The wonderful Tiatrist Jack




 

 
 
 
 
 
Jack Fernandes: His Final Curtain Call
 
 
 
 
 
Nairobi. Born 13th August 1933. Died: 29 April 2015. It is with humble acceptance of Gods Will that we announce the passing on, to his heavenly stage, of JACK FERNANDES loving husband of the late Olga Fernandes, beloved father of Ian and Elaine, father-in-law of Paloma and Vernon, adoring grandfather to Georgia, Kayleigh, Kayla and Aiden.

Jack was a special man who will be missed by many. A great entertainer who will be remembered for his comical antics on the Konkani Stage, a prominent sports man on the athletics track and football field and his many years of service to the Goan Institute. The funeral service will take place at 10 am on Saturday 2nd May, 2015 at the Consolata Shrine, Westlands. Viewing will commence from 9.30 am. This will be followed by a cremation at the Kariokor Crematorium. No flowers please. Donations can be made to the Vincentian Prayer House. May his soul rest in eternal peace. Condolences to  email  (From Goan Voice UK)


It is with the heaviest hearts I learnt of Jack’s passing.

 

In the universe, there are very few men like your father. He was an earthly man, but a very special man. He was showered with the Maker’s most exquisite gifts, humour, laughter, an every smiling face that shone a special light in the darkest of times, especially for those around him, but, above all, he was indeed he was always the first to be invited to that Biblical special table. He was led there by the hand of his gentlest humility.

 

Of the many Goans I was privileged to have met and grown up with in Kenya, Tiarist Jack will always remain my most favourite person. Strangely, the last time I met him was in Canada, around six years or more. He had heard I was around and had tracked me down to Gilbert Fernandes’ place. Those smiling eyes lit up the room as everyone rushed to greet him. Those few moments in Canada will be forever etched in the hard drive of my heart.

 

Those who knew him will be universally saddened by his passing, they will be comforted that they were indeed blessed to have had the chance to bask in his loving glow.

 

What a guy, what a man.

 

Rest easy my friend, for if there is one person who had a reservation in heaven, it must surely have been you. God Bless.

 

Cyprian

 


Kenyatta's 1952 speech


Kenya’s history of good intentions


The road to Kenya’s independence from the earliest of days to 1963 was always paved with the best of intentions, some of which are spelt out in the Jomo Kenya speech below. Looking back, it is easy to dismiss the whole episode as exploitation by the few in power but what would have been the alternative. For 50 years successive governments have faced this the most difficult of issues and have come up almost empty. The Kenya African National Union manifesto which is jammed packed with the highest ideals any society would wish to achieve is also the basis for the Sessional Paper No.10 of 1965 which legitimised the capitalist course, especially in relation to ownership of land and industry.


Jomo Kenyatta’s speech at the Kenya African Union (KAU) meeting (June, 1952)


I want you to know the purpose of K.A.U. It is the biggest purpose the African has. It involves every African in Kenya and it is their mouthpiece which asks for freedom. K.A.U. is you and you are the K.A.U. If we unite now, each and every one of us, and each tribe to another, we will cause the implementation in this country of that which the European calls democracy. True democracy has no colour distinction. It does not choose between black and white. We are here in this tremendous gathering under the K.A.U. flag to find which road leads us from darkness into democracy. In order to find it we Africans must first achieve the right to elect our own representatives. That is surely the first principle of democracy. We are the only race in Kenya which does not elect its own representatives in the Legislature and we are going to set about to rectify this situation. We feel we are dominated by a handful of others who refuse to be just.


God said this is our land. Land in which we are to flourish as a people. We are not worried that other races are here with us in our country, but we insist that we are the leaders here, and what we want we insist we get. K.A.U. claims this land as its own gift from God and I wish those who are black, white or brown at this meeting to know this. K.A.U. speaks in daylight. He who calls us the Mau Mau is not truthful. We do not know this thing Mau Mau. We want to prosper as a nation, and as a nation we demand equality. . . . It has never been known in history that a country prospers without equality. We despise bribery and corruption, those two words that the European repeatedly refers to. Bribery and corruption is prevalent in this country, but I am not surprised. As long as a people are held down, corruption is sure to rise and the only answer to this is a policy of equality.


