Waste Of Money.

[ascona]

Senegal one of the poorest countries in Africa, spends £18m for a statue and the president proposes to take 35% of any revenue it generates in the future.

Can someone explain to me, why this man is fit to be a president?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/africa/8601382.stm

[imhotep]

Senegal one of the poorest countries in Africa, spends £18m for a statue and the president proposes to take 35% of any revenue it generates in the future.

Can someone explain to me, why this man is fit to be a president?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/africa/8601382.stm

I know I will take alot of flack for this.... You have brought forth some interesting news articles worthy of a debate but your entry point leaves a lot to be desired.

If you frame your question properly and by that I dont mean syntax, then a healthy debate can commence. I dont know your take on this matter or your points for or against it. By formulating an idea, a point or a stand the debate can commence.....

"Can some one explain to me, why this man is fit to be president?" What is this.. ? What is your definition of fit? Can we use that definition to measure other senegalese and africans at large? Does fit means physical, mental acuity, educational achievements, Artistic appreciation, or prior Ocupation and or experience...? Give us something to work with bro......

Is it your intention to discuss the statue, it cost, it supposed economical benefit or lack thereoff to the people of Senegal? What are we suppose to be working with here bro?

Anywas we are in the Easter Weekend so I will leave it at that.. but am sure you get my drift....

[ascona]

I know I will take alot of flack for this.... You have brought forth some interesting news articles worthy of a debate but your entry point leaves a lot to be desired.

If you frame your question properly and by that I dont mean syntax, then a healthy debate can commence. I dont know your take on this matter or your points for or against it. By formulating an idea, a point or a stand the debate can commence.....

"Can some one explain to me, why this man is fit to be president?" What is this.. ? What is your definition of fit? Can we use that definition to measure other senegalese and africans at large? Does fit means physical, mental acuity, educational achievements, Artistic appreciation, or prior Ocupation and or experience...? Give us something to work with bro......

Is it your intention to discuss the statue, it cost, it supposed economical benefit or lack thereoff to the people of Senegal? What are we suppose to be working with here bro?

Anywas we are in the Easter Weekend so I will leave it at that.. but am sure you get my drift....

A president is suppose to put the nation interest first, so if he comes out with an idea which he uses the tax payer cash to implement it, why should he think he deserves 35% of the revenue of the project? That is what I meant by not fit for office because he is thinking of his own interest.

[imhotep]

A president is suppose to put the nation interest first, so if he comes out with an idea which he uses the tax payer cash to implement it, why should he think he deserves 35% of the revenue of the project? That is what I meant by not fit for office because he is thinking of his own interest.

So why didnt you articulate that point in the first place? It is not that I agree with what you have written.. I just wont dignify it with a response... because it is devoid of any critical thinking....

Have a Blessed Easter...

[ascona]

So why didnt you articulate that point in the first place? It is not that I agree with what you have written.. I just wont dignify it with a response... because it is devoid of any critical thinking....

Have a Blessed Easter...

If you disagree with me and you won't put your point of view for the debate to go on, then fair enough.

Have a nice one too.

[imhotep]

If you disagree with me and you won't put your point of view for the debate to go on, then fair enough.

Have a nice one too.

The thing is you have not articulated any point.... you have attempted to pose some questions...., questions for which you already have answers....

Take a stand so we can know where you are coming from then we can agree or disagree providing our point of view...

Let me engage you.... If he wasnt a president would you have issue with him taking 35% of generated income for royalties? Are presidents not suppose to protect their interest? How does taking 35% amount to putting his interest before the nation.. One can argue that by erecting or commissioning the statue he has put forward the nations interest first. Whether you agree with him or not, there is a vision of a touristic value to the statue... this tourist attraction will bring people to senegal thereby generating direct and or indirect employment...There are a myriads of ways of looking at it.. That is why i have asked you to take a stand for once in your life...

Musician, painters, everybody gets royalties for their work.. why shouldnt he gets royalties.. Now you can argue that 35% is to steep, but then what is the rule for payment of royalties in Senegal? See what am saying....

[ascona]

The thing is you have not articulated any point.... you have attempted to pose some questions...., questions for which you already have answers....

Take a stand so we can know where you are coming from then we can agree or disagree providing our point of view...

