Social Objectives

CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK

With regard to university education, officials of the Federal Ministry of Education have recently done a projection up to the year 1971/72. According to them, the student population of our universities, in that year, will be about 20,000. In this connection, two important preliminary observations are called for. Firstly, whilst university expenditure will increase, fees charged to students will not necessarily increase pari passu. It would be a retrograde step, and indeed suicidal, for any Government in Nigeria to attempt to raise university fees proportionately to the increase in university expenditure. Secondly, as the number of students increases, things being equal, the cost per student may decrease. But whether this is so or not will depend wholly on the other factors. If it is necessary, as it is more likely to be the case in this age, to step up the standard of, and the quality of aids to instruction in our Universities, the cost per student may increase rather than decrease. It is apposite here to recall that Britain now spends as much as £30,000 to produce a single scientist, and this staggering amount is considered by the Jones Committee on Britain’s ‘brain drain’ to be inadequate.

Granting, therefore, that we continue to spend as much as £ 1 ,500 per student in our Universities, the cost of university education by 1971172 would be approximately £30m. This is what is going to happen in 1971172, whether 8ftiversity education is free or not. It follows, therefore, that our Governments must be prepared either to (1) find this amount of money, (2) close down some of the Universities, (3) peg the number of students to be admitted to an arbitrary figure, or (4) raise university fees by about 300%.

Again, we take it that no Governments in Nigeria will contemplate any of the last three alternatives. On the contrary, it is safe to assume that everything will be done to find the expenditure involved. This, we believe, as we have already shown, can be done without undue hardship.

Now if, as at present, only 4.7% or 5% of total expenditure is collected as fees from private sources, then only £l.5m. will be received. If our Governments refused to bear this burden, as many as 2,000 – 4,000 potential high-level manpower talents would be wasted, as a result of their inability to pay their fee~. In the face of the inevitable expenditure figures for our Universities, it would be patently senseless and criminal to allow this to happen. Ifwe could

swallow the camel of £30m., we should, gracefully, responsibly, and honourably, refrain from straining at the gnat of £ 1.5m.

With regard to health, the insistence of the various Governments of Nigeria on the collection of fees from patients is blatantly ridiculous, In 1967/68; the Federal Government spent £6.7m. on health, and collected £95,000 from patients. In the same fiscal year, the Western Region spent £I.9m., treated children up to the age of eighteen free into the bargain, and collected £160,000 from patients. For the same period the Northern Region also spent £4.6m, and collected £44,200, whilst the Mid-West spent £ 1 m. and collected £45,000, In 1965/66 the Eastern Region spent £2.7m. and collected £226,000.

The aggregate total spent on health in the periods in question by all the Governments of the Federation is £16.9m., as against collected fees of £570,200. What a molehill of revenue against a mountain of expenditure!

It is unreasonable to suggest that ifhealth facilities were declared free, many more people would be likely to take advantage of the facilities, and the costs to Governments would be substantially increased immediately. We don’t think this would be the case. Fear, superstition, strong beliefin black magic, and supreme faith in the native medicine-man are formidable obstacles which will continue for some years to keep the majority of our peoples back from modem medicine and health facilities. In this connection it is highly probable that there are qualified medical practitioners who have greater faith in juju-men and medicine-men than in their own scientific acquirements, and regularly consult these men in the course oftheir professional activities. Making health facilities free, therefore, will not necessarily increase the number of patients.

Besides, if the emphasis were placed on preventive medicine, on the promotion of environmental hygiene and sanitation, and on the need for better food, less money would be spent in the process of these preventive projects and campaigns, and many fewer people would show up for treatment at the hospitals. In all this discussion about free education and health facilities, we have only dealt with the recurrent expenditures. We have so far said nothing about the capital expenditures that would be incurred. In view of what we. have just said, there is not likely to be a sudden need to build many more hospitals, health centres, dispensaries, and maternity centres. Even if these were necessary, the enthusiasm and burning desire ofthe people for these amenities should be harnessed in providing them. In rural areas where these amenities are more inadequate, land and community labour will be provided and given free in the erection of the required buildings.

If, in addition, as we insist should be the case, we avoid costly prestige structures, and confine ourselves to the erection of cheap temporary buildings which will last for say 30 to 40 years, we should have little or no headache at all in this regard. What we say here about buildings for health facilities, applies with equal force to buildings for educational facilities at all levels. Not all the structures for our primary, post-primary, and post-secondary institutions need be permanent. What is important is that buildings should have sound foundations to damp-proof- course level, be safe for human habitation, and be decent. Our immediate and pressing obligations in these matters are for the present generation.

CONTINUES NEXT WEEK