If we work together as one, we must succeed.



The abuse of power


This is an edited excerpt from a Focus on Land in Africa report: Kenya has a history of widespread corruption and systemic abuse of office by public officials that has resulted in a situation in which encouraging statistics about economic growth (6.4 percent for 2007) coexist with depressing figures of crushing poverty (58 percent of the population lives on less than two US dollars a day). Political contests have become all the more charged because of what is at stake; those who achieve political power benefit from widespread abuses including impunity for political manipulation of violence, criminal theft of land, and the corrupt misuse of public resources—indulgences which occur at the expense of groups who are out of power.

Land seized by British colonists cut a swathe through Kenya’s modern-day provinces of Rift Valley, Nyanza, Western, and Central, creating an area that became colloquially known as the ‘White Highlands.’ In total, British and other European settlers took 20 percent of Kenya’s land, most of it prime agricultural spots. Independence in 1963 some of this was handed over, not to the people from whom it had been taken, but to the new government and government officials, using the colonial laws that the British had themselves drafted. These laws made no provision for the collective land rights of communities.7 The introduction of the concept of private individual property, without the recognition of collective land rights, upset the traditional arrangements of many indigenous groups, many of which based their land occupation and use on traditional collective practices, such as pastoralism. Colonial laws also treated “natives” as incapable of holding direct land title, instead having land held “on trust” for them by governmental authorities.

After independence the new government under Jomo Kenyatta did not recognize customary land use in law or practice but instead sold the land it acquired from British settlers under the principle of ‘willing seller, willing buyer.’ But much of the land ended up in the hands of members of Kenyatta’s Kikuyu ethnic group rather than with the communities from which it had been taken.  Kenyatta also used the land for patronage purposes and to build alliances, a pattern that continued and increased under his successor President Daniel arap Moi. Colonial “trust” land remained in place with respect to the historic land of certain groups, including many pastoralist groups who were still deemed, in effect, incapable of holding direct land title.

The National Rainbow Coalition (NaRC) that brought President Kibaki to power in 2002 was supposed to resolve the land issue once and for all. This was one of NaRC’s major campaign promises. To that end, Kibaki launched the Ndung’u Commission to investigate patterns of corruption and unfair allocation of land and to propose remedies. The final report was deemed too controversial and the Kibaki government never implemented the recommendations. The report notes the importance of land in Kenya, stating, “land retains a focal point in Kenya's history. It was the basis upon which the struggle for independence was waged. It has traditionally dictated the pulse of our nationhood. It continues to command a pivotal position in the country's social, economic, political and legal relations.”



The American who wrote the most hated policy paper in Kenya



This document (edited) reveals the inside story on how an American, sponsored by the Ford Foundation, came write one of the most hated policy papers in Kenya’s political history: the Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965. 2015 is also the 50th anniversary of the paper’s adoption by the Kenya parliament. The paper virtually turned Kenya into a capitalist society and paved the way for those in power to plunder the fruits of Uhuru for themselves rather than sharing it with the general wananchi (people of Kenya). It is arguable that Kenya could have been anything other than capitalist. There is a strong belief that capitalism was a conspiracy between western powers and the then Kenya government. I think there is a case for natural evolution amid the prevailing conditions.        

As the East African countries approached independence their second major concern, after that of finding the means to take effective control of government, was the development of their societies. World Bank missions to each of the three major East African territories, in their extensive and influential reports, made a strong case for establishing economic planning systems and project development units. 

