(First appeared in New Era 29 July 2015)
(Great Expectations is a novel by Charles Dickens that was published in 1861 and tells the story of an orphan named Pip)
This coming week it will be my first wedding anniversary. Traditionally, (since the Middle Ages), each wedding anniversary requires a specific gift depending on the number of years you are married. For example, the tenth wedding anniversary is tin or aluminium celebrating ideas and symbols while the fifteenth anniversary gift is traditionally crystal.
The first wedding anniversary is traditionally symbolised as being paper while in modern times we also give gifts of clocks. I have spent some time considering the various gift ideas from money, photographs, books, stationary, event tickets, love letters, calendars and poems. After much consideration, I decided what I will by my loving supportive wife for her anniversary. But back to the consumer issue at the heart of this decision making. One of the ideas is to purchase a coupon for a service or product that your loved one can take up at their own time. For example, a coupon for a day being spoilt at a wellness/spa/beauty parlour counts as a paper gift.
This got me to thinking what would happen if the gift I purchased as a promissory note, does not meet the expectations I have of the gift I wish the give the other person? After all, as the customer who purchased the gift I too have an expectation of the service of product even though I am not the intended recipient.
Under the present legal environment (or rather of legal environment), there would be very little recourse to me if the expected, and advertised, service does not meet my expectations. Obviously expectations can be very subjective as they are based on my personal expectations, but should there not be a recourse to at least the minimum expectation any reasonable person would expect?
In the proposed draft consumer protection law, it is proposed that a consumer can sue under the principle of “tort”. A tort, in our common law jurisdiction, refers to a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. This person who commits the act is known as the tortfeasor. This harm or loss is not limited to physical injuries and can include emotional, economic or reputational injury as well as violations of privacy, property or constitutional rights. In general torts can refer to carried topics such as motor vehicle accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement and environmental pollution. As a consumer, this will lessen the burden of proof required when instituting an action against a supplier of products or services.
The proposed Consumer Protection Commission will also be able to handle “class action” lawsuits where consumer protection organisations can bring claims on behalf of consumers. (A class action is a type of lawsuit where one or several person can sue on behalf of a larger group of persons, who are then referred to as “the class”.) This will help consumer activists as class action allow for two factors important in consumer protection, namely that 1) the issues being brought to court or government agency are common to all members of the class; and 2) the persons affected are too many and this will make it impractical to bring all of them before the court to testify.
This bring me back to the question of whether I will have legal recourse if the beauty parlour coupon does not meet my (or the recipients) expectations. After all, they do offer beauty treatment?
Thursday 17 September 2015
Man of the house
(First appeared in New Era 22 July 2015)
The past few weeks I have been traveling around the country for work and not spent as much time at home (or on writing this column) as I would like to. The cultural perception of the Namibian family is such that the “man of the house” is expected to earn the income even if it means traveling long distances from home, while the wife is expected to raise the children, earn an income and still be there to “spoil” her husband when he returns from his work far from home.
This week I was reminded of how much men in general take for granted the rights of privilege and put forward the argument of “it is my right as a man”. This happened when my baby, Captain Adorable, spoke his first words. Yes, you guessed it. His first word was “Mamma”. So much for forcing him to say “Dadda” to someone who is so often out!
In Namibia, we have quite a few “rights of privilege”: from the white person born before Independence who cannot understand why a black person does not stand up for themselves; to men who assert that they are the man of the house and get upset when the woman insists upon her rights too; to the shopkeepers who have the attitude of you should be glad I am here to provide you with products to purchase.
By the time you the reader have read this far, you must be questioning who I have not yet annoyed with my column this week. This is not my intention at all. Rather it is to have us question, and get the understanding between what is a right, and what is a privilege. Hopefully, by the end of this column you will also be able to distinguish between the two, and know when sometimes it is abused as a right of privilege.
Rights are defined as something belonging to you as an individual and these cannot be taken away from you. For example, in Namibia you have the right to freedom of speech and expression and this is guaranteed in the Constitution. A privilege on the other hand is something that is owned by another person or entity who then gives you the ability to do something. An example of a privilege is the owning of a drivers licence. The government is the entity which grants you the privilege of driving, but this can be taken away from you if you do not adhere to certain rules and regulations.
Taking this point further to discuss consumer protection we must continue to fight for our rights to be recognised. You have a) The right to basic goods and services that guarantee survival; b) The right to be protected against the marketing of goods or the provision of services that are hazardous to health and life; c) The right to be protected against dishonest or misleading advertising or labelling; c) The right to choose products and services at competitive prices with an assurance of satisfactory quality; d) The right to express consumer interests in the making and execution of government policy; e) The right to be compensated for misrepresentation, shoddy goods or unsatisfactory services; f) The right to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to be an informed consumer and g) The right to live and work in an environment which permits a life of dignity and well-being.
