Welcome to The Advocate, where thought-provoking topics are discussed with no holds bad here on Plus TV Africa. We basically call a spade by its name. Today, I'm advocating for us to be better citizens and better persons for ourselves and the society. Oluwakai Ode says, we do not want old and sick leaders anymore as the election window opens, but the decisions lie with us. Ruth is asking if we are wiser now, going into the 2023 elections, and finally, should we be grateful that the Twitter ban has been lifted, Victor is asking today.  The year before the elections become better. So as we all know, this year 2022 is fraught with so many thoughts and uncertainty, but as it's customary with me, I'm an incurable optimist and a firm believer in the phrase leave while you yet leave. So this year before the elections, and this being my first appearance this year on The Advocate, I'm here to give us some ginger for the year. I'm advocating for you to become a better citizen, a better Nigerian, a better person because how do we create a better society when we can't create a better person? What can we do in the kind of country we live in where there's so much we don't have control over? So here's me giving us some life hacks for rules of success, and I'll start with number one, change your mindset.  Number two, very simple, dream big, imagine who you could be, what you could have or do, then set goals clear, write them down, and make a detailed plan of action. Number three, and I like this one, make your decision to become rich, like it's all about the trend, make it, take control of a financial future, determine how much you want to earn and save exactly. Include this amount into your goals and think about them all the time. You need it in Nigeria. Number four, manage your life. You need to take responsibility for every single thing that happens in your life.  Number five, and please dear Nigerian, take this seriously, do your job superbly. Set a goal to do your job in the best possible way, identify the key skills you need to master, and then use your name in your work. Give your professional level every day, and this is so important as far as if you plan to jack back. Number six, put people on the first place. Create and maintain stable relationships based on trust with the most important people in your line of business constantly, and also regularly expand the range of your contacts. This is so important, cannot be underestimated in this 2022 before election. Number seven, give freedom to your mental strength. Your ability to generate new ideas has no limit to any digital age, therefore your future is also not limited by anything. I want you to also take number eight, think from a position of opportunity. There's so much opportunity that's going to happen in Nigeria now, learn to see potential benefit in everything that happens around you. You can develop such thinking by constant repetition. Number nine, create your own future. The most successful people will carefully plan their lives in advance. As a result, they think more freefully and make the best decisions. We all create ourselves. We all need to work constantly on ourselves, raise the bar for self-improvement. Only systematic and active actions need to success. And I would say, at the end of the day, no one is exactly sure what the year is really bringing. And the only place you may have some control is over yourself. So what I'm saying today, choose to become a better citizen and a better person. You may just be creating a chain of events that can create a better society. Happy elections ahead of all of us. Happy elections. Well, for me, looking at all that you've said, the summary to read all this, take charge of your life. Exactly. Be responsible. That's it. I'm sorry to say, well, let me just ask rather than say it faster. How responsible are we as individuals, Nigerians? And how much charge have we taken of our life? It's easier for us to blame the easiest culprit, which is the government, for everything that happens to us. Even when we wake up, we know that there's always traffic in our homes, on our roads. And who take us two hours with traffic to get to wherever we are going. We wake up one hour at a time, we get to work, and we blame governments. And the thing is, we know that this is the current state in which we are. It's like someone who, maybe a leper or someone who doesn't have legs, blaming, complaining every time. When you already know your condition. There's a ura adage that says, what's that ura adage again? That says, something about... Okay, ugo, I said it like a barrel. Like, for one, even for one about Kanoke, a layman. A layman. Exactly. You have a lot of time to reflect. So, I think what you're saying, which I agree with totally is that, yes, there's inconsistency, there's failure, there is everything going wrong with governments. Yes, that is the fact. But we've known this for many years now. We need to look for a way to manage it and get ourselves out of it. You know, funny enough, this just reminds me of the fact that just before we started, I said, this year is my year, wow, man. We all say that, that's why he said it. The truth is that, I would like to, you know how every day, everywhere I have been inundated, I think you'll love it. There's been so much fear and anxiety, and so much that we don't know about. And then, you know, the first thing that hit us in January was the election calendar. And it's February 2023. And I think there's some things that have even come up this year. So I kept on asking myself that, what are we actually going to do? What is my own role in this whole space? And I decided that I was not going to be one of those people that are going to sit down and continue to forget that fear. I don't care how it is. So there's going to be solutions to whatever it is that is ailing us as a people. There's going to be a way, and maybe because I do a lot of other things that look at how people are going to even leave the country. And it's come out daily that even Jackmine is not exactly a solution without proper planning. So why are we going to sit down here talking about how it's more working? And even in the process of Jackmine, a lot of people are wasting their way because they are planning to Jackmine. But in the meantime, you wake up, see the government and you get there and you have to start struggling and realize it's not as rosy as you think it is. I mean, just to add on that line of thought, if you want to actually Jackmine, you must actually be equipped like she mentioned. You must be equipped.  