Kataa umaskini, umaskini sio sifa

[Chivundu]

Nina idea ambayo ina jumuisha zaidi ya vitu 19 hata kama wakafanya replica hawawezi kufua dafu 😀

Wanaweza waka "replicate" kuiga wazo sio lazima wapite na vitu vyote 19 na pia wanaweza kuliboresha zaidi na wakalitekeleza l. Ndio maana unaona mdau huko juu kaongelea IP's (Intellectual property Rights). Kulinda biashara lazima ulinde kwanza idea.

 

[Manyanza]

Wanaweza waka "replicate" kuiga wazo sio lazima wapite na vitu vyote 19 na pia wanaweza kuliboresha zaidi na wakalitekeleza l. Ndio maana unaona mdau huko juu kaongelea IP's (Intellectual property Rights). Kulinda biashara lazima ulinde kwanza idea.

Hii idea yangu nailinda kwa wivu wote, najua wanaweza ku replicate lakini kuna namna lazima niwe involved kwa jinsi ninavyoona.

Mkuu aliyeanza kaanza tu hata kama watakuja na mihela mingi na mbwembwe watafeli tu kwa sababu kuna mambo bado naya study kupata ufahamu zaidi. Kwa mfano kwa miaka 10 iliyopita tasnia ya media imevamiwa kwa fujo lakini waliokuja kwa fujo naona wanapotea. Wasafi media na Crown Media walileta wimbi zito kwa Clouds Media lakini wametepeta. Mfano Yawezekana usiwe na maana kubwa lakini nguvu ya pesa na kuiga kitu ambacho sio passion yake lazima utatepeta tu.

 

[Davidmmarista]

Hii idea yangu nailinda kwa wivu wote, najua wanaweza ku replicate lakini kuna namna lazima niwe involved kwa jinsi ninavyoona.

Mkuu aliyeanza kaanza tu hata kama watakuja na mihela mingi na mbwembwe watafeli tu kwa sababu kuna mambo bado naya study kupata ufahamu zaidi. Kwa mfano kwa miaka 10 iliyopita tasnia ya media imevamiwa kwa fujo lakini waliokuja kwa fujo naona wanapotea. Wasafi media na Crown Media walileta wimbi zito kwa Clouds Media lakini wametepeta. Mfano Yawezekana usiwe na maana kubwa lakini nguvu ya pesa na kuiga kitu ambacho sio passion yake lazima utatepeta tu.

Ila mkuu hata ukiilinda idea yako siku moja may be ikawa successful in reality. Watu wataiona tu hiyo idea na some will even copy it kama ina potential. Why do you think it's hard for people to copy what your doing?

Nowadays people are working on teams kwahiyo kama ukiweza kufanya jambo fulani expect that there are people who can also do it sometimes better than you.

 

[Chivundu]

Hii idea yangu nailinda kwa wivu wote, najua wanaweza ku replicate lakini kuna namna lazima niwe involved kwa jinsi ninavyoona.

Mkuu aliyeanza kaanza tu hata kama watakuja na mihela mingi na mbwembwe watafeli tu kwa sababu kuna mambo bado naya study kupata ufahamu zaidi. Kwa mfano kwa miaka 10 iliyopita tasnia ya media imevamiwa kwa fujo lakini waliokuja kwa fujo naona wanapotea. Wasafi media na Crown Media walileta wimbi zito kwa Clouds Media lakini wametepeta. Mfano Yawezekana usiwe na maana kubwa lakini nguvu ya pesa na kuiga kitu ambacho sio passion yake lazima utatepeta tu.

Sawa mkuu, kila la kheri. Biashara zina fujo nyingi sana. Best wishes champ.

 

[Manyanza]

Sawa mkuu, kila la kheri. Biashara zina fujo nyingi sana. Best wishes champ.

Mkuu !
Asante sana najua kuna vurugu lakini msimamo wangu upo palepale kitu unachokipenda utakifanya kwa uthabiti. Au umeshasahau Musiba aliwahi kuanzisha forums ambayo inafanana na Jamiiforums kwa kila kitu (Sijui ilikuwa inaitwa Mwanajamii forums, hata ilikopotelea na kufia haijulikani.

Kuna mawazo mengine hata kama mtu utajaribu ku copy na kutumia sana pesa bado utashindwa tu.