Let me engage you.... If he wasnt a president would you have issue with him taking 35% of generated income for royalties? Are presidents not suppose to protect their interest? How does taking 35% amount to putting his interest before the nation.. One can argue that by erecting or commissioning the statue he has put forward the nations interest first. Whether you agree with him or not, there is a vision of a touristic value to the statue... this tourist attraction will bring people to senegal thereby generating direct and or indirect employment...There are a myriads of ways of looking at it.. That is why i have asked you to take a stand for once in your life...

Musician, painters, everybody gets royalties for their work.. why shouldnt he gets royalties.. Now you can argue that 35% is to steep, but then what is the rule for payment of royalties in Senegal? See what am saying....

You are wrong to say he deserve royalty and to make comparison between him and people who have invested their money and talent to make money, he is using TAX PAYERS cash so he doesn't deserve a CENT.

According to WHO one in five of Senegales children suffers from malnutrition so I think the money used for the statue will be best use to feed them.

[imhotep]

You are wrong to say he deserve royalty and to make comparison between him and people who have invested their money and talent to make money, he is using TAX PAYERS cash so he doesn't deserve a CENT.

According to WHO one in five of Senegales children suffers from malnutrition so I think the money used for the statue will be best use to feed them.

When I said you were devoid of any critical thinking, I really meant that, and please do not take it as an insult, take it as a call to look closely to issues before making pronouncement.......

There is no where I said he deserves royalties, I posed a rhetorical question.. but i guess that too is foreign to you..

Maybe you should go and read about the statue.... The question of royalties has nothing to do with who built the statue, the question of royalties has nothing to do with which govt built the statue......Musicians, Painters and Artist in general get royalties not because of the work they did...I know you wont understand (gauging from your ramblings here) so am going to explain it to you in laymans terms....A musician aka singer and performer.. will popularize and or perform a song and gets paid for that.. but you know what he/she probably didnt write the song... The writer gets royalties for the song each time it is performed or aired on the radio(among other agreed terms with the musician).. because, it was the writer who did the thinking, it was the writer who dreamt of the song, it was the writer's idea. If the Musician or artist wrote his own songs, then he gets paid twice one for performces among other stuff and the other for royalties and that royalties goes beyond his own performances....

An artist may do a painting Job and sells it to an individual.. If that painting is to be featured anywhere else that generates money.. the painter(artist) gets royalties....It is the painter who dreamed of the idea....not the person who bought the painting... Yes the buyer get some good chunck too..

In the case of the statue...strangely as it may sound to you, it was the president who dreamt of the idea and that is why he is entitled to royalties. As to whether he cashes in on that check is a whole different ball game that can be debated.

Am sure according to the same WHO there are people in England suffering from malnutrition.. maybe you can get the Brown/Blair Adminstration to stop the war in Afganistan and Iraq and use the money to feed them.

So according to you, he should have used the $27 million to feed the children.. and when it finishes where would he get another 27milllion to feed them yet again.. The statue will generate income for a life time so those people and their dependent wont have to depend on govt for a handout but you dont see that in your myopic visions...

Unless you are willing to articulate a point all you are doing is throwing mud hoping one would stick to the wall.

[ascona]

When I said you were devoid of any critical thinking, I really meant that, and please do not take it as an insult, take it as a call to look closely to issues before making pronouncement.......

There is no where I said he deserves royalties, I posed a rhetorical question.. but i guess that too is foreign to you..

Maybe you should go and read about the statue.... The question of royalties has nothing to do with who built the statue, the question of royalties has nothing to do with which govt built the statue......Musicians, Painters and Artist in general get royalties not because of the work they did...I know you wont understand (gauging from your ramblings here) so am going to explain it to you in laymans terms....A musician aka singer and performer.. will popularize and or perform a song and gets paid for that.. but you know what he/she probably didnt write the song... The writer gets royalties for the song each time it is performed or aired on the radio(among other agreed terms with the musician).. because, it was the writer who did the thinking, it was the writer who dreamt of the song, it was the writer's idea. If the Musician or artist wrote his own songs, then he gets paid twice one for performces among other stuff and the other for royalties and that royalties goes beyond his own performances....