Even worse. Even worse. Someone said a lizard in 90 years. It's still going to be a lizard in Canada. It's so true. You have to change. Because, I mean, on that issue, I remember that there's a tweet that was a particular show that was on Instagram, I think by one of these very popular women. And then the guy was talking about how, he now said, talk about how you need your credit rating. And you put it up. I saw seven pages. I said, my goodness. You mean it is this difficult? And then people don't realize that you are paying for a light. Everything. And people don't. So the system works. But the system only works because people are paying. So that's why taxes are very high. And it compels you to be responsible. Responsible, exactly. No, it naturally is. It's a culture that you don't, and not naturally. So it just means that if you're a more responsible person in Nigeria, you have a better chance of living a better life. That's just it. Throw that in there. I think to add to what you said, I was thinking maybe if I was going to add number 10, it would be accountable. So if you have great accountability partners, people that could help you with, especially in this new year, are you actually going to do better than you did last year? True. True.  And someone is somewhere at a jail about on the bridge, and he's just wondering about what am I going to do tonight. From a different perspective, yeah. I think it's also important that we hold this accountable. People are the hem of affairs. These nine things, as you said, someone that is in government should be thinking about it because if they were thinking about it, then we'd have good roads and all of these things. Very true. I think about it. I mean, I could drink big because I'm not worried about food. I'm not worried about clothing. I can buy what I want. They can't drink big. So I mean, on the side of the other divide, it's also important that if the government does what they should do, people that are trying to feed tonight will not be thinking about that. It's a much slow hierarchy of needs. I can't think about self-actualization. So this is me just fighting for those group of people and saying that everybody has to be held accountable. But what I'm going to say to Victor, you know one thing I've seen, I mean, I don't know what you want to say, but one thing I've seen is that in every crime in different societies, poverty or gaps or needs create different reactions.  So that person at a joint leg back actually can't decide that, you know, well, this situation here, what kind of person do I want to be? Do I want to get equipped enough to get into governance or something? We don't actually look at a systemic way of changing governance. And even in addition to that, that person at a joint leg back needs to be made to know that so many people have stayed under joint leg back and over the years and have come or so, what did they do? That's why we need inspiration. And that's why, you see, I always tell people that governments have failed. Why have they failed? No, hold on. It's almost like, what if we accept that? I refuse to accept that. So the bottom line is, why can't you make things work? You refuse to accept that. What are you doing? What are you doing about this? No, I'm doing something for my space. I'm just saying that. Exactly. And that's the problem. We need to do it. Some people, you know, some people are helplessly helpless. No, I refuse to agree. I am in this space. I am in this space. I am in this space. I am in this space. I am in this space. I am in this space. I am in this space. You might have discovered yourself. Never. But anyway, we can be honest. Never. I don't think we'll agree. We're going to be using the most interesting banter that we had there. Only what kind of day is next. Stay with us.  The political transfer season, like football, is open. And as expected, many names and faces are popping up. There's realigning of interest and highly irrelevant lots.  They have one goal. Cross chaos, chaos, rankle, and heightened uncertainties. They know they cannot win an election even in their homes, their villages, but they are determined to make themselves relevant by saying whatever comes to mind. Very soon, social media will be a god with photo ops of politicians buying Akara beans and bread by the roadside, even burns. Parties are looking for the strongest yet vulnerable link in other parties who they can poach. Politicians have started discrediting themselves and by July, full-scale tribal and religious affronts will have kicked in. Politicians amongst themselves know who the next favorite or most qualified candidate is, yet they do all this just to remain relevant and earn a sit-down peace talk which will lead to a political appointment after elections 2023. In all this, all you see are politicians attempting to make a way where there has been no way. Politicians put their best foot forward, swimming against the tides. Where are the citizens who are affected by the decisions of these politicians? We do not appear anywhere. We wait for the most emotionally relevant news, reports, and lash on it. We walk around town accusing every politician, yet we are not ready to recommend a politician of choice. Neither are we willing to join a party. Until December, the song on our lips was direct primaries, direct primaries. A call that made politicians laugh because for direct primaries to be effective, you need to join a party. And as you already know, we are unwilling to join any party. They are all evil. The people have the right to demand for a particular candidate. But we are silent on this. We prefer to ridicule every single candidate that is presented. Politicians have a plan for 2023. They fight now and decamp by November. We, the people, do we have a plan. We're comfortable following the same politicians that we call corrupt, insincer and tribal bigots. We're comfortable in our one corner, one corner, saying, you know, go better for this country. When in reality, what we are saying is, you know, go