HONG KONG (AP) — Prominent Hong Kong democracy advocate and newspaper founder Jimmy Lai has returned to court to contest an attempt by the government to keep him in jail while facing charges under a sweeping new national security law. No verdict was announced following the hearing Monday and Lai remains in custody. Lai was sent to the Court of Final Appeal in a prison van and entered through an inflatable tunnel as journalists sought to capture the scene. Lai was arrested last month in a sweep against pro-democracy activists accused over their involvement in 2019 anti-government protests. Lai was first refused bail, but released on appeal, leading to attacks on Hong Kong’s judiciary by the ruling Communist Party newspaper People’s Daily.
8SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,Susanne Biro Susanne Biro is a coach to C-suite and executive level leaders. She is also a seasoned facilitator, program designer, author and TEDx speaker. Along with Carrie Birkhofer and Christopher Beltran, … Web: www.syntrinaleadership.com Details When I ask executive audiences, “How many of you know that you need to have a conversation but you have been putting off actually having it?”, almost every hand will raise. Maybe your direct report hasn’t delivered the report when he said he would. Or perhaps you noticed how a newer team member has been a courageous voice on a challenging project. Whatever it is, we know we need to get better at addressing the real conversation, in real time, and to do so directly with the person or people involved. However, not many of us are comfortable doing so. Many prefer to avoid confrontation or any form of conflict. We are also surprisingly inept at sharing the positive impact others have upon our lives and/or the incredible contribution of their work. There are so many great things we think and feel about others that we simply do not share. For some, sharing the positive impact others have can be even more challenging than sharing the things we want them to do differently or better. After all, why provide feedback that sounds like praise? Isn’t it their job to get the work done well?We need to get better at having real conversations. The real conversation is the conversation you are having with yourself but are failing to have with the person or people involved. Unfortunately, whether you verbalize it or not, it is impacting you, all of your relationships, and the business.To be a truly effective as a leader, to lead with executive maturity, you must be able to have any level of conversation (the good, bad, and the ugly), with anyone (up, down, or across the organization) while remaining open, curious, and solution-orientated. If this sounds easy, it isn’t. Most of us are easily triggered by particular words, behaviors, or personalities, and can be highly sensitive and reactive on at least a few topics. We all have work to do. Here’s how to advance:The Five Questions Worksheet (below) is designed to help you bring greater awareness to the conversation playing out within you. Take pen to paper and complete the worksheet at least twice: once to prepare yourself to have a real conversation in which you want something changed. Then, complete it a second time for a conversation about something that is working exceptionally well that you simply need to acknowledge. The purpose of The Five Questions Worksheet is to speed up the time it takes for you to: (1) recognize the real conversation begging to be had, and (2) ensure you can effectively have it in real time.Your answers to these five questions will often be the exact conversation you want and need to have with the person or people in question. Answer the questions and then consider your answers a script for the conversation, which you might even share verbatim.When you have the conversation, speak from your own experience. You can do this most effectively by using “’I’ statements.” The five questions are designed to draw these from you (i.e., what I think, what I feel, what I want). Using “I” rather than “you,” “one,” or “we” when speaking makes your words direct statements of your own experience rather than attempts to interpret someone else’s. Making this one simple change can have a significant impact on your real conversation.Here is an example: “Raj, I thought we agreed (speak using “I” statements) that you would deliver the report to me on Friday at 10 am. However, I never received it nor heard from you (the situation/facts from your experience). What happened? (curiosity). For myself, I am confused and frustrated (what you are thinking and feeling), as this now holds up my ability to deliver the completed report to Mary on time, and thus, my reputation with her (what I am thinking, feeling, the impact). I am concerned I can’t count on you to do what you say you will do (the larger impact). Normally, I wouldn’t raise this because I have such respect for you and your work (what could hold me back from having the real conversation). However, I fear that if I do not raise it, I will no longer trust you or want to work with you (the important impact for the relationship and business). I am having this conversation because I really do want to work with you (my intention in having it). I would like us to set clearer expectations (what I want, my intention for having the conversation, solution-seeking). Another example:“Alex, I noticed (“I”-statement) you speak up at the recent all-hands meeting (situation, facts) and I want you to know I think it took a great deal of courage to share a dissenting opinion when the entire group wanted to proceed (my thoughts and feelings). I am glad you raised the issue because it made us all realize we were failing to consider critical aspects of the project (the important impact for the business). This is hard for me to say because I don’t want it to sound phony (what could hold me back from having the real conversation) but I want you to know admire your courage and that my trust and respect for you went through the roof (the important impact to the relationship). I am sharing this with you to ensure you know just how much I value you and your leadership (my intention for having it).We all need to become more aware of the conversations occurring within us and then to have the courage to share them directly. Let The Five Questions Worksheet be your guide to finding the most powerful and authentic language in which to have them.
