Mxem! What plagiarism?
Dithapelo Keorapetse | Friday March 18, 2016 14:07
The announcement deliberately left out details of what really transpired at the meeting. It is important therefore to reveal further details for better appreciation of what the issue really is.
When debating the 2016/7 budget, the LOO, among other things, made a commitment that under his government there shall be accelerated land servicing, fast allocation of plots and low prices for first property owners and public private partnership or words to that effect. In his response, the Minister of Lands and Housing alleged that the LOO plagiarised the above words from the Land Policy recently adopted by Parliament. After exchanges and arguments by MPs on the same in the House, the Speaker ruled that indeed the LOO had plagiarised. It was unbelievable that she could rule that way.
Plagiarism is commonly defined as the act of presenting another’s work or ideas as your own. It is an act of fraud by way of stealing other people’s work and lying about it afterward by claiming it as your work or idea. It is a serious crime, akin to treason or subversion, in academia. One can have their degree withdrawn or title taken away as punishment. So what the Minister of Lands and Housing was implying was that the LOO has stolen ideas from the land policy and claimed that they are his.
The matter was referred to the BAC for review. The Committee according to Standing Order 102.2 (b), in addition to other functions, “review, select and compile Speaker’s rulings from previous meetings for approval as future precedent by the House”. The Committee consists of the Speaker as the Chairperson, the Leader of the House (Vice President), LOO and three Party Whips. Both the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Parliamentary Counsel attend the meetings of the BAC. At the meeting convened for the plagiarism allegation, the Minister of Lands was invited to make his case pursuant to the audi alteram partem maxim.
At the BAC meeting, the Minister repeated what he said in Parliament. The LOO’s argument was that the idea of land servicing, whether in actions or discourse, is not the original idea of the BDP or its government. In land economics or public sector economics and many other discourses, there are arguments and discussions about land servicing and allocation. The opposition (LOO and two whips) submitted that it would mean that either the government through the land policy plagiarised the idea from other governments or scholars on land or economics or other governments plagiarised from it. It simply didn’t make any sense at all. The opposition contended that even assuming that the idea was that of the BDP, or its government through the Land Policy, the two paragraphs in question were totally different in the sense that there were at least three identifiable distinguishable points. It cannot be that anything and everything on land servicing and allocation, no matter how remotely related it is to the land policy, would be plagiarism from the Land Policy. It just didn’t make sense.
After hearing the arguments, the LOO was asked to recuse himself as he was the complainant in line with the notion of nemo judex in causa sua, so he and the Minister left the meeting. The Leader of the House, albeit at pains to make sense of what he was trying to say, concurred that the LOO had plagiarised. Consequently the government Whip, who for all intends and purposes doesn’t understand the meaning of the word, agreed with him as his boss. The two opposition whips stuck to their earlier arguments. It was two against two. It was at that point that the Speaker broke the tie by casting her vote in favour of the party that put her in office. The whole thing didn’t make sense. In fact, the meeting was a complete waste of time. These details were deliberately left out to make it look like the committee found the LOO guilty. There are still fundamental questions on technicalities of the Speaker’s role and her vote and the recusal of the LOO. But besides, the substantive matter itself is flawed.
Parliament has a biased, haphazard and incompetent Speakership. The House and almost all Committees are dominated by the ruling party. Such idiocy and phoniness as regarding the LOO’s words as plagiarism in respect of land servicing should be expected. It is simply politically expedient to say he plagiarised; the objective is to tarnish his name and make it appear like he is bereft of new ideas. The LOO is an accomplished lawyer and a graduate of an Ivy League institution and a former university don. Both the opposition whips are authors and one is a university don on leave. None of the BDP members in the BAC including the Speaker understands the issue of plagiarism than LOO and the opposition Whips. What transpired was a tyranny of the ruling party for petty political expediency.
The precedent set by the Speaker and her ruling party functionaries is bad and it is going to be almost impossible to enforce or live up to. Plagiarism is fraud and shouldn’t be condoned by Parliament or any serious institution. It is funny that the LOO has purportedly been found guilty of plagiarism, a very serious offence, but there is no punishment for the same.
The Speaker didn’t even require him to expunge the words from the Hansard. The reason is simple, there is no plagiarism and the whole thing is a sham.