Covid-19 a man-made disease If the novel coronavirus was intended as a biological weapon, this is very much in line with China’s biological warfare programme, which was mooted as early as 1999, when Jiang Zemin was in power.
In that year, the army published a book titled Unrestricted Warfare, in which strategies to tilt the balance of power between a weaker nation and a stronger one were suggested and propounded upon. Among the viable options was biological warfare.
In 2015, a paper published in India’s Journal of Defence Studies carried the expose that China had 42 facilities involved in research, development, production, testing, or storage of Biological Weapons. In the interests of sustained good diplomatic relations, the facilities were not named but if they had, the Wuhan Institute of Virology would no doubt have taken pride of place.
Could that be the real reason why the Chinese government remain adamant that the novel coronavirus originated from the Wuhan Seafood Wholesale Market – to deceptively cover up for their clandestine pursuit of biological weaponry?
In so saying, their fallback pretext is the SARS epidemic of 2003, which is said to have arisen when a coronavirus jumped from Asian palm civets, a cat-like creature that is legally raised and consumed. The Chinese authorities insist that the novel coronavirus might have followed the same path by way of the seafood market.
Perhaps to lend credibility to this thesis, Beijing on February 24, 2020 decreed a permanent ban on wildlife consumption and trade, with the nod given only in relation to medicinal, research, or display purposes. This was irrespective of putting paid to a $76 billion industry and at the cost of 14 million jobs according to a report by the Chinese Academy of Engineering.
ALL FINGERS POINT TO WUHAN INSTITUTE
As already made mention of in previous articles, the one particular place in China that is in the eye of the storm with respect to the emergence of the novel coronavirus is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is reportedly equipped with “the technology to synthesise viruses for cross-species transmission”. The institute not only has become synonymous with coronavirus but with the term “bat” as well.
It is no secret that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has been actively researching coronaviruses from horseshoe bats. The research, which began as early as the turn of the century, was directly acknowledged in a paper the institute published in 2005, which posited that China’s horseshoe bats were natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses.
The researchers are said to have isolated over 300 bat coronavirus sequences from thousands of horseshoe bats ferreted out from the mountains of southern China, about 900 km from Wuhan.
It was at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that the horseshoe coronavirus was made genetically optimal for human transmission. A molecular biologist at Rutgers University, Richard Ebright, told The Scientist, a professional magazine targeted at life scientists, in November 2015 that, “The only impact of this work (of the Wuhan Institute of Virology) is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.”
An investigative report by National Review, America’s most influential magazine for conservative news, commentary, and opinion extensively documented evidence to the effect that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had put out an advertisement for scientists who were needed to study coronaviruses and bats.
Indeed, on December 24, 2019, the institute made known on its website that it had “discovered a large number of new bat viruses and their infection mechanisms that could transmit to humans”.
France’s Pasteur Institute was actually alarmed by the goings-on at the Wuhan Institute as far back as four years prior and warned that growing a virus that remarkably grew well in humans was tantamount to courting a doomsday scenario for mankind. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory”, one of its leading virologists so presciently told Nature magazine in November 2015.
A “SHE” AT THE CENTRE OF IT ALL
If there is one particular name that keeps cropping up in relation to the diabolical viral research exploits of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it is Shi Zheng Li.
Shi, a 55-year-old of female gender, is the institute’s lead researcher, with her last 16 years devoted to bat-borne coronaviruses and their transmitability to humans. Part of her CV reads something like that she has “researched in synthetic viruses and published several papers on the creation of coronaviruses for the study of cross-species transmission of coronaviruses.”
In short, Shi is an expert in engineering lab variants of viruses with possible pandemic potential – the reason, supposedly, the presently raging pathogen was dubbed the “novel” coronavirus. It is novel because its characteristics are very much unlike your typical natural coronavirus.
Shi has a moniker which is not so much a tribute as a dressing-down. She is amongst the scientific establishment in China called “Bat Woman”. Of course she does not remotely resemble a bat: she’s so-called because of her compulsive virus-hunting expeditions in the bat caves of southern China.