In the summer of 1962, Professor Ben Lewis of Oberlin College visited East Africa as a Foundation consultant and received inquiries from all three governments about the possibility of the Foundation’s supplying economic advisory assistance. The only firm request, however, was from Kenya. The government was by no means convinced that it wished to establish a planning process at the time, as was indicated by the initial response to the submission of Edgar Edwards’ curriculum vitae: Treasury replied that Edwards was a bit more senior a man than would be needed for what they had in mind. Edwards accepted the post nevertheless and arrived in Nairobi in August 1963. 

At the time the Foundation agreed to supply this advisor, it felt that first attention should be given to the work of the East African Common Services Organization (EACSO), to which a grant of $45, 000 for economic consultants had been made in November 1962. Supplementary to this regional focus, the Foundation anticipated that it should be prepared to offer limited high-level assistance to the planning agencies of the three countries. 

Within six months of his arrival, Edwards had convinced both the Kenya Government and the Foundation that a substantially greater effort than either had anticipated was necessary, or at least desirable. A rather rudimentary 6-year plan was produced in early 1964 by Edwards, Oliver Knowles, a Treasury official, and Michael Roemer, an M.I.T. Fellow in Africa. It was anticipated when this plan was adopted that it would be superseded by a revised plan once more economic planning competence was available and following greater elaboration of the policy objectives of the Government. Work on the revision had already begun before the 6-year plan was published. The first plan proved useful in negotiations with potential donors, which was the original government impetus for the exercise, but it also provided a framework for ministers and permanent secretaries to define their work and coordinate their efforts with other ministries. Most importantly, a Development Committee of the Cabinet, established before independence, became an active forum in which major economic issues could be discussed by the effective decision-makers. 

In July 1964, a new Directorate of Planning within the Treasury was officially established with Edwards at its head, an arrangement that made the Foundation’s representative distinctly uneasy. It was one thing to provide advice on economic planning issues, but for a Foundation employee to be responsible for the planning mechanism was outside the boundaries of its own definition of its assistance. There is also some question about the legality of supplying foreign countries with a person in a position like this under the American tax law governing philanthropic assistance. This potential difficulty was overcome when Kenya became a republic on the anniversary of its independence, and a Ministry of Economic Planning and Development (MEPD) was created. Edwards became senior advisor to the Permanent Secretary of MEPD and, in mid-1965, he left Kenya to return to Rice University. 

The creation of a separate planning ministry was typical of many newly independent African governments. Resentment of the Ministry of Finance, or the Treasury as it was commonly known, was widespread among the new leaders because it was seen as an obstacle to development. The creation of a new ministry, with a degree of autonomy from the purse-string mentality of Treasury officials, was thought to be progressive; besides, it was popular with the Bank and other donors. This mood lasted less than a decade, however, and most countries have now recombined planning with finance. 

By the time the Ministry was created, a staff of five Foundation advisors was working on planning in Kenya: three Americans, one Dutch and one Swedish. The first Minister was Tom Mboya, whose remarkable intellectual capacity and leadership skills added greatly to the impact of planning in the country. Philip Ndegwa joined government as a planning officer at about the same time. 

In 1965, the Kenya government proposed and Parliament adopted a far-reaching policy document entitled Sessional Paper No. 10, African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya. Much of the first draft of this paper was written by Edwards, a fact that has since aroused critical comment in some foreign publications. Before it reached Parliament, however, it was intensively reviewed and revised, first by an informal group chaired by Mboya with Mwai Kibaki, Ndegwa, Knowles and Edwards as members, and then by the Ministers sitting in the Development Committee. Sessional Paper No. 10 summarizes Kenya’s objectives as follows: 

1. Political equality.

2. Social justice.

3. Human dignity, including freedom of conscience.

4. Freedom from want, disease and exploitation.

5. Equal opportunities.

6. High and growing per capita incomes, equitably distributed. 

To some extent, the document represents the Government’s answer to the insistent voices in Parliament, led by Oginga Odinga and Pio Pinto, demanding more radical social change. The Sessional Paper sought to elucidate its philosophy that dignity, justice and equity need a firm basis of economic growth. 

