On Thursday, May
5, 2022, whilst topping my mobile wallet –not e-levied – a conversation
ensued between the vendor and another client:
Client:(Sternly)
I am withdrawing money from my account; don’t you dare tax me even one Cedi!
Vendor: Withdrawal from your account does not attract e-Levy.
Client: (Smiling) Really, no e-Levy?
Vendor: No. Transferring money to another person’s wallet attracts e-Levy, not
your own withdrawal. (Vendor and I chorused): You are fighting what you do not even understand.
The exchange reminded me of two national policies that
suffered ignorant antipathy: At the maiden plenary session of the 2007
Educational Review, the Director of Curriculum Review and Development Design,
now NaCCA, lamented that the Religious and Moral Education subject was not impacting
moral values of pupils, focus on religious issues notwithstanding. A lengthy
debate in the succeeding sessions culminated in the consensus that rather than teach/learn
values in isolation under one subject, moral values should be worked into all
the subjects. Social Studies would tackle religious issues.
The Director’s logic still resonates with me: Market
women knock inwards the bottom of measuring tins for grains, short-changing
customers. Scales are also adjusted to cheat customers. In a pragmatic discussion
of addition or percentages, teachers could explain that a tampered tin or
adjusted scales do not give expected value for money – Dishonest. All subject
areas, including English Language, worked assiduously to incorporate moral and
cultural values into lessons, also managing social-emotional learning. It was a
strenuous effort to render education practical.
The Reviewers never expected the hue and cry that
greeted the first draft syllabus over the removal of Religious and Moral
Education. The most vociferous protest came from the Churches. Apparently, the
Review Committee and the sitting Government were antichrist to dare remove such
a subject. Through all the pontification, however, I gleaned that they had not
read the syllabi. The superficially about subject removal, disregarding
rationale and replacement effort, was numbing.
The subjected was reinstated; paradoxically, pupil morality
has continued to dip to the lowest ebb. Eighteen years later, we are harvesting
increasing basic school alcohol/drug addiction, materialism, immorality
culminating in teenage pregnancies, unplanned births, unnecessary curtailment
of girl/child education, and a perpetuation of female dependency and poverty
statuses. Could we, possibly, have done better with the original 2007 curriculum
draft?
The Comprehensive Sex Education concept yielded
another national hollow ruckus from the uniformed. One Monday, I was meeting
four professional groups, so I sought learner perspective. Their only apprehension
was the open discussion of sex, arguing it would arouse children’s curiosity. I
explained it was purported to open discussion on sex, sensitize children, among
others, about being touched wrongly, even by parents, potentially raise assertive
children to resist/reduce child molestation, promote responsible attitude
towards sex. I asked who had read the document. No one in four tertiary professional
groups had read the document, yet they were condemning it.
The dialogue above starkly reminded me that we are
treading the same alliterate route with E-Levy, so I ask ALL adversaries: Have
you read the document? If any antagonist, like the client above, has not
read and understood taxed items, exemptions, what is the moral grounds for heightened
antagonism? Sheer antipathy to taxation – civic responsibility?
Residents who have embraced superficiality are not
interested in adjustments for genuine human resource development and
empowerment. If we treaded a literate course, all radio and TV stations
would devote an hour each day to explain the E-Levy through knowledgeable tax personnel
throughout 2022. Pressure groups and Ghanaian think tanks would collaborate
with the NCCE and Ghana Revenue Authority/Ministry of Education/Adult
Education/the Media to simultaneously design grassroots education and critique
the process to straighten Government.
A literate Ghana would be critically poring over the
tax details for responsibilities, exemptions, potential for national economic
sustenance. An analytical Ghana would be scrutinizing the digitization process GRA
is utilizing for fair taxation, the savvy of ICT personnel involved, the
competence and integrity of communication service providers/Momo operators, the
technological knowledge/infrastructure they have for competent services. We
have responsibilities! My question to each stakeholder: Have you read the
E-Levy document?
No comments:
Post a Comment