These are your consumer rights and must be recognised by the government through legislation which will enshrine your rights, and protect you from having them taken away from you.
As a well-known consumer activist I often find my personal consumer issues being sorted out very quickly because the store or service provider is scared of how I will portray this issue in the newspaper. This is unfair to the rest of the consumers because I am now reaping the reward of “rights of privilege” whereas this should be a right for all.
It’s just another winter’s tale
(First appeared in New Era 24 June 2015)
The past week I was forced to pay an extended visit to my bed to get rid of the flu. In my family, my Mother believes in quite a few “home remedies” including Boegoe Brandy, Jamaica Ginger and of course the trusted vaporub and med-lemon. Some of these remedies are also known as “Hollandse medisyne” (Dutch medicines) and can be found in most supermarkets. There are “cures” for stomach aches, headaches, burping children and even chasing away evil spirits. Yes, one of the medicines are used in drawing a cross on the forehead of a child when you have no idea what else to try – and this chases away the evil! Some of us may ridicule these “cures”, but ask any parent whose child has the hiccups whether putting a piece of paper on their forehead helps?
While being in bed I came across an insert in one of our daily papers for the services of a witchdoctor. Normally I would refer to a person giving advice handed down from our forefathers as a traditional healer, but in this case the advert was for a witchdoctor, or how else could he also offer cures for being lovesick? I looked through several of our newspapers and found one paper that had thirty-two (32) classified adverts for traditional healers. A typical advert reads: “Dr Mwita: Bring back lost lovers, bad-luck, witchcraft protection, men power, employment, pregnancy, remove tokolosh. Money in your account in 20 minutes to get rich.”
When reading these adverts I realised that the people placing these adverts must obviously get clients otherwise why would they continue to place the adverts at their expense every day. Secondly, it does not seem to worry them that the issues they offer to resolve are not medicinal, but rather emotional. Lastly, most readers would question why these same traditional healers are offering to make you rich but are themselves not endowed with much riches themselves.
As a consumer activist, my conscience is prickled by this dilemma: “What recourse would a client have if after they have paid for the services of the traditional healer, they do not receive their monies worth in product or service? The Ministry of Health and Social Services is working with traditional healers and trying to cut out the obvious jokers or scammers, but this will only work if there is a set of criteria for these practitioners as well as a method of punishing those who abuse their position.
Having grown up in a western Christian culture, I must also ask of myself is there a major difference in going to a building, praying for what I desire and then paying money into the collection plate? What recourse do I have if my prayers are not answered? How far may a religious organisation go in promising me certain rewards (on earth) and when can I demand my money back if these are not kept?
While most welfare organisations and churches are doing a good job in Namibia, unfortunately, some have not. They have abused their mandate or become a vehicle for an individual who is seen as the driving force or even “responsible for the success of the organisation”. This leads to the next question, “How do we distinguish between a good and bad Non-governmental organisation?”
The following questions provide us with a litmus test: a) Are their financial statements open for scrutiny? b) What percentage of their budget is spent on salaries and perks for the organisations employees? c) What part of the budget is contributed by governments, directly or indirectly? d) How many of the NGO's operatives are in the field, catering to the needs of the NGO's constituents? e) Which part of the budget is spent on furthering the aims of the NGO and on implementing its programmes?
I suggest that we have Non-Government Organisation law. In this law we should be address the issues of mandate and good governance, and the mechanisms in the case of abuse. It should include a restraint on creation of new, frequently unnecessary, NGOs (that are mostly more helpful to the creators of the NGO than the people they are designed to serve).
The past week I was forced to pay an extended visit to my bed to get rid of the flu. In my family, my Mother believes in quite a few “home remedies” including Boegoe Brandy, Jamaica Ginger and of course the trusted vaporub and med-lemon. Some of these remedies are also known as “Hollandse medisyne” (Dutch medicines) and can be found in most supermarkets. There are “cures” for stomach aches, headaches, burping children and even chasing away evil spirits. Yes, one of the medicines are used in drawing a cross on the forehead of a child when you have no idea what else to try – and this chases away the evil! Some of us may ridicule these “cures”, but ask any parent whose child has the hiccups whether putting a piece of paper on their forehead helps?