An artist may do a painting Job and sells it to an individual.. If that painting is to be featured anywhere else that generates money.. the painter(artist) gets royalties....It is the painter who dreamed of the idea....not the person who bought the painting... Yes the buyer get some good chunck too..

In the case of the statue...strangely as it may sound to you, it was the president who dreamt of the idea and that is why he is entitled to royalties. As to whether he cashes in on that check is a whole different ball game that can be debated.

Am sure according to the same WHO there are people in England suffering from malnutrition.. maybe you can get the Brown/Blair Adminstration to stop the war in Afganistan and Iraq and use the money to feed them.

So according to you, he should have used the $27 million to feed the children.. and when it finishes where would he get another 27milllion to feed them yet again.. The statue will generate income for a life time so those people and their dependent wont have to depend on govt for a handout but you dont see that in your myopic visions...

Unless you are willing to articulate a point all you are doing is throwing mud hoping one would stick to the wall.

You always want to have it both ways. You have to make up your mind whether he deserves royalties or not.

In terms of the revenue the statue will generate, it is an assumption, whether it will materialize or not is yet to be seen. The fact is, there are a lot of hungry kids in that country who need to be fed.

When we are debating about Africa , I don't know why you always try to drag the west into it. I did not mention the west because none of their leaders will suggest a 35% cut of a national project.

[imhotep]

You always want to have it both ways. You have to make up your mind whether he deserves royalties or not.

In terms of the revenue the statue will generate, it is an assumption, whether it will materialize or not is yet to be seen. The fact is, there are a lot of hungry kids in that country who need to be fed.

When we are debating about Africa , I don't know why you always try to drag the west into it. I did not mention the west because none of their leaders will suggest a 35% cut of a national project.

I beg oooooooooooooooooh, What is your position ? Is that something so difficult to articulate?

Listen, if he as the president came up wih the idea and by idea i mean the concept of the statue and details then he is entitled to royalties.... Whether he as a president want to cash the check is a different ball game
If you think I want to have it both ways then i feel sorry for you.......

So why did you involve the UN? and I thought the west was part of the UN... the Only reason I mentioned Britain is because presumably, you are in britain. Secondly, in your ongoing lack of analysis you missed the point i was trying to impress upon you.. which is, there will always be hungry and malnourished children not only in Senegal but Britain and the world at large. While we have to address that issue it shouldnt stop us or the president of Senegal from implementing other equally important projects.... and it is for this same reason the British are in Afganistan and Iraq supposedly fighting an ideology....am sure the amount of money spent on the war could give a lot of people in britain a quality of life they never dreamed off... If you can not see that rationale then indeed you need help.

Please am begging you.... I really want to have this debate but for me to do so, you have to articulate your point very succintly.....What is it you are against or support.. and what are your reasons? These are the thing our readers want to know...

Oh I almost forgot entitle to something is not the same as deserving something.. just in case you thought they were the same...

[ascona]

I beg oooooooooooooooooh, What is your position ? Is that something so difficult to articulate?

Listen, if he as the president came up wih the idea and by idea i mean the concept of the statue and details then he is entitled to royalties.... Whether he as a president want to cash the check is a different ball game
If you think I want to have it both ways then i feel sorry for you.......

So why did you involve the UN? and I thought the west was part of the UN... the Only reason I mentioned Britain is because presumably, you are in britain. Secondly, in your ongoing lack of analysis you missed the point i was trying to impress upon you.. which is, there will always be hungry and malnourished children not only in Senegal but Britain and the world at large. While we have to address that issue it shouldnt stop us or the president of Senegal from implementing other equally important projects.... and it is for this same reason the British are in Afganistan and Iraq supposedly fighting an ideology....am sure the amount of money spent on the war could give a lot of people in britain a quality of life they never dreamed off... If you can not see that rationale then indeed you need help.

Please am begging you.... I really want to have this debate but for me to do so, you have to articulate your point very succintly.....What is it you are against or support.. and what are your reasons? These are the thing our readers want to know...

Oh I almost forgot entitle to something is not the same as deserving something.. just in case you thought they were the same...