better for you and I, the individuals in it. Nigerians succeed in business because we understand that the outcome of every business endeavor has a direct effect on us. If only we understand that the outcome of any political activity has a bigger direct impact on us, we would be more participatory in elections. For 2023, we need to study and understand politics. Join a party. Get your PVC. Look beyond tribe and religion. Call out your family member and tribesman that is working against the nation. The more disunited you are, the weaker you are. The weaker you are, the stronger the politicians become. You shout, you don't want old Sikh leaders yet. Our weakness is equivalent to the weakness of the Sikh leaders we're calling out. God bless the federal republic of Nigeria. God bless the people of Nigeria. Oh, wow. I think I'm actually trying to think of what I know what to say. My mind is going to the fact that what you're saying directly actually links to what I was trying to get at, even though I started from a point of motivation. Or like for me, maybe because I'm a lawyer, I'm so detailed that I'm breaking it down. I hate for people to tell me, oh yeah, get up and do something. I want to tell me, please, getting up means you lift yourself. So I do a systemic Now, how do we as a people follow these instructions, plan it, get our PVC, when we don't even know exactly what we want to be, when we're bowed down with thoughts of a person who is helplessly helpless. No, that's the way we are. They turn not to take a job, but the truth is that a lot of us really feel helpless. We're too broken. We're too broken. To see what things are happening. The number one was change your mindset. If we're going to actually be functional, effective, or create any change politically or otherwise, we have got to be resilient and strong. That's what the politicians know. There's a strategy to the madness. Every politician that is doing something and succeeding, I admire their guts. I admire the drive. I've seen and I look at myself that even if you do anything successfully, good or bad, it takes a lot. And so maybe that is something that we as citizens need to adopt and see. What you're saying about the politician, I also program on radio and behind the scenes talks are very detailed. There are things that you should record and play. Now, one of the politicians told me something. He said, listen, Nigeria has never suffered. That's it. He said, because until we get to a stage where it is unbearable, things will not change. You know why? He said, because right now, he as a person sees people who are qualified citizens and is encouraging them come into the fold so he can help people like us who want to make an impact. And they tell you, no, I don't have interest in politics. He said it's because they still have something to eat when it becomes when it hits so hard that, you know, you don't have a choice. You will know that you need to get into politics for you to survive. And you see, we, there is so much again, like he's saying, I blame those that call themselves the elites, not necessarily because of their status, but how enlightening they are because, you see, we mislead the general public, the people under the bridge like you rightly said. Why do I see that? Now, there is this talk about constitution, throw the constitution away. But the truth of the matter is that the constitution cannot be thrown away. What you do generally, globally, is to amend. You can get into parliament and decide that. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, we don't want it. And that is what you call the people having a say in the constitution. Right now, constitution amendment is ongoing. Nobody is talking about it. No single person. Then we come back in 2024 because from now to 2023, forget anything about removing the constitution. Nobody is going to talk about that. We come back 2024 and we start shouting. Whoever is, of course, Bari won't be there. The next person again will be Victor. He can't be touching. I'm just joking. Then we go back to the same palace. He has to go, constitution, throw it away. That's it. I mean, I'm just processing everything everyone is saying and in my head first, it just comes to my mind is fact that we've lied to ourselves a lot. True. True. There was that misconception in the past that I can live without politics. I can do well without being there.  I don't need politics. Well, I think in the past years, we've come to understand that your politicians matter a lot. The quality of people that are brought forward to the presidential elections, gobernatorial, senatorial, all of those categories of people. They matter a lot. I was having this conversation with someone during the time. You realize that the people that eventually rise up to say they want to become candidates for whatever party or whatever position are people that have been in this game for a long time. Very true. And they probably started as dropouts. In fact, if you look at it, look at the trend, they're mostly dropouts. And because our constitution allows that with a high school certificate, I can context for any election, so it means that they actually, all they just need to prove that they went to a secondary school.  But because there's that room for it, and we, the people that are quote-unquote educated, enlightened, we've given them that room. We've succeeded in business, like you mentioned, but we've not succeeded in politics. We've left politics to people that really don't have the capacity. If you bring these people to business, they're going to run down the business. We know that. So we don't even employ them as entry level. You don't even make them entry level. They don't qualify. So and we know that because they cannot process the kind of things, thoughts, and knowledge that is required to be the business. So why then have we left them to run our country? First, before you come in, the irony of this is that look at, okay, let's take it. A state governor is a successful businessman. Thank you. Ogun State. No, not was. Makinwa. Makinwa, no. A lot of the government, a lot of them are successful businessmen, former MBA lawyer, chief, whatever, MBA, Nagemba station, and all those people.  