Social objectives

AS we argued in Chapter 5 of The People’s Republic, the rights to education and health are among the fundamental rights which each family regarded-and properly so-as inalienable, at the time when it voluntarily entered, or was compelled by conquest or subversion to enter into political association with other families. It is now too late in the day to take these rights away. All the attempts in history to deny or suppress these rights have been among the chief contributing causes, of the worst forms of social instability. Many of the developed country, of the world have now recognised the dangers attendant on the denial or suppression of these rights, and have, accordingly, conceded them to their respective peoples. For some years now, it has been Britain’ national education policy’ that no able boy or girl shall be prevente by lack of means from taking advanced courses at a university (elsewhere.’ In pursuance of this policy, over 90% of university studen in Great Britain are aided from public or private funds. The same policy applies to post-secondary institutions below university level. While primary education is free and compulsory and books and school equipment are also free at this level, secondary education is practicall free and is compulsory, in Britain.

If all families were equally well off, perhaps the most sensible thing to do would indeed be to leave each of them to educate an cater for the health requirements of its members, as much as it desired. But we know that this is not the case, and that only the few well to do families are able to pay the high fees demanded at education institutions, especially at the secondary and post-secondary level. In such circumstances as this, it is indubitable that many a potential: outstanding talent would remain for ever buried, simply because) has been accidentally brought to this world by poor parents, whi at the same time, a good deal of resources would be wasted on palpably mediocre elements, simply because their parents are rich enough to afford the alchemist’s costly but fruitless venture of trying to transmute lead into gold.

Besides, it would be seen, from what we have said, that education is too vital to society to be left to the whims and caprices of individuals parents. We cannot allow anyone, out of ignorance, carelessness.’ indifference, to create a situation which will promote social injustice and political instability, such as the difference between education and illiteracy or neglected talent would bring about.

It may be contended that, under a system of full employment and reasonable national minimum wage, parents should be sufficient strong, financially, to provide for their children’s education at all levels. The answer to this contention is simple. It costs between £150 and £200 a year to educate a student at post-secondary level. It would certainly be too much to suggest that every worker should be paid enough wages, to enable him to pay a fee of £150 or more per capita per annum on three or more children in post-secondary institution. As regards loans to students to enable them pursue their education courses, It is, in my view, cruel, on purely humanitarian grounds; and from the economic standpoint, inconsiderate and thoughtless to saddle a young person, just entering into full productive life, with indebtedness. As compared with his contemporaries who are not so unfortunately circumstanced, his morale, and hence his efficiency, is bound to be seriously adversely affected, to the detriment of the country’s total volume of output.

Some people have argued, with callous self-satisfaction, and in complete ignorance or disregard of the contribution of the individual to the total wealth of a society, that since it is the individual young person who benefits financially, by way of salary, from higher education, it is he who should be called upon to pay, not the Government. Micro-economically, this argument is valid; it is the young person who benefits personally and directly from the money invested in his higher education. But macro-economically, the society also benefits directly, and probably more than he does, from the higher productivity and output, and the considerable savings in our foreign exchange reserve, which investment in his higher education makes possible.

It is a truism, which can bear repetition and emphasis, that the greater the efficiency of the individual, especially in the categories of high-level and intermediate-level manpower, the higher his productivity, and hence the larger the GNP or what is popularly called the’ national cake.’ Any scheme, therefore, which is certain to lower efficiency is not at all in the country’s interest, and should be rejected and scrapped.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that for every Nigerian we train to occupy a high-level manpower post, we save £990 in local currency, and £860 in foreign exchange, and considerably enhance our efficiency prospects, and national prestige. I say this on the authority of Professor S. A. Aluko who, in his Paper on Wages, Costs and Prices, read at the recent Conference on National Reconstruction and Development in Nigeria, discloses that there were 2,343 expatriates in the high-level categories employed in industries in 1965 at an average salary of £1,720 each, as against 1742 Nigerians in the same categories who received an average salary of £730 each. Now, according to the National Manpower Board’s publication Manpower Study No.2, Tables 6 to 11, altogether 7,743 expatriates were employed in Nigeria in 1964 in the high-level categories, in all the sectors of our productive activities.