I have made my position clear, I think the money should have been spent on something else not a statue for tourist attraction because you can't guarantee the revenue focussed. They should have used the money to feed the one in five children suffering from malnutrition. In the UK they built a billion pounds doom to mark the millennium with a lot of attractions, which they focussed that the cost incurred will be pay for, by the visitors to the doom, it became a white elephant and the govt struggled to sell it off, at a loss.

Is only in Africa that a president will think he/she is entitle to a royalty for an idea he/she came out with, to benefit their country, I thought that is why one should seek for the presidency of a country, not to propose a 35% cut of a national project paid for by the TAX PAYER. Can you image any western leader seeking for a royalty of any tax payer project, whether the idea is theirs or not?

I don't want to deviate from this topic but I will like to tackle your assumption of malnutrition of children in the UK, I can assure you if there is one in the UK, then is due to the parents or guardians cruelty and is hidden. Because any sign of malnutrition of a child here, and the parents or guardians will be in trouble. Here children are weighed in the primary schools.

[imhotep]

I have made my position clear, I think the money should have been spent on something else not a statue for tourist attraction because you can't guarantee the revenue focussed, especially when there are one in five children suffering from malnutrition. In the UK they built a billion pounds doom to mark the millennium with a lot of attractions, which they focussed that the cost incurred will be pay for, by the visitors to the doom, it became a white elephant and the govt struggled to sell it off, at a loss.

Is only in Africa that a president will think he/she is entitle to a royalty for an idea he/she came out with, to benefit their country, I thought that is why one should seek for the presidency of a country, not to propose a 35% cut of a national project paid for by the TAX PAYER. Can you image any western leader seeking for a royalty of any tax payer project, whether the idea is theirs or not?

I don't want to deviate from this topic but I will like to tackle your assumption of malnutrition of children in the UK, I can assure you if there is one in the UK, then is due to the parents or guardians cruelty and is hidden. Because any sign of malnutrition of a child here, and the parents or guardians will be in trouble. Here children are weighed in the primary schools.

First you asked if he is fit ? of course you didn't define fit...
Then you said he does not deserve a cent...without any substantiation..
Now you say the money should have been spent somewhere else...again without any justification....

You must take a principled position and then defend that position.... We or your readers can then agree or disagree with you...

I think you are a very confused young man... I don't blame you....I think the fish and chips have gotten to you. The President is entitle to royalties under what we call Intellectual Property Rights. If you want to argue that the creation is not his Idea that is fine, but once you agree that it was his idea ( conceptualization ) then you have to agree that he is entitle to Royalties. If they make money he gets paid, if they don't make money then he does not get paid.

As the president, whether it is prudent for him to cash that money is a different ball game... Having a Right does not mean you must exercise it at all cost. As a young Ghanaian, you have a right to return to your Motherland Ghana, whether you choose to exercise that right in light of your current situation is a different story, but nevertheless you have that right. The Point am trying to impress upon you is that Having a Right and Exercising that right are two different things and shouldn't be confused...

The Project Construction was indeed paid for by the TAXPAYERS, but the president is not claiming 35% of the construction cost... The president is claiming 35% of the revenue the Art work will generate if any, in the future.. These are two different things young man....

You are very laughable to think there is no malnutrition in Britain.. The cause of that malnutrition as presented by you is purely academic and does not serve any purpose in this debate.. It is like a drunkard using a lamppost...he uses it for support not for illumination...

Again your citation of the British dome does not serve you well..because there will always be issues that need addressing but those issues didn't stop the British govt from going ahead with the project. Base on that, we too can say yes there is malnutrition in Senegal and Africa at large which need addressing....Spending 27million dollars feeding the children wont take that problem away because once the 27million is gone we would be back to square one... We must address the root cause by generating employments opportunities and it is in this light you must look at the Statue project...There is no doubt it would generate employment and revenue...It generated employment during it construction, it continue to generate employment in its maintenance and daily running's.. It will also generate indirect employment through service rendered to tourist both local and foreign. As to the amount of money it will generate, you are right, no body knows. As the Chinese say, you don't give the hungry man a bag full of rice, you show him how to grow the rice so he will never again be hungry

[ascona]

First you asked if he is fit ? of course you didn't define fit...
Then you said he does not deserve a cent...without any substantiation..
Now you say the money should have been spent somewhere else...again without any justification....