While being in bed I came across an insert in one of our daily papers for the services of a witchdoctor. Normally I would refer to a person giving advice handed down from our forefathers as a traditional healer, but in this case the advert was for a witchdoctor, or how else could he also offer cures for being lovesick? I looked through several of our newspapers and found one paper that had thirty-two (32) classified adverts for traditional healers. A typical advert reads: “Dr Mwita: Bring back lost lovers, bad-luck, witchcraft protection, men power, employment, pregnancy, remove tokolosh. Money in your account in 20 minutes to get rich.”
When reading these adverts I realised that the people placing these adverts must obviously get clients otherwise why would they continue to place the adverts at their expense every day. Secondly, it does not seem to worry them that the issues they offer to resolve are not medicinal, but rather emotional. Lastly, most readers would question why these same traditional healers are offering to make you rich but are themselves not endowed with much riches themselves.
As a consumer activist, my conscience is prickled by this dilemma: “What recourse would a client have if after they have paid for the services of the traditional healer, they do not receive their monies worth in product or service? The Ministry of Health and Social Services is working with traditional healers and trying to cut out the obvious jokers or scammers, but this will only work if there is a set of criteria for these practitioners as well as a method of punishing those who abuse their position.
Having grown up in a western Christian culture, I must also ask of myself is there a major difference in going to a building, praying for what I desire and then paying money into the collection plate? What recourse do I have if my prayers are not answered? How far may a religious organisation go in promising me certain rewards (on earth) and when can I demand my money back if these are not kept?
While most welfare organisations and churches are doing a good job in Namibia, unfortunately, some have not. They have abused their mandate or become a vehicle for an individual who is seen as the driving force or even “responsible for the success of the organisation”. This leads to the next question, “How do we distinguish between a good and bad Non-governmental organisation?”
The following questions provide us with a litmus test: a) Are their financial statements open for scrutiny? b) What percentage of their budget is spent on salaries and perks for the organisations employees? c) What part of the budget is contributed by governments, directly or indirectly? d) How many of the NGO's operatives are in the field, catering to the needs of the NGO's constituents? e) Which part of the budget is spent on furthering the aims of the NGO and on implementing its programmes?
I suggest that we have Non-Government Organisation law. In this law we should be address the issues of mandate and good governance, and the mechanisms in the case of abuse. It should include a restraint on creation of new, frequently unnecessary, NGOs (that are mostly more helpful to the creators of the NGO than the people they are designed to serve).
Investing in education pays the best interest
(First appeared in New Era 17 June 2015)
The past few weeks have been very hectic in the Shaanika-Louw household as Captain Adorable starts on the journey of “real foods”. Waking up at night to soothe a crying child brings reality to a parent on what we do in the hope of giving our child the best opportunity in life.
Regardless of how young our children are, all parents worry about the day the child is going to be grown up enough to leave the nest. This is why we take out study insurance policies etc. as we consider whether we, as the parents, will be able to give our children that “right start” to life with a quality education.
The Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade and SME Development is in the final stages of submitting the Consumer Protection Policy and Act to Cabinet before it goes to the legal drafters for submission as a Bill to Parliament. The technical committee responsible for the process must be commended for looking at a principle-based approach rather than a rule-based regulation environment for Namibia.
Without going into too much legalese, this means that under the proposed Namibia Consumer Protection Act, the regulator will work on the “ex post” application principle. In other words, the regulatory principle is applied against specific conduct of a regulated entity ONLY AFTER the conduct has occurred. This is in comparison to a “ex ante” determination principle where the regulator must state exactly what the regulated entity must, or must not, do to comply with the rules before the business engages in the conduct.
Lying in the dark after the Captain has fallen back to sleep allows me to reflect on what exactly the consumer protection environment will mean – not only for me and mine, but also for you and yours in this country. For most of my life I have been engaged in the teaching profession, first as an IT Junior Lecturer and later as a distance tutor at a local education institution offering Cambridge University qualifications.
This very important industry (yes it is a business) has mushroomed in the past few years with the only regulations seeming to come from the Namibian Qualifications Authority (NQA). The NQA has the responsibility of evaluating the educational institution, and more specifically the actual courses the institution provides. In other words, the education institution you send your child to might be accredited, but the actual course your child is following might not be a recognised NQA qualification.
Under our present laws there is very little that a parent can do once their child has completed course and they find out that it is not recognised in the work environment. After all, we all expect that once our child has received a quality (expensive) education that this will allow them to get a good paying position that they may be able to care for themselves. If this happens to you, you have very little recourse to the law as Namibia still adheres to the principle of “buyer beware” or in Latin, “Caveat Emptor”.