Because they're exactly, they don't have the team. Look at people around them. And you and I, who should be the team, we are busy in tech and we are busy there saying, no, this government is useless. And we've been saying that for years. That's what I was saying. We've been saying the same thing for years. So it's not about one party or one. It's the system that we've created. And it doesn't take one person to build the country that we want. We need more than, and we need to stop this our messiah mentality. That's it. So we can build a better country. You know what I mean? I was just here sitting, thinking of a counter job to throw at and you have to see that. But the truth is, this is my personal amusement, right? Random stuff. I just feel so sad that it's almost like we're letting nature take its course in the next two decades or even less than that. Some of these old guys will be gone by virtue of life.   Right? So it's almost like we are watching, waiting for that to happen before we take it. I told someone that Buhari plan, cool. Lots of people did all of this. You know, they seized power and I'm not saying we'll do that. I'm just saying that. You need to be active. What are we doing beyond tweeting and all of that? They're even using us as a strategy to tweet. So I think it's saddening to me that we're all just intellectually talking, but we're just going to wait for another 10 years where if they die of, then we're going to take over. Nobody wants to take that lead. We're doing it. Because blood has to go on the line. You see, beyond blood, what is happening? I think here is this. I think that we do not realize that we had a systemic brain failure. You see, for 20 years or more, let's look out for one one primary school and secondary school. We had a period of time. So all those in their 40s and 50s now went through a system of education that gave them academic skills, but actually not give them enough thinking skills, planning skills, life skills, to be able to say, where are you going to? We naturally went through school and system of life in Nigeria, and maybe the most of Africans say, go to school, get an education, get a job. So now we're not taught how to fight for life, how to fight for things. The last fight in Nigeria was independence. No, no, no, no. I remember my friend. We could go on and on and on the fight. We want to do Nadeku. We want to go through the Nadeku era of the late 80s and 90s and 90s and stuff. Then you know what it means to fight, but Root is next, stay with us. 2023 elections. I'll be wiser now. Nigerians have a dysfunctional relationship with their political leaders. Election seasons are the only periods we get to hear from them or they get to listen to us. We have another season upon us. On Monday, ex-governor Bola Meptinambo declared his intention to run for presidency in the upcoming 2020 elections. Anyway, it's no news to many as we've been bombarded with posters and covert campaigns throughout last years. Ex-president Goodlock Jonathan may also indicate interest to run as we've seen also in the media. These are two of many candidates that would review their intentions to in the coming weeks to run for any form of political position. In the next months we expect to see many campaign promises that give us or tell us that they're going to give us heaven on earth. Some would say they would change the economy in 12 months. Others would come up with first 100 day plans which eventually we know will be forgotten once they get in. Some would show up with rice and beans and all manner of foodstuffs and money to layer on suspecting, on thinking and already victimized citizens. Gradually partisan camps will begin to be formed even in our neighborhoods and even families. The media will be bombarded with every form of articles and programs promoting a candidate otherwise. Eventually we will get a leader who may be a repeat of our past mistakes. Before we get there let's take a step back in time and learn. Let's ask ourselves real and difficult questions such as why do we keep getting the same crop of leaders? What can we do differently? What political office matters most? Is it the senatorial office, the presidential office, government office or even the local government offices? What do we want from the next leaders and so on? There are so many more questions to ask. Let's have these conversations in our homes. Let's have them in our neighborhoods, in our estates, communities, churches, mocks, offices and every gathering you can think of, even at parties. We can't keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Let's ask ourselves the right questions. Afterwards we can then ask the politicians the right questions. But let's not stop at questioning. Let the responses we get from these questions inform our selection of leaders in the upcoming elections for every political office. Remember that we have only this time to get you right. Let's not waste it. When I was in there, one thing came to mind that you know a lot of times we don't apply the same structure or methodology that we apply to our life to politics. We tend to give a lot of excuses in politics. Now what do I mean?  They've bought a lot of the rings or they've made a lot of the rings and she's kept the ring for two three years and each time after two or three years after a while these guys break our hearts. What would you tell the lady? Something to help with you. Exactly. So we bring about the same kind of leaders every year and we blame the leaders. Exactly. Not ourselves. What are we doing or what are we not doing that is making this kind of ideology faster? Those are questions and I'm talking about the questions you've asked us to ask. Those are questions we are not asking. We see people, I've heard people say you see we can't make it because the leaders are not giving up, making it difficult for us and I say I agree. It's a foolish person, I'm sorry to say, that will tell you everything is okay and you know. So when you're saying let's make a move, not that oh everything is easy. No. What I'm saying is a lot of times when someone tells you okay she's a thought leader in addition to being a lawyer and you hear motivational leaders say that the fact that your back you were you were born on the ground or as that thing said doesn't mean your back. Keep your back on the ground. Background and all this. Because