Her very first was logged in 2004, when in the company of an international team of researchers, she set off for the bat colonies in caves around Nanning, the provincial capital of Guangxi. Her predilection for southern China bats is informed by her research, which posits that it is the southern, subtropical provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Yunnan which may be the most susceptible to infections by coronaviruses jumping from bats.
In the countless bat dwellings she has sampled coronaviruses from, Shi has found that “constant mixing of different viruses creates a great opportunity for dangerous new pathogens to emerge”, prompting her inalienable stance that given that coronaviruses are liable to trigger a chain of morbidity outbreaks in humans, “we must find them before they find us.”
It was Shi and her team who fathomed the origins of the SARS virus, which sprang forth in Guangdong in 2002. But there was more. Says one report: “In late 2016, pigs across four farms in Qingyuan County in Guangdong — 60 miles from the site where the SARS outbreak originated — suffered from acute vomiting and diarrhea, and nearly 25,000 of the animals died.
Local veterinarians could not detect any known pathogen and called Shi for help. The cause of the illness — swine acute diarrhoea syndrome (SADS) — turned out to be a virus whose genomic sequence was 98 percent identical to that of a coronavirus found in horseshoe bats in a nearby cave.”
At the time Covid-19 hit the headlines, Shi was attending a conference in Shanghai. Upon being pointed to one such banner headline, she immediately took off, but not before she quipped to a journalist that, “If coronaviruses were the culprit, could they have come from our lab?”
There it was folks, straight from the horse’s mouth: it was not a direct acknowledgement but it was a telltale. It suggested in no uncertain terms that Shi’s institution, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was already a breeding ground for coronaviruses.
SHI AND CO PREDICT ADVENT OF COVID-19
The one thing that cannot be denied or downplayed is the fact that Shi Zheng Li is a reputable researcher, albeit the Frankenstein type, it turns out.
Since 2003, in the immediate wake of the outbreak of SARS, Shi has published no less than four papers which have riveted the attention of the international scientific community. All the papers centred on the study and manipulation of bat coronaviruses.
Her latest, the one that was published in 2015, was particularly topical. Authored as part of a team of researchers drawn from various institutions from Asia, Europe, and the US, the paper was titled A SARS-Like Cluster Of Circulating Bat Coronaviruses Shows Potential For Human Emergence and appeared in Nature Medicine magazine on December 21st of that same year.
In the paper, Shi’s team reported that they had created a new virus by combining two coronaviruses, one of which was found in Chinese horseshoe bats and the other from the so-called backbone of the SARS virus, which had been adapted to grow in mice and mimic human disease. They called this hybrid virus a recombinant virus which they had “synthetically re-derived”, or genetically re-engineered in simpler terms.
The report said that this new, chimeric virus had demonstrated rapid viral replication and was capable of infecting human airway cells and therefore it was feared that a SARS-like disease might soon emerge.
On November 14, 2018, Shi spoke at Shanghai Jaiatong University, where she unequivocally made the case that bat coronaviruses were capable of across-species transmission, specifically from bats to human beings.
It emerges, folks, that Covid-19 was not only anticipated as early as 2015: its vector virus, the novel coronavirus, was actually created in the laboratory.
Parliament, the second arm of State through its parliamentary committees are one of Botswana’s most powerful mechanisms to ensure that government is held accountable at all times. The Accounting Officers are mostly Permanent Secretaries across government Ministries and Chief Executive Officers, Director Generals, Managing Directors of parastatals, state owned enterprises and Civil Society.
So parliament plays its oversight authority via the legislators sitting on a parliamentary committee and Accounting Officers sitting in the hot chair. When left with no proper checks and balances, the Executive is prone to abuse the arrangement and so systematic oversight of the executive is usually carried out by parliamentary committees. They track the work of various government departments and ministries, and conduct scrutiny into important aspects of their policy, direction and administration.
