Features
The family budget
- /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
&description=The family budget', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 72
Warning: Trying to access array offset on false in /home/u249204778/domains/spectator.com.gh/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 72
&description=The family budget', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
Every family has a Finance Minister. Such a minister is normally the head of the house, in other words the Executive President.
One of the characteristics of the finance minister is that he has a moustache with or without a ‘goatee.’
The moustache is usually twitched to frighten undisciplined children and the ‘goatee’ is used to terrify the wife. In fact the ‘goatee’ always reminds the wife of a he-goat and its gimmicks and antics. After painstaking research, my bosom friend Kokotako has come out with the conclusion that men with ‘goatee’ are more sexually appealing to women.
The Sikaman family life is an interesting one in that nothing is done according to the 1992 Constitution. The Finance Minister of the home is not supposed to present the family budget to the wife and children who are the family equivalent of the national Parliament.
He decides what the chop money must be, whether the wife must perm or jerry the hair, whether the kids must eat oats and milk for breakfast or zorzor, alias ‘yorke gari’ alias ‘yorks’. In effect, there is nothing like democracy much more the Westminister variation of it.
In extreme cases where the husband has the credentials of Adolf Hitler, he assumes kitchen-power and fetches the soup during supper. He sits behind the soup with a pot-belly and unilaterally decides who should get what size of meat and what level of soup.
Almost invariably, there is military discipline in the family such that the wife can only sneeze on Sundays and public holidays. Every minute, the man growls like a tiger while opening and closing his eyes like a maniac. All these are reinforced by a bottle of peters (bitters) in an obscured corner, often under the bed which is refilled every three hours.
“Kwadwo, run like a hare to Davi’s place and top my bitters before I somersault. In fact, if you don’t run like Ben Johnson under the influence of steroids, I’ll break your neck. Remember, I have to take three tots before caning you for not fetching water yesterday.”
Yes, Akpeteshie also gives appetite for fathers. Taking some tots, they start thinking where to seek political asylum because as a Lagosian would say, ‘Trouble don come for house.’
When I was in Class Six, our teacher once told us that in the developed countries families were often very concerned about the management of their homes and so man and wife often held weekly, fortnightly or monthly meetings to draw the family budget.
This is made possible by a joint account. The family’s needs from soap and cigarettes to blue jeans and holiday trips are budgeted for. That way things are done in an orderly manner and there is no case of over- spending, under-spending or ‘chobo’.
Perhaps, this is the ideal thing to do in Sikaman, but here there are obvious problems. First, the family’s income is often inadequate because of many factors including the man’s appetite. Secondly, there is a concealment of income on both sides.
The husband will declare ¢40,000 when his take-home pay is ¢60,000, meaning the extra will be used to finance personal habits and the needs of girlfriends.
The wife will also under-declare what she makes each day at the market for fear that her husband would force her to contribute to the upkeep of the home. So when she says she made only 4,000, she is in fact asking you to multiply it by 2/½ to get the correct figure. So in fact she made 9,000. It’s quite funny and you’ll have to be well-versed in JSS Mathematics to cope with her pace.
Because of all these, it is impossible for husband and wife to sit at table to draw the family budget. This is one of the reasons why some churches demand that prospective brides and grooms attend marriage counselling school for at least six months before being allowed to marry.
In the marriage school, they are taught home management and how to arouse sexual feelings in their mates. The man is cautioned on the dangers of drinking raw akpeteshie and the sins of chasing women like a bearded he-goat. “Don’t also beat your wife. God doesn’t like that.”
The woman is advised not to talk too much ‘rubbish’, not to have too many friends and taught how to please a man’s heart by pleasing his stomach with good food. She is warned not to converse with other men on frivolous topics that might lead to sexy topics etc.
Normally such lectures are helpful, but it turns out that the couples are only prepared to adhere to only 10 percent of what they are taught. Ninety percent of what they learn are impracticable, so the marriage school is only considered as a waste of time.
Well, my former classmate Kwame Korkorti, the born-mathematician, has long detected that since money palaver is the cause of many shattered marriages, couples need to be more transparent, communicative and co-operative in solving their financial problems.