 

[Grace glory]

Idea ndio nini kwanza tuanzie hapo

 

[StudentTeacher]

Mkuu !
Asante sana najua kuna vurugu lakini msimamo wangu upo palepale kitu unachokipenda utakifanya kwa uthabiti. Au umeshasahau Musiba aliwahi kuanzisha forums ambayo inafanana na Jamiiforums kwa kila kitu (Sijui ilikuwa inaitwa Mwanajamii forums, hata ilikopotelea na kufia haijulikani.

Kuna mawazo mengine hata kama mtu utajaribu ku copy na kutumia sana pesa bado utashindwa tu.

Ni kweli kabisa hasa idea ambayo inatokana na personality na uwezo wako wa asili. Messi na Ronaldo hawawezi kucheza mpira kama Gaucho😀

 

[La Roche]

This is really a chicken and egg question.

Do we lack ideas because of shortcomings in our institutions and culture or our lack of ideas causes problems in our institutions and culture?

There is an interplay.

But you are also being utopian and ideological.

And surely, for an individual, one can swim against the current uphill and emerge triumphant, despite all the structural shortcomings. I am not saying that one should sit on ones hands until all the institutional and cultural problems are fixed. That will be bizarre, even in the leading countries one still see institutional and cultural issues that are improved on and continuously at that.

What I am saying is, forget the individual, who by ingenuity or luck may be able to make it. Like a Reginald Mengi here and there. Mengi actually wrote about so many challenges he faced. I watched him start with his small Bic factory on our street in Upanga, so I know his story from those early years. He is a testament to the power of an individual with an idea.

But, as a society, collectively, to achieve a paradigm shift we need institutional and cultural changes. There is no way around that.

Things don't just happen, things happen by plans, sometime long term plans.

And these plans must be intentional.

What you are describing is more of an individuals striking gold by sheer serendipity.

Of course you can't strike gokd by sitting oretty at home, you habe to go out there and dig.

What I am describing is you have to have the right land laws, weights and measures enforcement, security, banking system support for miners, international network exposure, etc.

That, without delibarate intentional planning, cultural paradigm shifts, economic programs, is not going to scale.

So, if you are a motivational speaker or life coach pumping people up to go for it, at an individual's level, you are fine.

But if you are looking at a national level, there is no way around looking at structural issues.

I think you are making a compelling argument for institutional reform, but you may be overstating the extent to which institutional and cultural changes must precede collective progress..

Institutions do not exist in a vacuum. They are created, shaped and sometimes transformed by individuals who dare to think differently, challenge prevailing assumptions and introduce ideas that society initially struggles to accommodate. In that sense, institutions are not merely the preconditions for progress,they can also be its products.

You argue that individual success stories cannot be scaled without deliberate institutional and cultural changes. I agree, to an extent. But the question is, “where do these changes originate?” Who initiates the paradigm shift? Is it always a carefully designed national programme, or can it begin with individuals whose ideas gradually reshape economic practices, social attitudes and eventually institutions themselves?

My concern is that your argument risks turning structural shortcomings into an explanation for almost every failure, while underestimating the agency of individuals and smaller groups in transforming those very structures.

Furthermore, institutional reform is not automatically a recipe for innovation. A country can establish impressive institutions, formulate ambitious economic programmes and produce beautifully written policies, yet achieve very little if its people lack the initiative, creativity, courage and willingness to take risks necessary to make those institutions work..

Likewise, a society does not necessarily need to resolve every institutional deficiency before it can begin producing meaningful ideas and economic value. Sometimes, innovation emerges precisely because existing systems are inadequate. Constraints can suppress creativity, but they can also provoke it.

I would therefore argue that the relationship between institutions, culture and individual ingenuity is not a one-way street. Institutions shape individuals, individuals shape culture, and culture influences the institutions a society creates and sustains.

The real challenge, then, is not to choose between individual ingenuity and structural reform, but to understand how each can reinforce the other.

You are right that isolated success stories do not automatically translate into national transformation. But I would equally argue that institutional transformation without a culture of initiative, experimentation and personal responsibility can become an exercise in rearranging structures without changing outcomes..

Ultimately, a country does not develop simply because it has the right institutions, nor does it develop simply because it has brilliant individuals. It develops when the two begin to work together…

And perhaps the most important question is not whether we should fix our institutions before encouraging people to innovate, but whether we can afford to postpone either one while waiting for the other!

 

[La Roche]

Ideas are cheap, many people have ideas. Few succeed from their ideas but rather reality itself decides success.