You must take a principled position and then defend that position.... We or your readers can then agree or disagree with you...

I think you are a very confused young man... I don't blame you....I think the fish and chips have gotten to you. The President is entitle to royalties under what we call Intellectual Property Rights. If you want to argue that the creation is not his Idea that is fine, but once you agree that it was his idea ( conceptualization ) then you have to agree that he is entitle to Royalties. If they make money he gets paid, if they don't make money then he does not get paid.

As the president, whether it is prudent for him to cash that money is a different ball game... Having a Right does not mean you must exercise it at all cost. As a young Ghanaian, you have a right to return to your Motherland Ghana, whether you choose to exercise that right in light of your current situation is a different story, but nevertheless you have that right. The Point am trying to impress upon you is that Having a Right and Exercising that right are two different things and shouldn't be confused...

The Project Construction was indeed paid for by the TAXPAYERS, but the president is not claiming 35% of the construction cost... The president is claiming 35% of the revenue the Art work will generate if any, in the future.. These are two different things young man....

You are very laughable to think there is no malnutrition in Britain.. The cause of that malnutrition as presented by you is purely academic and does not serve any purpose in this debate.. It is like a drunkard using a lamppost...he uses it for support not for illumination...

Again your citation of the British dome does not serve you well..because there will always be issues that need addressing but those issues didn't stop the British govt from going ahead with the project. Base on that, we too can say yes there is malnutrition in Senegal and Africa at large which need addressing....Spending 27million dollars feeding the children wont take that problem away because once the 27million is gone we would be back to square one... We must address the root cause by generating employments opportunities and it is in this light you must look at the Statue project...There is no doubt it would generate employment and revenue...It generated employment during it construction, it continue to generate employment in its maintenance and daily running's.. It will also generate indirect employment through service rendered to tourist both local and foreign. As to the amount of money it will generate, you are right, no body knows. As the Chinese say, you don't give the hungry man a bag full of rice, you show him how to grow the rice so he will never again be hungry

Do not forget the construction where done by mainly North Koreans not the Senegalese.

Why are you finding it difficult to get my position? I have said, it is a waste of money and the money could have been better spent in feeding the hungry kids, built a hospital or use in a project which will create jobs and not a statue, which depends on whether people will pay to watch it or not.

It is not the best way to spend money in a country with a very limited resources. This project is an ideal of a president who want to be remembered by this statue and nothing else. And just by chance if it generates some cash he wants 35% of it. If it doesn't generate enough cash spent on the statue they should ask him to pay back the short fall since the idea is his.

[imhotep]

Do not forget the construction where done by mainly North Koreans not the Senegalese.

Why are you finding it difficult to get my position? I have said, it is a waste of money and the money could have been better spent in feeding the hungry kids, built a hospital or use in a project which will create jobs and not a statue, which depends on whether people will pay to watch it or not.

It is not the best way to spend money in a country with a very limited resources. This project is an ideal of a president who want to be remembered by this statue and nothing else. And just by chance if it generates some cash he wants 35% of it. If it doesn't generate enough cash spent on the statue they should ask him to pay back the short fall since the idea is his.

One of my professors once said.. "There are lot of us who can read and write but we hardly understand what we read or write...." Did I say the construction was done mainly by senegalese? If you say it was done mainly by Koreans by implication you are also saying another set of people complemented the Korean and those set are Senegales and other people in the area thereby validating my point that the construction did indeed create jobs...I notice you didnt mention anything about those who are currently running the shows i mean maintenance and the dailly running.. are they also koreans?

"Use in a project which would create Jobs" I have already pointed out to you that the statue has and continue to create Job.. so I take it that you are now coming around....

"Waste of money" as for this one deeeeere... I have to quote my profesor from Tierra... "por favor fundamente su respuesta" I have shown you the ways it is going to generate direct and indirect employment.. if you have reasons to believe that is false please counter this with valid argument...Now like I said you can claim that it wont meet it revenue generation targets.. that is fine but neverthelese it is generating revenue... Please do not insult the intelligence of our readers....Please provide us with the impirical values that indeed the statue has been a waste of money... you remind me of a joke President Obamah gave.. about a farmer planting his seeds the nite before and coming in the Morning and recognizing the plant has not even germinated.. and he starting shouting doom and gloom.. we are going to die of hunger.. It is not even one day yet, he wants to see plant germinating....