The American who wrote the most hated policy in Kenya (for students of politics)


This document (edited) reveals the inside story on how an American, sponsored by the Ford Foundation, came write one of the most hated policy papers in Kenya’s political history: the Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965. 2015 is also the 50th anniversary of the paper’s adoption by the Kenya parliament. The paper virtually turned Kenya into a capitalist society and paved the way for those in power to plunder the fruits of Uhuru for themselves rather than sharing it with the general wananchi. It is arguable that Kenya could have been anything other capitalist. There is a strong belief that capitalism was a conspiracy between western powers and the then Kenya government.         

 

 As the East African countries approached independence their second major concern, after that of finding the means to take effective control of government, was the development of their societies. World Bank missions to each of the three major East African territories, in their extensive and influential reports, made a strong case for establishing economic planning systems and project development units. 

In the summer of 1962, Professor Ben Lewis of Oberlin College visited East Africa as a Foundation consultant and received inquiries from all three governments about the possibility of the Foundation’s supplying economic advisory assistance. The only firm request, however, was from Kenya. The government was by no means convinced that it wished to establish a planning process at the time, as was indicated by the initial response to the submission of Edgar Edwards’ curriculum vitae: Treasury replied that Edwards was a bit more senior a man than would be needed for what they had in mind. Edwards accepted the post nevertheless and arrived in Nairobi in August 1963. 

At the time the Foundation agreed to supply this advisor, it felt that first attention should be given to the work of the East African Common Services Organization (EACSO), to which a grant of $45, 000 for economic consultants had been made in November 1962. Supplementary to this regional focus, the Foundation anticipated that it should be prepared to offer limited high-level assistance to the planning agencies of the three countries. 

Within six months of his arrival, Edwards had convinced both the Kenya Government and the Foundation that a substantially greater effort than either had anticipated was necessary, or at least desirable. A rather rudimentary 6-year plan was produced in early 1964 by Edwards, Oliver Knowles, a Treasury official, and Michael Roemer, an M.I.T. Fellow in Africa. It was anticipated when this plan was adopted that it would be superseded by a revised plan once more economic planning competence was available and following greater elaboration of the policy objectives of the Government. Work on the revision had already begun before the 6-year plan was published. The first plan proved useful in negotiations with potential donors, which was the original government impetus for the exercise, but it also provided a framework for ministers and permanent secretaries to define their work and coordinate their efforts with other ministries. Most importantly, a Development Committee of the Cabinet, established before independence, became an active forum in which major economic issues could be discussed by the effective decision-makers. 

In July 1964, a new Directorate of Planning within the Treasury was officially established with Edwards at its head, an arrangement that made the Foundation’s representative distinctly uneasy. It was one thing to provide advice on economic planning issues, but for a Foundation employee to be responsible for the planning mechanism was outside the boundaries of its own definition of its assistance. There is also some question about the legality of supplying foreign countries with a person in a position like this under the American tax law governing philanthropic assistance. This potential difficulty was overcome when Kenya became a republic on the anniversary of its independence, and a Ministry of Economic Planning and Development (MEPD) was created. Edwards became senior advisor to the Permanent Secretary of MEPD and, in mid-1965, he left Kenya to return to Rice University. 

The creation of a separate planning ministry was typical of many newly independent African governments. Resentment of the Ministry of Finance, or the Treasury as it was commonly known, was widespread among the new leaders because it was seen as an obstacle to development. The creation of a new ministry, with a degree of autonomy from the purse-string mentality of Treasury officials, was thought to be progressive; besides, it was popular with the Bank and other donors. This mood lasted less than a decade, however, and most countries have now recombined planning with finance. 

By the time the Ministry was created, a staff of five Foundation advisors was working on planning in Kenya: three Americans, one Dutch and one Swedish. The first Minister was Tom Mboya, whose remarkable intellectual capacity and leadership skills added greatly to the impact of planning in the country. Philip Ndegwa joined government as a planning officer at about the same time. 