I agree that ideas alone do not guarantee success. But saying that reality determines success raises another question, what shapes that reality in the first place?

Reality is not a neutral playing field where everyone competes under the same conditions. Access to capital, institutional support, market opportunities and legal protection all influence whether an idea succeeds or fails….

Two people can have equally brilliant ideas, yet achieve radically different outcomes because they operate under different circumstances. Does that necessarily mean one had a better idea, or could it mean that one had a more favourable environment?

My argument is not that ideas are sufficient for success. It is that ideas, execution and the conditions under which they are pursued are inseparable…

If reality determines success, then we must also examine who shapes that reality, whose interests it serves, and whether it gives people a fair opportunity to turn their ideas into something meaningful.

 

[La Roche]

Hii ni fact.
Bongo kupata co-investors, kufanya IPO au hata kupata venture capital fund kwa mtu kutekeleza wazo lake ni ishu.

Exactly! Lakini hapo ndipo tunaporudi kwenye structural problems. Kama kupata co-investors, venture capital au kufanya IPO Bongo ni ishu, does that necessarily mean watu hawana good ideas, or does it mean the ecosystem haijawekwa vizuri ku-support na ku-scale those ideas?

Mawazo pekee hayatoshi, nakubaliana. But pia, huwezi kutenganisha success ya idea na mazingira ambayo inatakiwa ku-survive na kukua. Sometimes the problem is not the idea itself, but the system within which that idea is supposed to thrive…

 

[Kiranga]

I think you are making a compelling argument for institutional reform, but you may be overstating the extent to which institutional and cultural changes must precede collective progress..

Institutions do not exist in a vacuum. They are created, shaped and sometimes transformed by individuals who dare to think differently, challenge prevailing assumptions and introduce ideas that society initially struggles to accommodate. In that sense, institutions are not merely the preconditions for progress,they can also be its products.

You argue that individual success stories cannot be scaled without deliberate institutional and cultural changes. I agree, to an extent. But the question is, “where do these changes originate?” Who initiates the paradigm shift? Is it always a carefully designed national programme, or can it begin with individuals whose ideas gradually reshape economic practices, social attitudes and eventually institutions themselves?

My concern is that your argument risks turning structural shortcomings into an explanation for almost every failure, while underestimating the agency of individuals and smaller groups in transforming those very structures.

Furthermore, institutional reform is not automatically a recipe for innovation. A country can establish impressive institutions, formulate ambitious economic programmes and produce beautifully written policies, yet achieve very little if its people lack the initiative, creativity, courage and willingness to take risks necessary to make those institutions work..

Likewise, a society does not necessarily need to resolve every institutional deficiency before it can begin producing meaningful ideas and economic value. Sometimes, innovation emerges precisely because existing systems are inadequate. Constraints can suppress creativity, but they can also provoke it.

I would therefore argue that the relationship between institutions, culture and individual ingenuity is not a one-way street. Institutions shape individuals, individuals shape culture, and culture influences the institutions a society creates and sustains.

The real challenge, then, is not to choose between individual ingenuity and structural reform, but to understand how each can reinforce the other.

You are right that isolated success stories do not automatically translate into national transformation. But I would equally argue that institutional transformation without a culture of initiative, experimentation and personal responsibility can become an exercise in rearranging structures without changing outcomes..

Ultimately, a country does not develop simply because it has the right institutions, nor does it develop simply because it has brilliant individuals. It develops when the two begin to work together…

And perhaps the most important question is not whether we should fix our institutions before encouraging people to innovate, but whether we can afford to postpone either one while waiting for the other!

You think wrong.

You are reading what you want instead of what I wrote.

You are confusing my case stressing the importance of institutional changes and a broad based cultural paradigm shift for an excuse for any failure. I did not pose such an excuse.

I stated clearly that even with structural issues some individual are able to make it. I gave the Reginald Mengi example. The example shames individuals who would unfairly use structural problems as an excuse. Reginald Mengi is that one kid who passed the exam and when you talk about how bad the teachers are, as an excuse for why you did not pass, he makes your dad say "If the teachers are so bad, how did Reginald Mengi pass the exam?"

So, at the individual level, this is not an excuse. This is an explanagion of why we can't scale, even as we are able to get a Reginald Mengi here and there.

You are confusing my explanation on why we can't scale as an excuse for individuals who fail becauae of their own issues. It is not.