It is not rocket science that effective oversight requires that committees be totally independent and able to set their own agendas and have the power to summon ministers and top civil servants to appear and answer questions. Naturally, Accounting Officers are the highest ranking officials in the government hierarchy apart from cabinet Ministers and as such wield much power and influence in the performance of government. To illustrate further, government performance is largely owed to the strategic and policy direction of top technocrats in various Ministries.
It is disheartening to point out that the recent parliament committees — as has been the case all over the years — has laid bare the incompetency, inadequacy and ineptitude of people bestowed with great responsibilities in public offices. To say that they are ineffective and inefficient sounds as an understatement. Some appear useless and hopeless when it comes to running the government despite the huge responsibility they possess.
If we were uncertain about the degree at which the Accounting Officers are incompetent, the ongoing parliament committees provide a glaring answer. It is not an exaggeration to say that ordinary people on the streets have been held ransom by these technocrats who enjoy their air conditioned offices and relish being chauffeured around in luxurious BX SUV’s while the rest of the citizenry continue to suffer. Because of such high life the Accounting Officers seem to have, with time, they have gotten out of touch with the people they are supposed to serve.
An example; when appearing before the recent Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Office of the President Permanent Secretary, Thuso Ramodimoosi, looked reluctant to admit misuse of public funds. Although it is clear funds were misused, he looked unbothered when committee members grilled him over the P80 million Orapa House building that has since morphed into a white elephant for close to 10 successive years. To him, it seems it did not matter much and PAC members were worried for nothing.
On a separate day, another Accounting officer, Director of Public Service Management (DPSM), Naledi Mosalakatane, was not shy to reveal to PAC upon cross-examination that there exist more than 6 000 vacancies in government. Whatever reasons she gave as an excuse, they were not convincing and the committee looked sceptical too. She was faltering and seemed not to have a sense of urgency over the matter no matter how critical it is to the populace.
Botswana’s unemployment rate hoovers around 18 percent in a country where majority of the population is the youth, and the most affected by unemployment. It is still unclear why DPSM could underplay such a critical matter that may threaten the peace and stability of the country. Accounting Officers clearly appear out of touch with the reality out there – if the PAC examinations are anything to go by.
Ideally the DPSM Director could be dropping the vacancy post digits while sourcing funds and setting timelines for the spaces to be filled as a matter of urgency so that the citizens get employed to feed their families and get out of unemployment and poverty ravaging the country. The country should thank parliamentary committees such as PAC to expose these abnormalities and the behaviour of our leaders when in public office. How can a full Accounting Officer downplay the magnitude of the landless problem in Botswana and fail to come with direct solutions tailor made to provide Batswana with the land they desperately need?
Land is a life and death matter for some citizens, as we would know.
When Bonolo Khumotaka, the Accounting Officer in the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services, whom as a top official probably with a lucrative pay too appears to be lacking sense of urgency as she is failing on her key mandate of working around the clock to award the citizens with land especially those who need it most like the marginalised. If government purports they need P94 billion to service land to address the land crisis what is plan B for government? Are we going to accept it the way it is?
Government should wake up from its slumber and intervene to avoid the 30 years unnecessary waiting period in State land and 13 years in Tribal land. Accounting Officers are custodians of government policy, they should ensure it is effective and serve its purpose. What we have been doing over the years, has proved that it is not effective, and clearly there is a need for change of direction.
His Excellency Dr Mokgweetsi EK Masisi, the President of the Republic of Botswana found it appropriate to invoke Section 17 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana, using the powers vested in him to declare a State of Public Emergency starting from the 2nd April 2020 at midnight.
The constitutional provision under Section 17 (2b) only provided that such a declaration could be up to a maximum of 21 days. His Excellency further invoked Section 93 (1) to convene an extra- ordinary meeting of Parliament to have the opportunity to consult members of parliament on measures that have been put in place to address the spread and transmission of the virus. At this meeting Members of Parliament passed a resolution on the legal instruments and regulations governing the period of the state of emergency, and extended its duration by six (6) months.
