In the Big Four Agenda development blueprint by the erstwhile administration, affordable housing stood out conspicuously alongside food security, manufacturing and affordable healthcare.
The Constitution's Bill of Rights, Article 43 (1) (b) espouses that every person has the right to accessible and adequate housing, and to reasonable standards of sanitation.
As Nelson Mandela said, A man is not a man until he has a house of his own. Nonetheless, the recent pronouncements by the President regarding the affordable housing implementation plan have ruffled the feathers of many, especially government employees.
The President indicated that soon, all aforementioned employees will undergo a mandatory three per cent salary deduction to be channelled to the affordable housing kitty.
Inasmuch as owning a house is a brilliant and welcome idea, mandatory enrolment of all government employees may not be a popular proposition considering a myriad of factors.
First, many salaried people are already in mortgage arrangements with banks and other financial institutions, many of which are long-term. Others are servicing loans they took to buy a piece of land on which they have built residential homes, hence, forcing them into another housing plan will be extremely torturous.
Secondly, a government employee residing in a home inherited from their parents will definitely be disinterested in these government houses.
Thirdly, there are those who will be comfortable in rented apartments since the 'affordable' government houses may not be close enough to their workplaces. How about if both spouses are government employees? Will they be enrolled into separate housing plans, or will they be joint owners of such a unit?
Fourth, talk of divergent tastes and preferences. While someone would want a house with a large living room and an open kitchen and a particular bedroom size, another would want a smaller living room with an annexed study room cum library, kitchenette and a large bedroom.
Since the house units in the government scheme will not be tailored to the client’s desire, it will not be prudential to force one into ownership. Whereas these houses will be built in the form of flats, others would want a secluded compound with absolute privacy.
Finally, there is a human resource practice commonly referred to as the 'two-thirds rule', whereby an employee cannot commit the pay slip deductions beyond two-thirds of the basic pay.
Considering the harsh economic conditions in the country and the high cost of living, many employees have been forced to commit their pay slips to the borderline of the two-thirds rule. A further deduction of whichever percentage will mean that many employees will be in utter contravention of this rule.
A few years ago, the government introduced to our pay slips the provident fund, which is seven per cent of basic pay. Introducing a further three per cent will make it 10 per cent on top of other statutory deductions such as PAYE, NHIF and other medical schemes, union deductions, etc.
In the long run, deductions are exceeding the net salary which dispirits the employee, thus, lowering morale and negatively affecting productivity.
There's also scepticism galore regarding such government projects, some of which morph into white elephants. It may take quite a while before completion, and several administrations later.
As witnessed even in developed democracies, key projects are abandoned upon transitioning from one administration to another due to policy shifts. A case in point is the Obamacare rolled out by President Barack Obama, given a cold shoulder by President Donald Trump and later revived by President Joe Biden.
Assuming that many will be willing to enrol, how sure are we that the cancer of corruption won’t manifest its ugly head therein? What assurance can we have that it won’t be a source of ulcers in future upon shortchanging by well-connected fellows and top government honchos?
I trust that before the salary departments and the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Database embark on the implementation of the three per cent deduction, members of the public will have an opportunity to air their grievances through public participation as enshrined in Article 10 (1) of our Constitution.
Teacher [email protected]