The Speaker had been under pressure from lawmakers, particularly, the committee chairmen, to remove Abdulmumin on allegations of unilaterally awarding to his Kiru/Bebeji constituency of Kano State projects worth N4.1 billion, while his committee was working on the budget. This had contributed to the impasse between the legislature and the executive over the budget.President Mihammadu Buhari had refused to sign the budget into law on the ground that the legislators had removed several key projects and inserted theirs. Abdulmumin and his senate counterpart, Senator Danjuma Goje, came under fire for what many termed mishandling of the budget, leading to calls for his removal.Dogara, in making the announcement, said the decision was already reached to replace Abdulmumin, who coincidentally had offered to resign.“He met me and said he does not think he can continue as the committee chairman due to pressure of the work. But the notification came too late, as the House leadership had already concluded plans to remove him from the position,” Dogara said.Abdulmumin, who had left the chambers before the announcement, addressed a press conference where he explained that he had voluntarily resigned after “consultations with my family”, saying his relationship with the Speaker remains a cordial one.But the cordiality lasted less than 24 hours, before the bubble burst between both men.Erstwhile AlliesBoth men, ranking members, were close allies, a situation that came clearly during the tussle for the leadership of the House, when Abdulmumin stood solidly behind Dogara. Abdulmumin had stepped down from contesting for Speaker and thrown his weight behind Dogara, against Femi Gbajabiamila. Dogara emerged Speaker, but the rift between the Consolidation Group, Dogara’s platform, and the Loyalists Group, which backed Gbajabimaila, continued.Abdulmumin was the spokesman for the Consolidation Group. He was, apparently, rewarded with his appointment as chairman of the appropriation committee, which is considered one of the juiciest committees in the National Assembly. Abdulmumin was one of the few who had the ears of the Speaker.AllegationOn Thursday, Abdulmumin released a strongly-worded statement where he accused Dogara, the deputy speaker, Yusuf Sulaiman Lasun, Chief Whip, Alhassan Ado Doguwa, and Minority Leader, Leo Ogor, of allocating to themselves N40 billion, out of the N100 billion earmarked for the entire National Assembly. The lawmaker claimed that his refusal to cover up the deal and remain silent over the allocation of wasteful projects worth N20 billion to the principal officers’ constituencies put him at loggerheads with the House leadership.“My inability to admit into the budget almost N30 billion personal requests from Mr. Speaker and the three other principal officers also became an issue,” Abdulmumin alleged.These, Abdulmumim noted, resulted in attempts to blackmail him by Dogara, who he said constantly reminded him that occupying the coveted position of chairman of appropriation committee was a favour.Abdulmumin added that he had explained to his colleagues how the N100 billion for the National Assembly was allocated at one of the private sessions, and had since been blocked from briefing members on the matter.According to him, “I gave Mr. Speaker statistics of 2,000 new projects introduced into the budget by less than 10 committee chairmen without the knowledge of their committee members. He did nothing about it because he was part of the mess, yet he is talking about improving the budget system. I did nothing wrong. I worked within the rules of the House and instructions of Mr. Speaker.”Abdulmumin said Dogara also took offence at a meeting the Buhari had with the chairmen of the Senate and House committees on appropriation, while working on the budget.“Speaker Dogara took it extremely personal that we saw the president without his knowledge and went on to scuttle all our efforts to help the president during the budget process because he wanted to be seen by the president as the only good man,” he said.DenialThe House has, however, denied Abdulmumin’s allegations, describing them as untrue. The chairman of the Committee on Media and Public Affairs, Hon. Abdulrazak Namdas, described the allegations as wild and non-issues. He queried why the embattled lawmaker did not make his facts public before now, insisting that they are manufactured because the House removed him.Namdas insisted that Abdulmumin was not removed because of his opposition to the immunity bill. Namdas stated, “After all, he is not the only one who opposed the bill. The bill is still pending before the committee on review of the constitution and it has to be voted upon by each and every member of the House, get Senate concurrence, be endorsed by two-third of the 36 state Houses of Assembly and be assented to by the president. It is a cheap blackmail on the part of Hon. Jibrin to even insinuate that he was removed because he opposed immunity bill.”Dogara, in a series of tweets, said he would not engage in political mudslinging.“I won’t respond to jokes. I’m not a mud wrestler. I owe a word on the subject to my friends on this platform. The rest would be dealt with by the Institution,” he said.Ogor also refuted the allegations and said Abdulmumin “is singing different tunes because he has lost his committee.”A Fractured CampThere are indications that the Speaker would not take the accusations levelled against him lying low. Sources told THISDAY that if not well handled, Abdulmumin may be suspended.“He is fond of issuing threats. One single person cannot hold the House to ransom, it was not very unexpected that this would happen,” a lawmaker said on condition of anonymity.Another legislator noted that the Speaker would have simply hinged his announcement on the fact that Abdulmumin resigned.“The Speaker should not have announced that the decision was already reached to remove him, since he has offered to resign. In this clime, we all know resignation means you know you are about to be sacked. We need peace and stability in the House and he is not someone who would go down quietly, without a fight.”From the beginning of this year things seemed to be quiet in the House, with an air of unity pervading the lower chamber. Many, however, insisted that peace among politicians was always a fragile one, as friends become foes within easily. Yet the current development in the House is surprising, coming from an unexpected quarter.Nigerians are watching to see how the present controversy would unfold in the coming days and weeks.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram Erstwhile allies, Speaker Yakubu Dogara and Hon. Jibrin Abdulmumin, clash and upset the peace in the House of Representatives. Damilola Oyedele writesThe plenary last Wednesday at the House of Representatives was smooth with no inkling of what was about to happen. That was before Speaker Yakubu Dogara made the announcement, which, though, certainly, unsurprising to many lawmakers, was not quite expected. He announced the removal of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriation, Hon. Jibrin Abdulmumin, and replaced him with Hon. Mustapha Bala Dawaki.Pressure