In 1965, the Kenya government proposed and Parliament adopted a far-reaching policy document entitled Sessional Paper No. 10, African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya. Much of the first draft of this paper was written by Edwards, a fact that has since aroused critical comment in some foreign publications. Before it reached Parliament, however, it was intensively reviewed and revised, first by an informal group chaired by Mboya with Mwai Kibaki, Ndegwa, Knowles and Edwards as members, and then by the Ministers sitting in the Development Committee. Sessional Paper No. 10 summarizes Kenya’s objectives as follows: 

1. Political equality.

2. Social justice.

3. Human dignity, including freedom of conscience.

4. Freedom from want, disease and exploitation.

5. Equal opportunities.

6. High and growing per capita incomes, equitably distributed. 

To some extent, the document represents the Government’s answer to the insistent voices in Parliament, led by Oginga Odinga and Pia Pinto, demanding more radical social change. The Sessional Paper sought to elucidate its philosophy that dignity, justice and equity need a firm basis of economic growth. 

At the same time an extensive revision of the original 6-year plan was underway, examining a number of important policy issues, including such key social policies as family planning, primary education and anticipated employment problems. 

By this time the Foundation’s interest in planning had obviously deepened. Economic decision-making was recognized to be a critical task for new governments staffed by leaders who had had little opportunity to gain training and experience in the field. The Foundation’s advisors were clearly making important contributions by helping establish sound procedures for the consideration of development projects, and by advising on economic policy. The planning process was seen to be a continuing activity that would require competence unavailable locally for several additional years. The need for additional attention to plan implementation procedures, provincial and district planning and ministry-level planning was also recognized.  

In Kenya, the combination of Mboya’s dynamic and effective leadership and the concentration of economic competence in his Ministry made planning a force in Government that commanded the respect but sometimes also the envy and resentment of other ministers and civil servants. Their response to this imbalance took several forms. Perhaps the healthiest, from a developmental point of view, was to seek to develop planning competence in their own ministries, a process strongly encouraged by Mboya and his advisors. The Ministry of Agriculture sought to build up a strong internal planning unit with advisors from a variety of donors, one of whom was supplied by the Foundation. The effort enjoyed only limited success at the time and a new attempt, which will be discussed later, is currently underway. 

In another case, the Minister of Education requested the assistance of MEPD in drafting an educational policy paper without the concurrence of his own permanent secretary. This led to a struggle that went all the way to the President of the Republic before it was resolved and the draft policy paper was scrapped. 

In late 1967, the Development Committee of the Cabinet was abolished. One can only assume that this move was made in order to curb the power of Mboya and the MEPD. Thereafter, although chapters of subsequent development plans were discussed with appropriate ministerial staffs, and plans were approved by Cabinet, there was little serious discussion of critical economic issues in the plans by economic ministers as a group. 

Perhaps the key ministry that successfully resisted genuine participa­tion in planning was the Ministry of Commerce and Industry; to this day, there is no effective professional planning and project evaluation unit in this Ministry. Major industrial investment decisions have, however, had to receive approval of MEPD and the Treasury, so cost benefit analysis has not been wholly omitted from the industrialization effort. 

Another serious disappointment to the planners was the failure of an attempt to institute cooperation between the private sector and the government through the Planning and Development Advisory Committee (PADAC). PADAC met occasionally in early years but its meetings were generally unproductive. 

There is no question but that the meaningful planning activities of the Government in the first few years after independence were essentially conducted by expatriate staff and advisors. Several excellent young Kenyan economists, notably Philip Ndegwa, Harris Mule, the late Serjit Heyer, and Parmeet Singh, participated in the work and rapidly gained competence in the process. But the systematic professionalization of the planning process and the development of Kenyans to staff it could be said to have started only in October 1968, when a scheme of service for economists was inaugurated. This established a governmental career ladder for economists, statisticians, and planners that paralleled the path of advancement of other career civil servants. In 1971 there were 51 established posts in the Economic Service, apart from economists employed by parastatal corporations, but MEPD estimated that the actual requirement for government economists was 73. Only 25 qualified local officers were available for these posts. 