you're back on the ground, I got a background. You don't have a good background and all those kind of things. The fact that the fact I didn't send you to school doesn't mean you cannot make it. Look at other people that are making it. Listen, the fact that our leaders are not giving us what we want. They're not encouraging us to fight does not mean we should not fight. And I tell people that listen all this I don't, I'm sorry, I don't join people to blame Bolatino. I don't. Not because he's a perfect man, no. But you see someone like him I believe should be studied in the university. This is a man that fought during the Nadeco era. Came in 1999 and he's been able to hold on to power till in a state like Lagos States where you have so many mad people. Crazy. What does he do right? So when people are saying he's one of the, no, no, no, there's no, I was asking someone recently that which state in Nigeria has reached its full potential? No states. Yeah. Whether it's one man leading or multiple men leading, they're all failing. So what I'm saying that I'm coming back to you are saying that at the end of it all, it is time for us to ask the right questions and not give excuses of they will not allow us. These people were not. There are people today, someone was talking about it, but they, Joe, you as in Washington Obu, there are people today that till date they will not be friends with him because he fought and too many other people like that have fought. What are we doing in this generation? Me, I want him to... I can see him looking like him. I want him to look like him. I want him to look like him. I want him to look like him. I want him to look like him. Like, I mean, is that what we do now? I mean, that's what we're doing now. That's how we wrote that. We're really, you know, I saw a tweet. Someone said that if Tunubi is going to come out, if he selects a Muslim, he's going to not be able to deliver on the side of the Christians. I was going to get him angry. If he selects a Christian, he's going to, the Northans are going to be angry. He's going to deliver on that end. So someone said, how did we reduce the polity to selecting? You don't see Obama and, you know, Joey, but they don't talk about that, you know. So look at what we're looking at. So that tells you that the polity has been reduced to rubbish. So when he's saying, if I select a Muslim or, but the truth is, let's not be fooled. You don't, you don't win politics by motivation. I mean, this is not me telling you, I'm just, it's strategy, right? After motivation, you get up and you have strategy of execution, right? And just to come back to Annie's comment, what I said earlier. I mean, why are they giving them bags of rice? Bags of beans. All of those things. It's always worked. If a strategy works, I mean, in business, you can't change what works. If bag of beans works every year, I can't change it. If 1000 hour works every year. And guess what? The guys that are receiving the bags of beans, they deliver the numbers. We don't deliver the numbers. We are tweeting. So I can't get a bag of bag of beans because I don't need it. But the guys that need it, they are multiple. And that's where the problem really is. So if the kid is in the strategy and is working for many years, they're going to start, you know, frying corn, you know, and all the things themselves. And you know what's happening. It's worked. Do you know what has happened with that strategy? Like in recent times, without even linking it to elections, we're just looking at, because I've been really curious about how are we actually building the capacity of ourselves as a people? And you see that bag of rice strategy is very interesting to observe. Let's go back to colonial days and realize that for the same system of giving a handout or something to feed the belly, you get people out. And now look at it very well.  And then we, the people who keep treating or who feel we went to school, actually not seeing what is being seen.  At the local government level, have you gone to Lagos State Civil Service? Have you seen the people that are being empowered? Have you gone into space and see how they have?  Wealth is being created in unprecedented numbers. That bag of rice is not a strategy that is working because when those people deliver those things, they know that they are short of something. And by the time you need, there was a saying that says when you need something from the leader, go to befriend to those in the kitchen. And when we're sitting down here, feeling not very fancy, which is why, as motivational as a system that my initial advocacy was, the first line that was change your mindset, we're going to have to, and you mentioned strategy, I like the fact that Victor put it there. You see, you cannot take yourself out of a situation without actually thinking, what is the root of this? A lot of our mental work actually breaks you down. If you do proper mental work, you break down to the point where you see your life and say, emotional intelligence, the first one of self-awareness. For a whole cycle, Dr. Goldman said, so the first thing in getting any change is to start to use EI, to change life and nations. And so as Victor then said, honestly, that strategy works, but beyond that, there was something that Ruth said, and I found it interesting. I said, oh, that a lot of people, their high school dropouts and a couple, I remember there was a time in my study that I realized that informal native intelligence is sometimes even more crucial than formal education. So we have formally educated people who cannot think. A lot of the formally educated people who did mental research, they carry it in droppings. They're not even thinking people, critical thinking skills. So those people that finish with high school alone are probably sometimes more intelligent than those of us who first degree, masters, a situation, deepening everything together. So maybe the system is for us that are thinking we know to go and study those people like Kai or Desi, or any of those. Go and study them. And that means something is wrong with all of us. Yeah, we're so lost. That was a prime example. You know, because we cannot, we can never end this conversation around politics, changing our mindset and being able to at least prepare ourselves