Observation has shown that marriages break more often not because of the lack of money per se, but because of the mistrust on both sides as far as money matters are concerned. It might be that the man really has no money but the woman feels he has and is using it to chase other women, etc.
It all boils down to honesty, sincerity, goodwill, understanding and a desire to make the marriage work with or without money palaver. Let’s not make money the basis of a successful marriage.
Wishing all readers and fans of Sikaman Palava a nice week-end.
There is a culture that permeates all aspects of leadership in the advanced countries which I believe has contributed to the success in all aspects of their national lives. Citizens strive to excel so that they will not find themselves in a situation where they would have failed, to necessitate a decision to resign.
Countries where failure is frowned upon, it pushes the citizens to strive for success. In our part of the world, failure and mediocrity has become an accepted norm and therefore, there is no shame in failing in a particular position of leadership.
A head of an organisation mismanages the place and he does not see the need for him to resign. The appointing authority does not also see the need to sack him and so the merry go round continues.
It becomes friends and family as usual and if care is not taken, the rest of the world will leave us far, far behind.
The practice of resignation in parts of the world for failure in some parts of the world has to be institutionalised in our country too. It encourages the principle of accountability which is good for any organisation, sector of an economy or a country.
It promotes good governance, a necessary ingredient in the growth of the economy of any country.
When this practice becomes a culture, every individual, privileged to hold a position of trust, gives his or her full attention to the job assigned him or her, to ensure that objectives are achieved.
This trickles down to every individual down the chain of command and there are no rooms for errors.
That is how efficient systems are built over time and this is the difference between advanced nations and third world countries.
Where systems are designed such that people take responsibility for things that go wrong under their supervision or ultimate responsibility, there is evidence of development.
There are a few people that I admire in Ghana as far as this culture of resignation based on principled stance. One of them is the late Mrs Emma Mitchell. She was a cabinet member but chose to resign after the confrontation between late President Jerry Rawlings and late Vice President Kow Akaah.
She was not prepared to be part of a cabinet which was lying to the general public that Rawlings did not assault Akaah.
She was of the conviction that telling the truth is more honourable than telling lies and that if she was bound by confidentiality oaths to tell a lie, then she would resign and she did exactly that.
That is how we build a culture of truth and accountability. We have people in positions who have not lived up to expectation but are still holding on to their positions not prepared to let go of it.
This is a clear case of display of selfishness, trying to be a Boss instead of a Servant to serve the people, which leadership is all about.
The ineffectiveness of some leaders, often result in waste of resources which could have been channeled to other sectors of the economy which could have been more productive. A culture of voluntary resignation must be advocated for by all stakeholders, especially the CSOs, traditional leaders and the clergy.
This is the only way the needed growth in every sector of our national life would manifest.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, heads of reputable organisations have voluntarily resigned by taking ultimate responsibility and it is about time, we started seeing it manifest in our country.
The people in charge of our sports especially our soccer, can initiate this long desired culture and resign in view of the embarrassment witnessed from the defeat of the Black Stars by Gambia. God bless.
BY LAUD KISS-MENSAH
SKIP THE QUEUE, TAP THE NEWS
You can now read the Ghanaian Times and The Spectator newspapers from the comfort of your device via TimesNewsPlus.
Join our WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBElzjInlqHhl1aTU27
THE QUR’AN FORBIDS RELIGIOUS PROVOCATION
There is a remarkable verse in the Qur’an which every Muslim preacher should memorise.
Allah says:
“And do not insult those they invoke besides Allah, lest they insult Allah in hostility without knowledge.” (Qur’an 6:108).
Think about this carefully.
Allah knows that the unbelievers worship false gods.
Yet Allah tells Muslims: Do not insult their objects of worship.
Why?
Because your speech may provoke an even greater offence.
This establishes a profound principle:
A Muslim must not fight religious provocation with religious provocation.
If someone insults what we hold sacred, we do not respond by insulting what they hold sacred.
If someone attacks Islam, we defend Islam with knowledge.
If someone misrepresents Muhammad (pbuh), we explain who is Muhammad to him.
If someone lies about Islam, we answer with truth and knowledge.
We do not allow another person’s bad behaviour to dictate our own morality.