The minimum entry qualification for the Economic Service was an upper second-class honours degree in economics or statistics, or its equivalent. In order to enlarge the pool of qualified entrants, the Foundation supported the creation of a Bachelor of Philosophy (B. Phil.) program at the University College Nairobi in 1969 (690-0156). This was a one-year postgraduate program requiring at least a year of relevant government experience before admission. The content of the B. Phil. program was specifically geared to the development problems facing the Kenya Government. For several years the Economics Department at the University was cool to what they regarded as an excessively “applied” program, but it is now well integrated. This year (1977), for the first time, master’s degree students and B. Phil. students are taking the same course of instruction with the masters candidates remaining at the University for an additional year. 

More recently an agreement has been worked out with the Canadian government under which 6 to 8 members of the Economic Service are offered master's degree scholarships to York University in Toronto each year. By 1979 it is anticipated that between 30 and 40 Kenyans will have received York M.A.s. 

The assassination of Tom Mboya in the summer of 1969 was a tragedy of great national importance, which also set back the growth and development of the planning process in Kenya. Indeed, it is notable that after a period of shock and suspended progress, planning not only survived but has continued to play a leading role in affecting the course of Kenya’s development. 

In 1970 Edwards, who by then had served as an advisor to the government for four years and was on the Foundation’s staff in New York, and Ben Lewis, who had also joined the Foundation on a full-time basis, undertook a comprehensive review of the planning process in Kenya. They described the Foundation’s basic objective as “to assist substantially in the establishment of a lasting, effective planning process, indigenously staffed, widely spread and used throughout government,” and found it to be an objective broadly shared by the Kenya government. The report noted that the Government’s initial objectives in seeking Foundation support were considerably more modest but implied that the Foundation had the grander design in mind from the beginning. In fact, as we have seen, the Foundation’s objectives also evolved from more modest aspirations, although Ben Lewis had had the larger picture in mind since his pre-independence visit. 

A description of this program would not be complete without a word about the character of the relationships between the advisors and the Foundation, and the advisors and the Government. The Foundation has had a general policy that the professional loyalty of an advisor assigned to a government is to the government itself, and that no matters of a confidential nature are expected to be divulged to the Foundation’s representatives. Edwards and subsequent advisors adhered strictly to this policy, a fact that continues to be fully appreciated by the Kenya Government. In addition, the advisors supplied by the Foundation were not considered to be a team and, although there was often a recognized senior economist among them, there was no designated team leader Throughout the life of the program, no professional meetings were held in which only Foundation advisors were in attendance, and no attempt was made to coordinate the views or advice of the advisory staff. 

The Foundation also cooperated in minor ways with the new East African Staff College. This program, ably led by Guy Hunter in 1964-5, sought to train high-level government administrators and both public and private sector managers from all three countries. It became a peripatetic institution, holding courses in each country in rotation. The Foundation was asked to consider contributing to a permanent site for the College, and to finance a research arm, but both ideas ran into government or university resistance before they could be seriously entertained for funding. 

From time to time the Foundation supplied consultants or project specialists to facilitate the staff work of special investigatory commissions in Kenya. John Seal, for example, was the principal staff man for the Ndegwa Commission, which undertook the most far-reaching revision of public service rules that has occurred in independent Kenya. Consulting services were also provided to the Commission under a Foundation contract with API, a California-based consulting firm headed by Edward Rubin, erstwhile staff development advisor in Tanzania. 

As the decade of the 1960s drew to a close, the Foundation’s support for public administration specialists diminished rapidly. The main task of the Africanization of the public service and the establishment of procedures and institutions for its maintenance had essentially been accomplished. No great satisfaction was felt in the level of performance of the public service but the machinery was in place for the Kenyans to make use of as they wished.