RE: “Why you should buy ‘Made in Rwanda’” (The New Times, April 3).
Was the author referring to women accessories? Why not start with preaching the same gospel to these ministers, parliamentarians, and director generals, to name a few, who drive government-provided latest SUVs?
What about these various brands of liquor, scotches, black, green and red label whiskies (mostly consumed by “men”) I see on the shelves of Nakumatt and Simba?
I firmly believe that the problem is elsewhere and that it should not be centred around “women” only — we need to accurately define it, then the solution will come easily.
Lipsticks and cosmetics are wants but SUVs for ministers and MPs are needs. They need them so to go to work, to visit citizens in rural areas. MPs need those cars to travel to the constituencies they represent and as you know roads there are not suitable for tiny cars such as Suzuki Swift.
All-terrain vehicles become a necessity if those officials are to perform their duties as they ought to. And those big houses you see in Kigali are assets. Those who built them are creating wealth for themselves and the country. They are contributing to Rwanda’s development.
The author of the article is talking about how the Government can reduce our import bill by giving priority to needs such as medication, building materials, equipment that create wealth, and not on wants such as lipsticks, other cosmetics which are used by both men and women. (I doubt whether the author intended to target women only). I believe he only forgot to include men in his examples.
Having said all the above, I personally don’t see how our Government can ban things such as cosmetics or even liquor for that matter, the Jacuzzis, etc. In my view, all those items should be taxed heavily to compensate for the foreign exchange unnecessarily spent.