for the upcoming elections. But like I said at the beginning of my presentation, it's important that we ask ourselves the right questions. Once we do so, then we'll be able to at least make better change into the next year. So, up next is Victor. Stay tuned. Twitter ban lifted. Should we really be grateful? If I sit back to think about it, the events that led to the ban of Twitter, it leaves me wondering who lied to us about being in democracy. Where is the freedom of speech that was promised to us? This reminds me of the film Legend of the Seeker, where one man called Dawkin Rao controlled everyone within his jurisdiction. Can our leaders be humble enough to admit their unguardedness and misguided actions? Can our leaders be humble enough to accept that the highest office in the nation is the office of the citizens? Several businesses had already been hit by the COVID. The Twitter ban came as a corresponding blow. They asked that we contribute to the socio-economic development, yet they shut us out from one tool of effectiveness that facilitated this development. The Twitter ban has been lifted after 223 days, or even more. Oh yeah, we should be jumping in jibylation because our fundamental right to speech has now been restored. Who knows for how long though? This leaves me asking two critical questions. One, what was the essence of the ban? Two, why was the ban lifted even at this awkward time? Elections are close by. Are you seriously thinking what I could already be thinking about? Peter, if you have to say it out loud, now we're all thinking. But of course, I mean, that's exactly what I'm thinking. But to answer your first question, do you know there's some about the laws of power? When you have the power to do something, to punish some people, so you just show that it's what you're going to do. You know how they just say, so I feel, I mean, to answer that, but the second one, obviously, Twitter is such a powerful tool.  So there are a lot of peer campaigns, social media campaigns, everything, and they already know what else are you going to use? How do you want to get it done? And then how do you buy good wheels? So now they're going to give you, you are not getting back what you need. You don't need Garabbi. You need, so Twitter is your own take it and be happy. Is it the Twitter thing for me? I look at it from different angles. Let me take it from the most positive one or negative one so that I can have all your buying. Now, Twitter banned the way I feel, okay, let me just get it, I feel. Now I feel that Twitter itself or social media itself needs to be regulated, personally. I feel Twitter needs to be cautioned because they kind of care and caution they bring to bear in other countries. They leave it out when it comes to other African countries. In terms of, I mean, muting this and what the flag and all that stuff, Facebook does it better for Africa than they do. So I feel that, yes, they need it, but do we need seven months to prove this? No. Do we even need to ban for a week? No. There are other things we could have done to call their attention and definitely not immediately after the President's speech was pulled out. That one is a no, no. However, what pisses me off in all this is that, and it stares into what we're talking about, having the strength, the resilience, being open-minded. Listen, I can bet almost everything I have on it that in a country like China, India, even America, if a platform as big as Twitter were to be banned by now, you would have had alternative platforms created by the indigens of those countries to prove two things. Wasn't Kauri created? Yeah. Kauri. No, not that. To prove that, listen, one, you cannot stifle us. We have the power. We are the Gen Z, like we say. We've done answers like nobody has ever done in the history of Nigeria. We are supposed to prove it with that. Number two, it's supposed to be an opportunity for people to now rake in funds that, ah, this space, let me buy it quickly, lash into it. If you say Kauri or whatever was created, how much impact has it made? How many people have known about it? We pulled it down ourselves now. People pulled it down by themselves. Exactly. But I think that one has a difference. That one has a difference. That was maybe a difference. That was a difference, sir. Exactly, you know. So in the nutshell, what I'm saying is that yes, government has done the undoable, what should not have been done, but as a people, and that's part of the thing that is still affecting us in politics. Sorry, I'm bringing it back to politics, because this is how we sit down, even where we have power and watch things. Imagine a youth, so a group of guys just came out and said they want to come up with something, chat, Sorosuki, and a new social media platform is born with the same kind of ideology as Twitter, filling up that space. Do you think government will be able to ban it? No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. 100%. Yes, 100%. Yes. In fact, they will ban it more. No. They will ban it. They will ban it. They will remove it. They will ban it. They will ban it. They will ban it. They will ban it. You see, the truth is that change and revolutions don't come with the first attempt. Of course. What I really feel is that we really, really, at the end of the day, everything will have the same thread. We're just not ready and we're not strategic and we're not just thinking, you know how that immediate comfort, I mentioned, those that are thinking and are smart have taken that hierarchy of needs and they have used it as a tool against us and we are there. Exactly. So we are not making a new end. I completely agree like this. It's not a ban. It's not a ban. It's not a ban. Yes. It's not a ban for me. I completely agree. I don't know why I'm not sitting close to you. It's not the fact that you mentioned that change and revolution does not come with first attempts. Completely true. But would an alternative platform could say ban a Nigerian that serves the social... What would they have in the ban? So, okay, popos be banned as a way the policy is right now. Yes. But it's not a ban. It's not a ban. No, no, no. It's not a ban and the people would have been arrested. But it's not where the resilience comes in. Yes. Other people come up. So the question now