Under the proposed new consumer law, the regulator will be able to take action against such educational institutions which mislead the consumer as to the specifics of the course or area of study being NQA recognised compared to just being a “NQA registered” institution. This will be done not only through a complaint resolution given by a consumer, but also formal investigation and the civil investigative demand (CID).
Plainly put, under the new proposed law, the Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) will be able to research and identify seller(s) that violate the principles of the law, and undertake formal investigation on behalf of a group of consumers experiencing similar problems. If the CPC finds that there has been a violation of the law, they will be able to enforce the appropriate remedial action as well as penalties for the violation. This penalty or fine might also include refunding of consumers monies, even if that specific consumer was not one of the consumer who originally brought the complaint.
Knowing this law is on its way will certain make my sleep come a little easier, that is if Captain Adorable allows it.
The past few weeks have been very hectic in the Shaanika-Louw household as Captain Adorable starts on the journey of “real foods”. Waking up at night to soothe a crying child brings reality to a parent on what we do in the hope of giving our child the best opportunity in life.
Regardless of how young our children are, all parents worry about the day the child is going to be grown up enough to leave the nest. This is why we take out study insurance policies etc. as we consider whether we, as the parents, will be able to give our children that “right start” to life with a quality education.
The Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade and SME Development is in the final stages of submitting the Consumer Protection Policy and Act to Cabinet before it goes to the legal drafters for submission as a Bill to Parliament. The technical committee responsible for the process must be commended for looking at a principle-based approach rather than a rule-based regulation environment for Namibia.
Without going into too much legalese, this means that under the proposed Namibia Consumer Protection Act, the regulator will work on the “ex post” application principle. In other words, the regulatory principle is applied against specific conduct of a regulated entity ONLY AFTER the conduct has occurred. This is in comparison to a “ex ante” determination principle where the regulator must state exactly what the regulated entity must, or must not, do to comply with the rules before the business engages in the conduct.
Lying in the dark after the Captain has fallen back to sleep allows me to reflect on what exactly the consumer protection environment will mean – not only for me and mine, but also for you and yours in this country. For most of my life I have been engaged in the teaching profession, first as an IT Junior Lecturer and later as a distance tutor at a local education institution offering Cambridge University qualifications.
This very important industry (yes it is a business) has mushroomed in the past few years with the only regulations seeming to come from the Namibian Qualifications Authority (NQA). The NQA has the responsibility of evaluating the educational institution, and more specifically the actual courses the institution provides. In other words, the education institution you send your child to might be accredited, but the actual course your child is following might not be a recognised NQA qualification.
Under our present laws there is very little that a parent can do once their child has completed course and they find out that it is not recognised in the work environment. After all, we all expect that once our child has received a quality (expensive) education that this will allow them to get a good paying position that they may be able to care for themselves. If this happens to you, you have very little recourse to the law as Namibia still adheres to the principle of “buyer beware” or in Latin, “Caveat Emptor”.
Under the proposed new consumer law, the regulator will be able to take action against such educational institutions which mislead the consumer as to the specifics of the course or area of study being NQA recognised compared to just being a “NQA registered” institution. This will be done not only through a complaint resolution given by a consumer, but also formal investigation and the civil investigative demand (CID).
Plainly put, under the new proposed law, the Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) will be able to research and identify seller(s) that violate the principles of the law, and undertake formal investigation on behalf of a group of consumers experiencing similar problems. If the CPC finds that there has been a violation of the law, they will be able to enforce the appropriate remedial action as well as penalties for the violation. This penalty or fine might also include refunding of consumers monies, even if that specific consumer was not one of the consumer who originally brought the complaint.
Knowing this law is on its way will certain make my sleep come a little easier, that is if Captain Adorable allows it.
Making the poor consumer pay for the privilege of the rich
(First appeared in New Era 3 June 2015)
In 2006, I was privileged to attend the public meetings at Parliament in Windhoek to address the high cost of finance (especially bank finance) in the country. The late Hon. Reinhard (Kalla) Gertze, Member of Parliament, had proposed an investigation into the financial institutions through public hearings of the Parliamentary Committee on Economics, Natural Resources and Public Administration. (This Parliamentary Committee was then under the chairpersonship of our present President, Dr. Hage Geingob.)They held public hearings on bank charges and regulations and one of the submissions, by a banking institution, outlined why interest is charged.
In their submission, the bank explained that in the beginning of banking, interest was used to offset the risk of providing the credit to the borrower. There are four risks (hazards), namely a) The costs incurred by the bank while providing the loan had to be repaid; b) Inflation means the lender will be able to buy less for the money as time passes; c) Scarcity – in other words once it is lent to a borrower at a specific rate, it cannot be used for another loan; and d) That the borrower cannot pay back the loan. Further, the bank indicated that of these four, the only real difference the government can make is in reducing the risk of borrower’s inability to repay.