Institutions do not exist in a vacuum. I never said they do. I just said we do not have strong institutions.

It is entirely possible that we do not have the collective individual ingenuity to propel institutional changes that would lead to a scaled paradigm shift nationwide. In this case, there is no contradiction or competition between individual ingenuity and institutional exellence, because one (collective individual ingenuity) lead to the other (institutional exellence) and the other (institutional exellence) lead to the requisite national scaling.

This is a synergy that seems to have worked everywhere. There is no example of individuals propeling changes at scale without those individuals fixing institutions to better effect changes at scale. If you have such an example, pray tell.

You are necessarily making the false equivalence claim that institutional reform must come from central planning. I am a libertarian who detest central planning and values individual freedom and collaborative leadership. The notion that institutional planning equals central planning is a false equivalence, because institutional planning can come out of a broad consensus and an inclusive process.

Your example of a society that has all these beautiful plans that are not being implemented is typical of central planning systems, where people do not take the initiative to implement, because the ideas are not their own, they were not consulted and included, they feel no ownership. If the people have ownership, have been consulted and even contributed to these ideas, you will have no such problems.

You say a society does not need to resolve every institutional issue before it can begin producing meaningful ideas. I did not say it has to. This is really a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy. In fact I even said that a society does not need to resolve every institutional issue for individuals to act, I said even in leading countries, there are still institutional reforms, this is an ongoing process, but people are not sitting pretty. It is all up there, I said it.

It seems that you are interested in writing a high school essay nore than understanding what I am writing.

You say

"I would therefore argue that the relationship between institutions, culture and individual ingenuity is not a one-way street. Institutions shape individuals, individuals shape culture, and culture influences the institutions a society creates and sustains."

I said this, from the very top. I said there is an interplay.

 

[La Roche]

You think wrong.

You are reading what you want instead of what I wrote.

You are confusing my case stressing the importance of institutional changes and a broad based cultural paradigm shift for an excuse for any failure. I did not pose such an excuse.

I stated clearly that even with structural issues some individual are able to make it. I gave the Reginald Mengi example. The example shames individuals who would unfairly use structural problems as an excuse. Reginald Mengi is that one kid who passed the exam and when you talk about how bad the teachers are, as an excuse for why you did not pass, he makes your dad say "If the teachers are so bad, how did Reginald Mengi pass the exam?"

So, at the individual level, this is not an excuse. This is an explanagion of why we can't scale, even as we are able to get a Reginald Mengi here and there.

You are confusing my explanation on why we can't scale as an excuse for individuals who fail becauae of their own issues. It is not.

Institutions do not exist in a vacuum. I never said they do. I just said we do not have strong institutions.

It is entirely possible that we do not have the collective individual ingenuity to propel institutional changes that would lead to a scaled paradigm shift nationwide. In this case, there is no contradiction or competition between individual ingenuity and institutional exellence, because one (collective individual ingenuity) lead to the other (institutional exellence) and the other (institutional exellence) lead to the requisite national scaling.

This is a synergy that seems to have worked everywhere. There is no example of individuals propeling changes at scale without those individuals fixing institutions to better effect changes at scale. If you have such an example, pray tell.

You are necessarily making the false equivalence claim that institutional reform must come from central planning. I am a libertarian who detest central planning and values individual freedom and collaborative leadership. The notion that institutional planning equals central planning is a false equivalence, because institutional planning can come out of a broad consensus and an inclusive process.

Your example of a society that has all these beautiful plans that are not being implemented is typical of central planning systems, where people do not take the initiative to implement, because the ideas are not their own, they were not consulted and included, they feel no ownership. If the people have ownership, have been consulted and even contributed to these ideas, you will have no such problems.

You say a society does not need to resolve every institutional issue before it can begin producing meaningful ideas. I did not say it has to. This is really a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy. In fact I even said that a society does not need to resolve every institutional issue for individuals to act, I said even in leading countries, there are still institutional reforms, this is an ongoing process, but people are not sitting pretty. It is all up there, I said it.

It seems that you are interested in writing a high school essay nore than understanding what I am writing.

You say

"I would therefore argue that the relationship between institutions, culture and individual ingenuity is not a one-way street. Institutions shape individuals, individuals shape culture, and culture influences the institutions a society creates and sustains."

I said this, from the very top. I said there is an interplay.

I think you are making a valid distinction between individual failure and systemic limitations, but I don’t think your explanation fully establishes the cause of the scaling problem..