is how would, how ready are we to even keep on pushing the system until the system gets tired of us? When effecting change, there's a consequence called power dynamics. And if you can't win on that, I mean, from hitting this wall, the wall is the reason you can do about it. So I think there's no need to keep doing the same thing, the same, let me keep pushing. You know, someone says something, one day I will make it. You might never make it. It's very true. You might never make it. Whenever I wonder you make it, you might never make it. Very true. So I don't even wonder I will just make it. You will never make it. If you don't... Yeah, 2022 will be exactly to my 2020. Just the truth. If you do not get out of your comforts or do something different. For me, on this Twitter ban, I guess the same conversation is why now? Obviously, it's obvious. Why now? But would businesses that have suffered the effect of Twitter recover? Is this an opportunity for them to recover? Or do we need to do something better? I think we need to do something better. To become a better business. Now, I'm thinking of as a business person right now, because it just transcends politics. It has to involve with other things, even social issues as well. So I guess maybe the whole Twitter conversation is really linked to business has just shown us one of the rules of life that you can't put all your eggs in one basket. You know when we do that? We want such a simple comment in primary school. But the reality is that as a business, we need to also go beyond being pedestrian in how we execute anything. Because of your business. Yes, sad it got affected by Twitter ban, but is that all? Isn't there more? You have to learn to evolve and be diversified and be dynamic. There's a lot to it. Let's talk about this. You may have gotten angry now. All right. It's one thing that we have generated from these conversations is that we need to start re-engineering our thought process. Don't just sit down there. You need to get up and do something no matter how little. We've come to the end of this week's episode of The Advocate. American politician Patrick Moffi said the political process does not end on election day. Young people need to stay involved in the process by continuing to pay attention to the conversation and holding their leaders accountable for the decisions they make. The advocacy continues on our social media platforms on Facebook, plus TV Africa, hashtag The AdvocateNG. And on Instagram, at plus TV Africa, hashtag The AdvocateNG. To catch up with previous broadcasts, go to plustvafrica.com forward slash The AdvocateNG. Do not forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel at plus TV Africa. See you next week. Same time on this station. Let us keep advocating for a better society.


So I'm going to use the alternative title for this talk, which is the quest for a bound that was not rational, which will become clear in a slide or two. So yeah, this is joint work with Juan Garay, Yuvalisai, and Rapha Strovsky. And we're going to be looking at the problem of secure multi-party computation, NPC. We have N parties, each party has its private data, and they want to perform some joint computation by running a protocol where they exchange messages over some communication network. Here it's going to be point-to-point analyst. And the protocol should be secure, meaning that even if an adversary goes and corrupt parties, he cannot disrupt privacy, namely he doesn't learn anything he's not supposed to, or correctness, namely the honest parties get the correct output. So more concretely here, we're going to be looking at information theoretic NPC, with the dishonest majority and no setup. So we have M parties, M minus one of them might be corrupted and they have no setup. What do we know about this setting? We know we cannot do it. So it's impossible to do it even for the simplest corruption with the same honest corruption. So are there walk-arounds? Likely there are. We can either assume a trusted setup, but this means we need trust, which we don't want, or we can resort to computational security. But even there, if we want something strong and like strong composition guarantees like UC security, we will again need a setup. And that's also something we want to avoid. Another idea is the parties are nowadays servers. They are connected to the internet, which is a huge network of parties itself. So maybe they can use the help of these servers to do the computation. So this naturally leads to the so-called NPC in the client server model, where the parties are now clients, that's how we're going to call them. They have their inputs, they want to perform a computation of the function, and we have a huge with respect to the number of clients, number of servers. And because this number of servers is huge, the goal is not to use all of them and not to communicate too much. So essentially we want sublinear communication complexity in the size of the server set, in the size of the internet. And in this work we consider two clients and then servers, but whatever I say here very easily extends to the case of a constant size client set with dishonest majority. All right. So about the adversary, as I said, we want information security. So the adversary is computationally unbounded. He can corrupt any of the two clients and additionally any T of the servers. And we're going to be looking at bounds on T that allow NPC with sublinear communication. And he can be semi honest or passive, namely he just looks at the view of the parties and tries to extract information. Or he can be malicious or active, meaning that he makes the parties misbehave arbitrarily. And we'll also consider static and adaptive, both cases. Static means the adversary corrupts everyone at the beginning of the protocol. Adaptive means that while the protocol evolves and depending on his view he corrupts more parties. And even more for adaptive corruption we're going to consider both the case where honest parties might be able to erase, making it harder for the adversary to see their history when they're corrupted. And the case where they cannot erase. So what do we know if we're okay, if we're okay with a quadratic communication complexity and when I say quadratic, I mean a quadratic number of bits per multiplication