Far as I know there is no indication that the president is cashing any 35% of future earnings, but he has asserted that right, it does not mean he would be cashing it.. Again my young brother.. Asserting a right is to make known that you have that right.....it does not mean you intend to carry it out...

have a good one compay...

[cosh]

So far between the two forummers there has been a lot of questions and statements made so far. At this point I would like to comment on a few of them.

First, I do not think a president of a country should be entitled to any royalties for conceptualizing any project. The president is employed by the people to lead and guide the country with his ideas and work, for which we pay him/her handsomely. As long as he work for us, every idea/work commissioned by the people or on behalf of the people, belong to the people; all royalties belong to the people.

Unless the contract between people and president specifically states that, the president shall keep ownership of intellectual property, then it belongs to the state.

On the other hand, is the project beneficial to the country? I do not think the answer to that can be simplified by saying that the money should have been spent on feeding the hungry kids. There are still going to be hungry kids with or without that project. The solutions to child malnutrition and all the other ills of our societies, include feeding the children(immediate) and investing for the children's future(long term) so that they will be able to feed themselves. One way is to invest in job-creating and income-generating projects and businesses for which tourism is one of them.

Was a proper cost/benefit analysis done or was it just a pet/self-enriching project by the president of Senegal?

[imhotep]

So far between the two forummers there has been a lot of questions and statements made so far. At this point I would like to comment on a few of them.

First, I do not think a president of a country should be entitled to any royalties for conceptualizing any project. The president is employed by the people to lead and guide the country with his ideas and work, for which we pay him/her handsomely. As long as he work for us, every idea/work commissioned by the people or on behalf of the people, belong to the people; all royalties belong to the people.

Unless the contract between people and president specifically states that, the president shall keep ownership of intellectual property, then it belongs to the state.

On the other hand, is the project beneficial to the country? I do not think the answer to that can be simplified by saying that the money should have been spent on feeding the hungry kids. There are still going to be hungry kids with or without that project. The solutions to child malnutrition and all the other ills of our societies, include feeding the children(immediate) and investing for the children's future(long term) so that they will be able to feed themselves. One way is to invest in job-creating and income-generating projects and businesses for which tourism is one of them.

Was a proper cost/benefit analysis done or was it just a pet/self-enriching project by the president of Senegal?

Thank you sire....these are the things I suggestted the brother articulate so we can have a proper debate.. Throwing spurious questions around doesnt do justice to the topic and our forumers at large...

I honestly dont believe the president should cash in on the royalties. Whether he is entitled to it is a different case and I will tell you why..... The president is not employed as an Artist. if he was instrumental in this project...that is, conceptualization(design principle not project), the artistic details and sketches etc etc then there is a property right issue here. We have to establish that fact.. who has claim to that property right can be debated whether it is the president or the person who actualy did the final drawings and casting...

Remember I posed the question, will there be an issues if somebody else was claiming royalties? And the answer is a resounding no...maybe 35% is too steep.. but there is no question somebody is entitled to royalties....I guess if the president was to write a book, he is not entitled to take home the proceeds from the sale of the book while he is still president!! Because, we probably could argue he wrote the book while on the Job..and so that is the peoples money....

Once we have establish that fact about royalties and property right, then the question which needs addressing is this, should he as the president actually cash in or make good on the royalties...but we shouldnt deny him or anybody else that right by the mere fact that he is the president...

Well, your second point, while good is a rehash of what I have stated previously so I wont expound on that and will spare our forumers the horrors....

I look forward to your contributions.. dont stay on the sidelines for too long...

[cosh]

I honestly dont believe the president should cash in on the royalties. Whether he is entitled to it is a different case and I will tell you why..... The president is not employed as an Artist. if he was instrumental in this project...that is, conceptualization(design principle not project), the artistic details and sketches etc etc then there is a property right issue here. We have to establish that fact.. who has claim to that property right can be debated whether it is the president or the person who actualy did the final drawings and casting...

