The Kenyan government recently proposed a housing levy, requiring workers to contribute 3% of their salaries to the building of affordable houses. This proposal has sparked a wave of peaceful protests among Kenyan workers. I must say from the onset that the goal of addressing the housing crisis is admirable and the 3% is not as much compared with some of the levies we pay for other things, but the timing of this levy and the government’s inability to clearly explain and communicate the idea have given rise to resistance and skepticism. Recently in a national television one of the government officials could be seen sweating even as he explained the whole idea, at times contradicting himself.
I keep wondering if this is a great idea that the government is implementing at the wrong time or Is it a noble idea that government officials are unable to communicate with the public and persuade them to buy the same? Talking of communicate to convert, I think my latest book would greatly help in the area of communication. Grab your copy today at Amazon or at Nuria Bookshop.
Back to this noble idea of the housing levy. The housing levy’s poorly timed introduction is one of the main criticisms leveled against it. Kenya’s economy already faces a host of difficulties, such as high rates of inflation, rising living expenses, and slowly expanding economies. In light of this, the imposition of an additional 3% deduction from employees’ salaries only makes their financial struggles worse and reduces their available money. Given that workers are already juggling daily living expenses and trying to make ends meet, the timing seems insensitive to some.
Another significant bone of contention is the government’s lack of openness and effective communication regarding the housing levy. It is not lost to many Kenyans how they contribute to some of the government bodies such as NHIF but rarely receive satisfactory services. Kenyans therefore have good reason to be concerned about the management and accountability of the funds raised. The methods by which the funds will be gathered, saved, and used for the intended purpose of constructing affordable housing must be clearly defined by the government. The absence of this information breeds distrust and skepticism among citizens, who rightfully call for financial matters to be transparent.
Additionally, the frustration of the general public has increased as a result of the government’s inability to clearly explain the goals, advantages, and long-term plans of the housing levy. The public’s confidence in the government’s intentions has been further eroded by the absence of a comprehensive communication strategy that would have prevented the growth of rumors and speculation. The government may need to engage in meaningful dialogue with the affected population in order to address their concerns, allay their fears, and forge a sense of purpose.
Critics contend that the government should look into alternative strategies to address the housing crisis rather than enacting a mandatory levy. One alternative is to work with private sector stakeholders, encourage the construction of affordable housing, and implement laws that make it easier to get a mortgage. The government can ensure that the concerns and perspectives of all stakeholders are taken into account by using inclusive and consultative decision-making processes, leading to more practical and long-lasting solutions.
This is a noble idea, and to advance it, the government must prioritize transparency, engage in open communication, and consider alternative strategies that take into account the needs and concerns of the populace. The housing crisis can only be effectively addressed while upholding the rights and financial security of the Kenyan workforce through inclusive and transparent decision-making processes.
What is your view on this housing levy?
I hear you professor
The issue of housing a major issue in many countries. The idea is Nobel but the execution is the issue.