This topic has been written about before in my newspaper columns and blogs and the reader is encouraged to learn more about credit risk and how to minimise their perceived risk, as this the amount of interest they would be paying on their loans.
This week however, I was reminded about the topic of interest for an entirely different reason. I was reading an article wherein one of our municipalities was quoted as stating the varying prices for pre-paid and post-paid electricity is. What had me sit up and take notice was that the prepaid electricity was at least one-third more expensive that the post-paid price per unit.
Let me repeat that again: If I give my money for electricity that I will use in future, I have to pay a lot more that the customer who has already used the electricity and only has to pay some thirty days or more after using it. Somewhere this flies totally in the face of the market economic rules that I have been taught.
In my limited understanding, a bank or service provider would like to get the money from your pocket into theirs as soon as possible. If they can get you to purchase the service before you even use it, it means they have money for something they have not yet created. If however, they give you the service or product on credit, it means that they have already spent the money on creating that product and now have to wait to recoup their investment. Thus any properly run business would give you the same product for cheaper IF you paid for it before usage as they would be having the money before they have to spent it in creating the product.
Now why are municipalities (and cellular providers) charging you the consumer more for a product which by free market definition should be sold to you for cheaper because you are paying for it before the product was actually consumed? This opportunity cost being lost due to post-paid accounts is not seen in their bill, but rather in the bill of the poor consumer - who has no choice in having a prepaid meter - and is being made to bear the cost.
If we in Namibia are to talk about being “pro-poor”, we have to recognise that these business practices by private and public business are deliberately making the lower-income consumers pay more because of their ignorance. In my mind it is even worse because the product or service being sold is easily manipulated by the seller to increase their profits without any interference or agreement by the consumer.
In 2006, I was privileged to attend the public meetings at Parliament in Windhoek to address the high cost of finance (especially bank finance) in the country. The late Hon. Reinhard (Kalla) Gertze, Member of Parliament, had proposed an investigation into the financial institutions through public hearings of the Parliamentary Committee on Economics, Natural Resources and Public Administration. (This Parliamentary Committee was then under the chairpersonship of our present President, Dr. Hage Geingob.)They held public hearings on bank charges and regulations and one of the submissions, by a banking institution, outlined why interest is charged.
In their submission, the bank explained that in the beginning of banking, interest was used to offset the risk of providing the credit to the borrower. There are four risks (hazards), namely a) The costs incurred by the bank while providing the loan had to be repaid; b) Inflation means the lender will be able to buy less for the money as time passes; c) Scarcity – in other words once it is lent to a borrower at a specific rate, it cannot be used for another loan; and d) That the borrower cannot pay back the loan. Further, the bank indicated that of these four, the only real difference the government can make is in reducing the risk of borrower’s inability to repay.
This topic has been written about before in my newspaper columns and blogs and the reader is encouraged to learn more about credit risk and how to minimise their perceived risk, as this the amount of interest they would be paying on their loans.
This week however, I was reminded about the topic of interest for an entirely different reason. I was reading an article wherein one of our municipalities was quoted as stating the varying prices for pre-paid and post-paid electricity is. What had me sit up and take notice was that the prepaid electricity was at least one-third more expensive that the post-paid price per unit.
Let me repeat that again: If I give my money for electricity that I will use in future, I have to pay a lot more that the customer who has already used the electricity and only has to pay some thirty days or more after using it. Somewhere this flies totally in the face of the market economic rules that I have been taught.
In my limited understanding, a bank or service provider would like to get the money from your pocket into theirs as soon as possible. If they can get you to purchase the service before you even use it, it means they have money for something they have not yet created. If however, they give you the service or product on credit, it means that they have already spent the money on creating that product and now have to wait to recoup their investment. Thus any properly run business would give you the same product for cheaper IF you paid for it before usage as they would be having the money before they have to spent it in creating the product.
Now why are municipalities (and cellular providers) charging you the consumer more for a product which by free market definition should be sold to you for cheaper because you are paying for it before the product was actually consumed? This opportunity cost being lost due to post-paid accounts is not seen in their bill, but rather in the bill of the poor consumer - who has no choice in having a prepaid meter - and is being made to bear the cost.
If we in Namibia are to talk about being “pro-poor”, we have to recognise that these business practices by private and public business are deliberately making the lower-income consumers pay more because of their ignorance. In my mind it is even worse because the product or service being sold is easily manipulated by the seller to increase their profits without any interference or agreement by the consumer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)