First, saying that individual ingenuity leads to institutional excellence, which then enables national scaling, sounds reasonable, but it doesn’t fully explain the mechanism. If collective ingenuity is required to build strong institutions, and strong institutions are required to scale ingenuity, what initiates that process? Saying there is an interplay explains the relationship, but not necessarily why that relationship produces better outcomes in some societies than others.

Second, I would challenge your claim that there is no example of individuals driving change at scale without fixing institutions. That depends on what you mean by institutional change. An entrepreneur can transform an industry, create thousands of jobs, change consumer behaviour and inspire an entire generation without directly reforming the country’s formal institutions. Using existing institutions is not the same as reforming them.

Third, the Reginald Mengi example establishes that individual success is possible despite systemic challenges. It does not, by itself, establish why such success is difficult to replicate. One exceptional case can demonstrate possibility, but it cannot tell us how many equally capable people were constrained by their circumstances or identify the precise barriers preventing them from succeeding.

Fourth, I agree that inclusive participation can create ownership and improve implementation. However, ownership alone does not guarantee execution. Resources, technical capacity, incentives, accountability and conflicting interests still matter. People can collectively own an idea and still lack the means or institutional capacity to implement it.

Finally, I think we need to distinguish between a lack of collective ingenuity and a failure to create conditions in which existing ingenuity can thrive. A society may have capable, innovative people but lack access to capital, effective contract enforcement, protection of intellectual property or mechanisms for connecting ideas to investment. In such a case, the problem is not necessarily a shortage of ingenuity, it may be the inability of the existing system to convert ingenuity into scalable outcomes.

So, my point is not that institutions are irrelevant, nor that individuals should use systemic problems as an excuse for failure. My point is that identifying an interplay between individuals, culture and institutions is only the beginning of the explanation. We still need to establish the specific mechanisms, identify the binding constraints and demonstrate why they prevent successful ideas from being replicated at scale.

 

[mwanadome]

Pamoja na uthubutu wa kuiweka wazi hoja yako kwa ugali wa lugha, angalau umeeleweka.
Ila hoja ya mifumo yetu hapa Tanganyika, inayotakiwa kua supportive kwenye hido idea unazo sema, usiipuuze hiii na kuishia kuwalaumu na kusimanga walio shindwa kutoboa.

 

[Kiranga]

Pamoja na uthubutu wa kuiweka wazi hoja yako kwa ugali wa lugha, angalau umeeleweka.
Ila hoja ya mifumo yetu hapa Tanganyika, inayotakiwa kua supportive kwenye hido idea unazo sema, usiipuuze hiii na kuishia kuwalaumu na kusimanga walio shindwa kutoboa.

Mkuu,

Tatizo linaanza pale mtu anapoamini dhana kidini, kiitikadi, na anatanguliza imani yake hiyo kabla ya kufikiri sana, kabla ya kuangalia ushahidi, kabla ya kufikiria "what if I am wrong?".

Hakuna maendeleo ya kubadili jamii nzima yanayoletwa na watu tu bila kuhusisha mabadiliko ya msingi ya mifumo, mipango ya makusudi ya kiserikali na kitaasisi, juhudi za pamoja za kuongeza elimu, etc.

Hii hoja ya kumuweka mtu binafsi katikati ya maendeleo, ni hoja muhimu sana, kwa sababu hakuna nyumba ya matofali inayoweza kujengwa bila tofali hata moja. Watu binafsi ndio wanaoanza kuwa na ideas halafu zinachakatwa na kuwekwa kwenye mifumo kitaasisi. Kwa hiyo siko hapa kusema watu binafsi hawana nafasi.

Ila, kuna hatari ya kumuweka mtu binafsi mbele sana kiitikadi, bila kuzingatia ukweli kuwa hata huyo mtu binafsi, mipango ya makusudi ya kitaasisi, ya kiserikali, ya kijamii, inaweza kumuongezea uwezo sana kujenga potential yake.

Nimetoa nfano wa Reginald Mengi kama mtu binafsi aliyeweza kupigana katika mfumo ambao ulikuwa na matatizo mengi sana, mpaka akafanikiwa, nikionesha kuwa mtu binafsi anaweza kufanikiwa hata pale ambapo kuna mapungufu mengi ya kitaasisi. Lakini mfano huu inabidi niurejee kutoa muktadha mkubwa zaidi. Kwa sababu kumuangalia Reginald Mengi kama mtu binafsi aliyepambana mwenyewe tu mpaka akafanikiwa licha ya mifumo kuwa mibovu, ni makosa.