The passing of the State of Emergency is considered as a very crucial step in fighting the near apocalyptic potential of the Novel COVID-19 virus. One of the interesting initiatives that was developed and extended to the business community was a 3-month wage subsidy that came with a condition that no businesses would retrench for the duration of the State of Public Emergency. This has potentially saved many people’s jobs as most companies would have been extremely quick to reduce expenses by downsizing. Self-preservation as some would call it.
Most organisations would have tried to reduce costs by letting go of people, retreated and tried their best to live long enough to fight another day. In my view there is silver lining that we need to look at and consider. The fact that organisations are not allowed to retrench has forced certain companies to look at the people with a long-term view.
Most leaders have probably had to wonder how they are going to ensure that their people are resilient. Do they have team members who innovate and add value to the organisation during these testing times? Do they even have resilient people or are they just waiting for the inevitable end? Can they really train people and make them resilient? How can your team members be part of your recovery plan? What can they do to avoid losing the capabilities they need to operate meaningfully for the duration of the State of Public Emergency and beyond?
The above questions have forced companies to reimagine the future of work. The truth is that no organisation can operate to its full potential without resilient people. In the normal business cycle, new teams come on board; new business streams open, operations or production sites launch or close; new markets develop, and technology is introduced. All of this provides fresh opportunities – and risks.
The best analogy I have seen of people-focused resilience planning reframes employees as your organisation’s immune system, ready and prepared to anticipate risks and ensure they can tackle challenges, fend off illness and bounce back more quickly. So, how do you supercharge your organizational immune system to become resilient?
COVID-19 has helped many organisations realize they were not as prepared as they believed themselves to be. Now is the time to take stock and reset for the future. All the strategies and plans prior to COVID-19 arriving in Botswana need to be thrown out of the window and you need to develop a new plan today. There is no room for tweaking or reframing. Botswana has been disrupted and we need to accept and embrace the change. What we initially anticipated as a disease that would take a short term is turning out to be something we are going to have to live with for a much longer time. It is going to be a marathon and therefore businesses need to have a plan to complete this marathon.
Start planning. Planning for change can help reduce employee stress, anxiety, and overall fear, boosting the confidence of staff and stakeholders. Think about conducting and then regularly refreshing a strategic business impact analysis, look at your employee engagement scores, dig into your customer metrics and explore the way people work alongside your behaviours and culture. This research will help to identify what you really want to protect, the risks that you need to plan for and what you need to survive during disruption. Don’t forget to ask your team members for their input. In many cases they are closest to critical business areas and already have ideas to make processes and systems more robust.
Revisit your organisational purpose. Purpose, values and principles are powerful tools. By putting your organisation’s purpose and values front and center, you provide clear decision-making guidelines for yourself and your organisation. There are very tough and interesting decisions to make which have to be made fast; so having guiding principles on which the business believes in will help and assist all decision makers with sanity checking the choices that are in front of them. One noticeable characteristic of companies that adapt well during change is that they have a strong sense of identity. Leaders and employees have a shared sense of purpose and a common performance culture; they know what the company stands for beyond shareholder value and how to get things done right.
Revisit your purpose and values. Understand if they have been internalised and are proving useful. If so, find ways to increase their use. If not, adapt them as necessities, to help inspire and guide people while immunizing yourself against future disruption. Design your employee experience. The most resilient, adaptive and high performing companies are made up of people who know each other, like each other, and support each other.
Adaptability requires us to teach other, speak up and discuss problems, and have a collective sense of belonging. Listening to your team members is a powerful and disruptive thing to do. It has the potential to transform the way you manage your organisation. Enlisting employees to help shape employee experience, motivates better performance, increases employee retention and helps you spot issues and risks sooner. More importantly, it gives employees a voice so you can get active and constructive suggestions to make your business more robust by adopting an inclusive approach.
Leaders need to show they care. If you want to build resilience, you must build on a basis of trust. And this means leaders should listen, care, and respond. It’s time to build the entire business model around trust and empathy. Many of the employees will be working under extreme pressure due to the looming question around what will happen when companies have to retrench. As a leader of a company transparency and open communication are the most critical aspects that need to be illustrated.
