NSSF has proved Muruhanga’s point
Aug 13, 2007
EDITOR—On Saturday the public relations officer of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) wrote a letter entitled “Muruhanga, NSSF is very prudentâ€.
EDITOR—On Saturday the public relations officer of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) wrote a letter entitled “Muruhanga, NSSF is very prudentâ€.
Mr Victor Karamagi was responding to Mr Nsekabuseka Muruhanga’s criticism of NSSF’s decision to advertise in the press instead of using other means which would not have cost NSSF any money.
Karamagi, among other issues, said NSSF operates within an approved budget with a well thought-out strategic plan. He also said it was in a spirit of ‘total transparency and good corporate governance’ that NSSF had started informing the public about its investment plans.
First of all, I thank Mr Karamagi for his superb presence of mind to have written a letter instead of placing another advert this time. He may not know it, but in so doing, he communicated very effectively without spending a coin from NSSF!
In fact he has demonstrated the legitimacy of Muruhanga’s complaint—you don’t always have to advertise in order to communicate. What is the essence of ‘strategic planning’?
I find little merit in the ‘transparency’ Karamagi talks about because the adverts in question selectively recognised only foreign missions in Uganda. Were the five or six embassies the only ones which were compliant in remitting their staff’s contributions? Why were all the others not recognised?
There are compliant employeers who employ over 500 people! Spelling out the NSSF Act without following it up through legal means does not help contributors at all. What is amazing is that the people at NSSF who choose the more expensive options of spending our money are also contributors to NSSF! Perhaps if the board members of NSSF were contributors, it would help curb impulse spending.
Hellen kakwanzi
Kyenjojo
Mr Victor Karamagi was responding to Mr Nsekabuseka Muruhanga’s criticism of NSSF’s decision to advertise in the press instead of using other means which would not have cost NSSF any money.
Karamagi, among other issues, said NSSF operates within an approved budget with a well thought-out strategic plan. He also said it was in a spirit of ‘total transparency and good corporate governance’ that NSSF had started informing the public about its investment plans.
First of all, I thank Mr Karamagi for his superb presence of mind to have written a letter instead of placing another advert this time. He may not know it, but in so doing, he communicated very effectively without spending a coin from NSSF!
In fact he has demonstrated the legitimacy of Muruhanga’s complaint—you don’t always have to advertise in order to communicate. What is the essence of ‘strategic planning’?
I find little merit in the ‘transparency’ Karamagi talks about because the adverts in question selectively recognised only foreign missions in Uganda. Were the five or six embassies the only ones which were compliant in remitting their staff’s contributions? Why were all the others not recognised?
There are compliant employeers who employ over 500 people! Spelling out the NSSF Act without following it up through legal means does not help contributors at all. What is amazing is that the people at NSSF who choose the more expensive options of spending our money are also contributors to NSSF! Perhaps if the board members of NSSF were contributors, it would help curb impulse spending.
Hellen kakwanzi
Kyenjojo