Kwa sababu, Reginald Mengi kasaidiwa sana na taasisi, Reginald Mengi hakusimama mwenyewe tu, alisomeshwa na taasisi za vyama vya ushirika vya wauza kahawa wa Kilimanjaro huko. Kuna taasisi zilimsomesha mpaka Ulaya, akapata nafasi ya kusimama na kupigana kama mtu binafsi.

Kwa hiyo, hata pale tunapoangalia kwa juu juu tukaona "Huyu Reginald Mengi mtu binafsi kapambana mpaka kaitoa" hiyo assesment ni superficial.

Kwa sababu nyuma ya mafanikio ya Reginald Mengi, kuna taasisi ya KNCU ilimuona huyu ana uwezo lakini bila ya kusoma hataweza kuutumia uwezo wake wote, tumpeleke shule. Ikamuongezea uwezo wa kuitumia vizuri potential yake.

Sasa hapo unawezaje kusema mtu binafsi ndiyo kitu muhimu kabisa, wakati hata huyo mtu binafsi kufanikiwa vizuri, anahitaji msaada wa taasisi?

 

[mwanadome]

Mkuu,

Tatizo linaanza pale mtu anapoamini dhana kidini, kiitikadi, na anatanguliza imani yake hiyo kabla ya kufikiri sana, kabla ya kuangalia ushahidi, kabla ya kufikiria "what if I am wrong?".

Hakuna maendeleo ya kubadili jamii nzima yanayoletwa na watu tu bila kuhusisha mabadiliko ya msingi ya mifumo, mipango ya makusudi ya kiserikali na kitaasisi, juhudi za pamoja za kuongeza elimu, etc.

Hii hoja ya kumuweka mtu binafsi katikati ya maendeleo, ni hoja muhimu sana, kwa sababu hakuna nyumba ya matofali inayoweza kujengwa bila tofali hata moja. Watu binafsi ndio wanaoanza kuwa na ideas halafu zinachakatwa na kuwekwa kwenye mifumo kitaasisi. Kwa hiyo siko hapa kusema watu binafsi hawana nafasi.

Ila, kuna hatari ya kumuweka mtu binafsi mbele sana kiitikadi, bila kuzingatia ukweli kuwa hata huyo mtu binafsi, mipango ya makusudi ya kitaasisi, ya kiserikali, ya kijamii, inaweza kumuongezea uwezo sana kujenga potential yake.

Nimetoa nfano wa Reginald Mengi kama mtu binafsi aliyeweza kupigana katika mfumo ambao ulikuwa na matatizo mengi sana, mpaka akafanikiwa, nikionesha kuwa mtu binafsi anaweza kufanikiwa hata pale ambapo kuna mapungufu mengi ya kitaasisi. Lakini mfano huu inabidi niurejee kutoa muktadha mkubwa zaidi. Kwa sababu kumuangalia Reginald Mengi kama mtu binafsi aliyepambana mwenyewe tu mpaka akafanikiwa licha ya mifuno kuwa mibovu, ni makosa.

Kwa sababu, Reginald Mengi kasaidiwa sana na taasisi, Reginald Mengi hakusimama mwenyewe tu, alisomeshwa na taasisi za vyama vya ushirika vya wauza kahawa wa Kilimanjaro huko. Kuna taasisi zilimsomesha mpaka Ulaya, akapata nafasi ya kusimama na kupigana kama mtu binafsi.

Kwa hiyo, hata pale tunapoangalia kwa juu juu tukaona "Huyu Reginald Mengi mtu binafsi kapambana mpaka kaitoa" hiyo assesment ni superficial.

Kwa sababu nyuma ya mafanikio ya Reginald Mengi, kuna taasisi ya KNCU ilimuona huyu ana uwezo lakini bila ya kusoma hataweza kuutumia uwezo wake wote, tumpeleke shule. Ikamuongezea uwezo wa kuitumia vizuri potential yake.

Sasa hapo unawezaje kusema mtu binafsi ndiyo kitu muhimu kabisa, wakati hata huyo mtu binafsi kufanikiwa vizuri, anahitaji msaada wa taasisi?

Umemaliza kila kitu mkuu. Shukrani

 

[Smart911]

Inasikitisha sana...


Cc: Mahondaw