LOOK AT MUHAMMAD (PBUH) — HE WAS INSULTED BEFORE WE WERE
Servant of Allah,
Sometimes we speak as though the Prophet (pbuh) lived in a world where everyone respected him.
No.
He was mocked and insulted. Quran 37:36, Quran 15:6
He was called a liar, magician, and a mad man. Quran 51:52, Quran 17:47
He was ridiculed. Quran 6:10
His followers were tortured, and some were killed. Quran 85:8-10
He himself was persecuted, leading to his migration to Madina.
Yet he remained the Messenger of Allah.
Allah said:
“Indeed, we know that your heart is distressed by what they say.” (Qur’an 15:97)
Allah acknowledged the Prophet’s pain.
Islam does not say that insults do not hurt. They hurt.
But the question is: What do you do with the pain?
THE DAY OF TA’IF: WHEN THE PROPHET (PBUH) COULD HAVE CHOSEN
REVENGE
One of the most powerful examples is the journey of the Prophet (pbuh) to Ta’if.
He went seeking support for his message.
Instead, the people rejected him and incited their children and others against him.
He was chased.
He was insulted.
He was struck with stones until his feet bled.
He was physically and emotionally exhausted.
Then the Angel of the Mountains came to him.
The two angels offered to crush the people of Ta’if between the mountains.
The Prophet (pbuh) could have said: “Do it.”
But he did not.
Instead, he hoped that Allah would bring from their descendants people who would worship Him.
This account is recorded in the authentic hadith literature, including Sahih Muslim (Muslim, 1795).
What a lesson!
The Prophet (pbuh) had suffered injustice.
But he did not turn his pain into indiscriminate revenge.
He saw beyond the offender.
He saw the possibility of tomorrow.
And this is one of the greatest characteristics of prophetic leadership:
The Prophet (pbuh) did not merely ask, “What punishment does this person deserve?”
He also asked, in effect: “What can this person become?”
THE PROPHET IN MADINAH: LEADER OF A DIVERSE SOCIETY
When Muhammad (pbuh) migrated to Madinah, he did not enter an empty city.
Madinah contained different communities, including Muslims and Jews, and there were also Christians who interacted with the Muslim community.
The Prophet became the political and communal leader of Madinah.
The Sahifah (A Covenant) of Madinah, preserved in the early sīrah (Prophet’s biography) tradition, established arrangements concerning mutual obligations, security, justice and relations among the communities of the city.
This is important:
The Prophet did not build Madinah by teaching Muslims to hate everyone who was not Muslim.
He built a society governed by covenant, responsibility and justice.
Allah says:
“Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who have neither fought you because of your religion nor driven you from your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 60:8)
This is not weakness.
This is Islam.
THE PROPHET DEALT WITH JEWS IN MADINAH
‘A’ishah (Wife of the Prophet) narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) bought food from a Jewish man on credit and gave him his iron armour as collateral.
“The Prophet purchased food from a Jew on credit and mortgaged his iron armour to him.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 2068)
Think about it.
This was Muhammad.
The Messenger of Allah.
Yet he conducted lawful commercial dealings with a Jewish citizen.
He did not say: “He is not a Muslim, therefore I cannot deal with him.”
No.
Islam gave him a relationship governed by justice and trust.
Jabir رضيهللاعنه narrated:
“A funeral procession passed before us and the Prophet (pbuh) stood up, and we stood with him. We said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, it is the funeral of a Jew.’ He said: ‘When you see a funeral procession, stand.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 1311)
Another narration records his response: “Is it not a soul?” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 1312–1313)
What kind of heart did Muhammad (pbuh) possess?
A heart that recognised human dignity even in death.
THE PROPHET AND THE CHRISTIANS OF NAJRAN
The Prophet also received the Christian delegation of Najran.
They disagreed with him theologically.
Yet when they requested a trustworthy person, he did not choose someone because of hatred.
He selected Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah.
The Prophet said:
“I shall send with you a man who is truly trustworthy.”
He then appointed Abu ‘Ubaydah.
This is authentically reported in Sahih al-Bukhari 4380–4381.
Notice something profound:
The Prophet could disagree with people without becoming dishonest toward them.
That is the standard we need today.
The author is the chief Imam of Katamanso Municipal and Certified Counsellor and Governance Expert.