Remember I posed the question, will there be an issues if somebody else was claiming royalties? And the answer is a resounding no...maybe 35% is too steep.. but there is no question somebody is entitled to royalties....I guess if the president was to write a book, he is not entitled to take home the proceeds from the sale of the book while he is still president!! Because, we probably could argue he wrote the book while on the Job..and so that is the peoples money....

Once we have establish that fact about royalties and property right, then the question which needs addressing is this, should he as the president actually cash in or make good on the royalties...but we shouldnt deny him or anybody else that right by the mere fact that he is the president...


I think we both agree on most aspects of this issue, but I do disagree with you regarding the intellectual property rights.

The position of president is a very influential one. In his/her line of duty, the president regularly envisions and conceptualizes ideas some of which are taken by technocrats, artist, specialist, etc, who sometimes studies/detail them further with the hope of implementing them. We do not pay the president for that because it's considered as part of their job.

There is an issue of conflict of interest and corruption if a president or a public official is paid or given intellectual property rights under these circumstances, because they hold the power to give out or can influence the reward of these contracts. For the sake of good governance, transparency and public confidence in the various public institutions, presidents and all public officials should not be allowed to offer contracts to themselves, relatives or close associates.

[theomagnusen]

A president is suppose to put the nation interest first, so if he comes out with an idea which he uses the tax payer cash to implement it, why should he think he deserves 35% of the revenue of the project? That is what I meant by not fit for office because he is thinking of his own interest.
Mr Ascona,i sincerely tot the new year brought new way and form of thinking and doing things to each one of us but i realized you want to drag the whole house to the mud with your new philosophy.Please all we want is a clear stand on the point so that we could have a reasonable debate.Till then,all that you have said here can simply be considered as empty drums.

[imhotep]

I think we both agree on most aspects of this issue, but I do disagree with you regarding the intellectual property rights.

The position of president is a very influential one. In his/her line of duty, the president regularly envisions and conceptualizes ideas some of which are taken by technocrats, artist, specialist, etc, who sometimes studies/detail them further with the hope of implementing them. We do not pay the president for that because it's considered as part of their job.

There is an issue of conflict of interest and corruption if a president or a public official is paid or given intellectual property rights under these circumstances, because they hold the power to give out or can influence the reward of these contracts. For the sake of good governance, transparency and public confidence in the various public institutions, presidents and all public officials should not be allowed to offer contracts to themselves, relatives or close associates.

Ok Cosh... let me ask you the same question i asked brother Ascona...
if the statue was drawn, designed, technical details by another person not related to the current govt... would that person be entitled to property right? would that person also be entitled to royalties ? If the answer is yes then it does not matter if that person happens to be president.

The issues of influence and corruption has no bearing on property rights...Yes we should address those issues... by making the bidding and assigning of project as transparent as possible.

The president does not need to claim royalties to be involved in corruption.. The project could have been given entirely to another person and the president could have gotten a kick back....

So once we have agreed on who owns the rights, the next issue that needs addressing is whether he/she should accept payment or donate etc etc..

[Piedrasalvador]

So far between the two forummers there has been a lot of questions and statements made so far. At this point I would like to comment on a few of them.

First, I do not think a president of a country should be entitled to any royalties for conceptualizing any project. The president is employed by the people to lead and guide the country with his ideas and work, for which we pay him/her handsomely. As long as he work for us, every idea/work commissioned by the people or on behalf of the people, belong to the people; all royalties belong to the people.

Unless the contract between people and president specifically states that, the president shall keep ownership of intellectual property, then it belongs to the state.

On the other hand, is the project beneficial to the country? I do not think the answer to that can be simplified by saying that the money should have been spent on feeding the hungry kids. There are still going to be hungry kids with or without that project. The solutions to child malnutrition and all the other ills of our societies, include feeding the children(immediate) and investing for the children's future(long term) so that they will be able to feed themselves. One way is to invest in job-creating and income-generating projects and businesses for which tourism is one of them.

Was a proper cost/benefit analysis done or was it just a pet/self-enriching project by the president of Senegal?


Interesting. Imhotep tried hard to have a semblance of a debate. I’m particularly thrilled by the fact that he is yet to express any opinion on the monument itself. I was looking for a point to link Imhotep’s admiration of the monument more to the scantily-dressed bronze female but I think he has so far not expressed a personal opinion.