Take your team member into confidence because if you do have to go through the dreaded excise of retrenchment you have to remember that those people the company retains will judge you based on the process you follow. If you illustrate that the business or organization has no regard for loyalty and commitment, they will never commit to the long-term plans of the organisation which will leave you worse off in the end. Its an absolutely delicate balance but it must all be done in good faith. Hopefully, your organization will avoid this!
This is the best time to revisit your identify and train your people to encourage qualities that build strong, empathetic leadership; self-awareness and control, communication, kindness and psychological safety. Resilience is the glue that binds functional silos and integrates partners, improves communications, helps you prepare, listen and understand. Most importantly, people-focused resilience helps individuals and teams to think collectively and with empathy – helping you respond and recover faster.
Article written by Thabo Majola, a brand communications expert with a wealth of experience in the field and is Managing Director of Incepta Communications.
Parliament was this week once again seized with matters that concern them and borders on conflict of interest and abuse of privilege.
The two matters are; review of MPs benefits as well as President Mokgweetsi Masisi’s participation in the bidding for Banyana Farms. For the latter, it should not come as a surprise that President Masisi succeeded in bid.
The President’s business interests have also been in the forefront. While President Masisi is entitled as a citizen to participate in a various businesses in the country or abroad, it is morally deficient for him to participate in a bidding process that is handled by the government he leads. By the virtue of his presidency, Masisi is the head of government and head of State.
Not long ago, former President Festus Mogae suggested that elected officials should consider using blind trust to manage their business interests once they are elected to public office. Though blind trusts are expensive, they are the best way of ensuring confidence in those that serve in public office.
A blind trust is a trust established by the owner (or trustor) giving another party (the trustee) full control of the trust. Blind trusts are often established in situations where individuals want to avoid conflicts of interest between their employment and investments.
The trustee has full discretion over the assets and investments while being charged with managing the assets and any income generated in the trust.
The trustor can terminate the trust, but otherwise exercises no control over the actions taken within the trust and receives no reports from the trustees while the blind trust is in force.
Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) Secretary General, Mpho Balopi, has defended President Masisi’s participation in business and in the Banyana Farms bidding. His contention is that, the practise even obtained during the administration of previous presidents.
The President is the most influential figure in the country. His role is representative and he enjoys a plethora of privileges. He is not an ordinary citizen. The President should therefore be mindful of this fact.
We should as a nation continue to thrive for improvement of our laws with the viewing of enhancing good governance. We should accept perpetuation of certain practices on the bases that they are a norm. MPs are custodians of good governance and they should measure up to the demands of their responsibility.
Parliament should not be spared for its role in countenancing these developments. Parliament is charged with the mandate of making laws and providing oversight, but for them to make laws that are meant solely for their benefits as MPs is unethical and from a governance point of view, wrong.
There have been debates in parliament, some dating from past years, about the benefits of MPs including pension benefits. It is of course self-serving for MPs to be deliberating on their compensation and other benefits.
In the past, we have also contended that MPs are not the right people to discuss their own compensation and there has to be Special Committee set for the purpose. This is a practice in advanced democracies.
By suggesting this, we are not suggesting that MP benefits are in anyway lucrative, but we are saying, an independent body may figure out the best way of handling such issues, and even offer MPs better benefits.
In the United Kingdom for example; since 2009 following a scandal relating to abuse of office, set-up Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA)
IPSA is responsible for: setting the level of and paying MPs’ annual salaries; paying the salaries of MPs’ staff; drawing up, reviewing, and administering an MP’s allowance scheme; providing MPs with publicly available and information relating to taxation issues; and determining the procedures for investigations and complaints relating to MPs.
Owing to what has happened in the Parliament of Botswana recently, we now need to have a way of limiting what MPs can do especially when it comes to laws that concern them. We cannot be too trusting as a nation.
MPs can abuse office for their own agendas. There is need to act swiftly to deal with the inherent conflict of interest that arise as a result of our legislative setup. A voice of reason should emerge from Parliament to address this unpleasant situation. This cannot be business as usual.