how far the limits of free expression should go is politically unclear. If the argument is that any ideas should always be given a voice then it becomes increasingly difficult to also argue for placing limits on free expression as we are simply trying to find a reasonable ground to discount that voice. The preservation of an existing political system is, in itself, not enough to warrant the imposition of limits to expression.

Should the argument then be that governments must work towards a society of complete freedom of expression? While this might be desirable in most democratic societies, it does not deal with issues of social order and safety which arise from the ability to freely express one’s own ideas. Often there are instances in which one person’s right to free expression leads to another person’s reputation or safety being jeopardized. Governments are therefore needed sometimes to decide in what few instances freedom of expression must be reduced in order to save lives and keep us safe from defamations.

The limits to freedom of speech in south Sudan is not by law but at the whim of public officials; this is where the problem arise between the government and citizens. The law and regulation that is formally recognized is not appropriately applied by those entrusted with law making.

Ordinary south Sudanese citizens lack legal ways to deal with pressing matters in their hands; they mostly left to their own whims and instincts when deciding what is and what is not morally and politically acceptable in the society. And it is here that it becomes a stuff of the journalists and their journalism. It is their job to keep the government in check through constant scrutiny and exposure.

One of the principles of journalism is that it must serve as an independent monitor of power. Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affects citizens. This therefore means journalists have the obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for other purposes, but rather use it in exposing to the public all the cover ups of government’s officials.

South Sudan is a democratic country and freedom of speech is very important for the going forward. It should be done without any interference from individuals and governments as long as the debates are politically safe and democratically connected. But the claim of being democratic is just in words, and in a number of times debating issues openly has turned fatal.

The case in point is being the recent debate on federalism and the recent shooting to death of debaters in Yei. In such situations, journalists are forced to shy away from their duties, fearing they could face the same fate.

Since everything is debatable, the balance between issues that are debatable and those that are not has grown thin or has disappeared.

Striking the balance is a matter of great importance for both the citizens and the government. Where the line is drawn between the stuff that are debatable and those that are not, is crucial for the future of the South Sudanese societies. In reality, the point of free speech is supposed to be for the political stuff that the tyrannical government claims to be over the line.

For that reasons, it is journalists’ responsibility to try the hardest, with vigilant, to find and expose anything being hidden despite the risks, while making sure they give some acknowledgment whenever the government has done well. This will render the government to not see them as mere agents of destabilization, but rather as adjudicators between itself and the public. This could lead the impulsive and paranoid bureaucrats to create a ground for compromise and citizens would be able to debate certain issues without fear of repercussions.

Debating issues has always been dangerous in South Sudan. It is widely known what became of Isaiah Abraham. So momentarily, every journalist is scared for their lives. Fear has reduced everyone to just a cheap Facebook fans collector for celebrity hood. While some of the young prominent journalist have become pseudo – commentators for English premier leagues; others hunt their fame in different other ways including challenging the whimsical officials behind there.

Since most journalistic work intended for the public officials is behind social media, which most of them do not even know what it really is; the government is feeling no pressure on matters of public concern. To make them feel pressure there need to be use of the main stream media like newspapers in Juba, especially.

Being Facebook fame hunters, some journalists tend to interchange issues regarding government misdeeds with oral defamation, slander, and comments on individuals of no political significance. This is to the disregards principles of journalisms, so to say. In fact, a few journalists known to the author have been caught up in wrangles with average citizens on Facebook and other social networks because of a behavior some fans claim be patronizing attitudes. This is a total loss of direction.

It is our desire, as citizens, to debate politics and those who make it that drives us to verbally grind Salva Kiir and Riek on daily bases in social media. They are our punching bags; they represent the demise of the hope of a generation; we are entitled to talking about them, disparagingly, whenever we want. This is where should always begin and stop.

But unfortunately, the 100s ‘likes’ these lost journalists get when they post their work blind them into thinking they are now famous enough to advance their ill journalistic skills on ordinary figures, who may have varied with them in opinion.

The way it seems, all it needs to think you are a feared journalist now a days is a Facebook account with 100s of fans, who you entertain with parodies about Salva Kiir, and a couple of plays on addressing critical letters to minsters posted on your wall. You can then pretend you are the next Isaiah Abraham, and you dangle to Kampal or Nairobi, where you stay by choice, while trying to look to your fans like you are hiding from authorities for being a political risk because of being a vocal critic.

With that being the situation, the line between the so called ‘exposing the corrupt in the government and defaming’ someone ordinary for the advantage of being a journalist disappears. But ultimately, the main victim for pettiness or the loss of direction is the campaign for freedom of expression.

It is your desire to bring change that we chose journalism as career. We did so in oder to be the eyes of the south Sudanese communities being held hostage by the bunch. So, we need to apply journalism with intentness, not triviality.