I don’t know much about presidents entitlements, but until well proven, I refuse to buy the Idea from Cosh that every intellectual output of a President in his tenure of office is the property of the state. If any president got an award in recognition of his/ her good leadership style…etc, chances are they would channel the proceeds of such awards to a public cause. While the fact remains that Presidents executes people’s mandate, they take the credits for their deeds …positive of negative. Let me state my worry in a question to make it snappy: Who can drag a president to court for personally enjoying the proceeds of a book he/she wrote and published? Again , assuming that such a book was launched after the said President left office, who could establish when the Idea of the book came to him/her or when he/she gathered the ‘ingredients’ of the book ? Cosh, help me out pls

I agree with the romantic rasta that projects per se may be different from intellectual property ‘the conceptualization’ if they were creative enough to qualify for IPR)

In principle, I share Imhotep’s view on President Waad’s jovial claim to 35% of proceeds accruing from the monument.

I have been enlightened by the IPR lessons by Imhotep.

On the Project Itself, I personally feel it is good because income generation has been part of the concept. It may seem not to be the most important project for a country like Senegal at this time but perhaps the controversy surrounding the monument itself would be a ‘plus’ as a tourist attraction.

[cosh]

The intellectual property rights of any project by a sitting president, produced on behalf or by request of the people and which involved the resources of the people, belongs to the people. The people are the employers of the president, hence all work done during work hours and with employer resources, belong to the employer even if the initiative was the employee's.

It is different had the president, at his leisure time created something unrelated to government or any public project.

Most of us have personal experiences at our work places where we've solved or created innovative ways of solving or producing new products. We do not own the IPR of those creations because it's considered as part of our jobs. This reminds me of a story Buggy Hayes told when we were discussing National Service sometime ago. Its was about an innovation he did while working for a certain company in Ghana. I wonder if he owns that IPR and if he receives any payments every time his creation is used. Yes, sometimes we receive acknowlegments in the form of estimulo moral, promotions, etc.

All patents and IPRs own by companies are products of individuals or group of individuals within those companies.

Ethically it will be wrong to give ownership of IPRs to the president because it can and will be abused and used for personal gain. A president can, and will direct his government to prioritize projects that he or his associates have the capabilities to create, and thus reap the benefits, that's conflict of interest and corruption.

[ascona]

Cosh, I agreed with your analysis. I want those who think Presidents are entitled to I.P.Rs should tell me, will Kuffour be entitled to any cut of the oil revenue in Ghana, if he comes out and said the idea to explore for oil in that location was his?

[ascona]

Interesting. Imhotep tried hard to have a semblance of a debate. I’m particularly thrilled by the fact that he is yet to express any opinion on the monument itself. I was looking for a point to link Imhotep’s admiration of the monument more to the scantily-dressed bronze female but I think he has so far not expressed a personal opinion.

I don’t know much about presidents entitlements, but until well proven, I refuse to buy the Idea from Cosh that every intellectual output of a President in his tenure of office is the property of the state. If any president got an award in recognition of his/ her good leadership style…etc, chances are they would channel the proceeds of such awards to a public cause. While the fact remains that Presidents executes people’s mandate, they take the credits for their deeds …positive of negative. Let me state my worry in a question to make it snappy: Who can drag a president to court for personally enjoying the proceeds of a book he/she wrote and published? Again , assuming that such a book was launched after the said President left office, who could establish when the Idea of the book came to him/her or when he/she gathered the ‘ingredients’ of the book ? Cosh, help me out pls

I agree with the romantic rasta that projects per se may be different from intellectual property ‘the conceptualization’ if they were creative enough to qualify for IPR)

In principle, I share Imhotep’s view on President Waad’s jovial claim to 35% of proceeds accruing from the monument.

I have been enlightened by the IPR lessons by Imhotep.

On the Project Itself, I personally feel it is good because income generation has been part of the concept. It may seem not to be the most important project for a country like Senegal at this time but perhaps the controversy surrounding the monument itself would be a ‘plus’ as a tourist attraction.

Look for pictures of the surroundings of where the statue is built and you will see why they will struggle to get the money used for this project and why I think is a waste of money.