gate of the circuit representing the function we want to compute. Then already from the 80s we have results that solve this for the semi honest case. We can tolerate arbitrary corrupted minorities. And for the malicious case, Robin and Ben are assuming broadcast gives us the same bound for actually it's for adaptive, but here we're only going to consider static. So what happens if we want less communication? There's a lot of work. I just have some work here, Indicatively to just demonstrate that we achieve the same bound, sorry, we achieve the same bound or at least asymptotically the same bound. And actually some of these works even get sublinear communication complexity as a multiplicative factor of the circuit size. But I want you to notice that all those have an additive polynomial factor in the player set. So if the circuit is huge, this doesn't really matter. But if the circuit is small, then those works, this polynomial factor actually dominates the complexity. So what we are after here is an absolutely, if you want sublinear communication complexity, namely we want that we have a sublinear multiplicative factor with the circuit size or a smaller O of N and then no additive polynomial factors. And as you already see here, the situation changed drastically, right? Before we have a half, both in the case of quadratic and in the case of linear or sublinear. Here we have a completely different landscape. So for the semi-honest case, it's roughly the same asymptotically the same, at least it's one half minus epsilon, which is a tight bound for the static case, sorry. When we go to the adaptive case without erasers, the situation is completely devastating. Here we cannot tolerate any constant fraction of corruptions. So, but we can tolerate sublinear. So we can just tolerate a very, very, very restricted adversary. And the most interesting case is actually that of adaptive security with erasers. And I should point out here that I have this ordering, usually in MPC, when we have adaptive security with erasers, it's life is easier than without erasers. This is not the case here, as you're gonna see in the remainder of the talk. So the bound in the adaptive security with erasers is this asymptotically close to one minus square root of 0.5, which might look arbitrary, but it's not, it's actually tight. So, and this justifies the title. This is the first bound which is not rational. So now the obvious open question is can we get a bound which is imaginary? Not an imaginary bound, a bound which is imaginary. Okay, we also scratch the surface of the malicious case only for the static adversary and prove that the same bound that we have for the semi-honest works for the malicious as well, modular that we might abort the computation there. All right. So I'm gonna focus for the rest of the talk to the semi-honest case and look at the static adaptive without erasers and adaptive with erasers to give you some idea of how the results are. Okay, let's start with a very, very simple case, static correction. So here we wanna prove that this nearly one half fraction of corruption works, so we can have a protocol for that and the protocol is extremely simple. It's actually the folklore protocol. We have any of the two clients choose a committee of a polylog size and then this committee runs one of the existing protocols which are quadratic communication complexity because the committee is randomly chosen and it's of a polylog size, we have a non-est majority and because it's a polylog size, polylog square is a polylog so the total communication complexity will be sublinear. Very simple. Okay, now why is this tight? And actually it's tight in a strong manner, so if we go a constant number, not fraction close to one half, then we cannot tolerate this adversary. For that we're gonna use an possibility result from the literature by Hilton and Maurer, which it's easier to look at the picture to understand the intuition of the result. So the result says that if there are two sets, Q1 and Q2 that cover the entire server set and then C1 is in one of them and C2 is in the other, so if we have such a covering in terms of union of two sets of the entire party set, then there are functions we cannot compute. So if the adversary can corrupt either this one or that one with noticeable probabilities, there are functions we cannot compute. And how are we gonna use it? So let me just replace this O of one with a constant. So for our case, for proving that, let's start with a simple case. If epsilon is zero, if epsilon is zero, then this thing here means that we have a corrupted majority and this means that the adversary can corrupt C1 and the first half of the parties or he can corrupt C2 and the second half of the parties. He can do both, or either actually. And the union of those two choices cover the entire party set. Therefore, HM kicks in, we cannot compute the end gate. Now, the case where the constant epsilon is greater than zero is slightly more involved but not too much. So the general idea here is that the adversary can play the I feel lucky strategy. So he will choose epsilon parties and ignore them and apply the same strategy as before to the remainder N minus epsilon servers. And now the idea is that because we want sublinear communication complexity, there can only be a sublinear number of servers that speak throughout the protocol. So with noticeable probability, this set that the adversary ignores will not hit the set that speaks. And therefore, this union is on all servers that actually matter for the computation and therefore again, HM kicks in. That's the general intuition. All right, so now building towards the most interesting case which is the adaptive corruption with erasures, I will start with a case where we don't have erasures. As I said here, the situation is pretty bad. We cannot tolerate any constant fraction of corrections. And to see that, you need to consider an adversary that uses a follow the money type of strategy or rather follow the message type of strategy. So let's look again at the protocol execution like one instance to see what the strategy is like. So let's say in first round C1 sends a message, then these guys extends a message, then these guys extends a message, then these guys extends a message, and maybe C1 and C2 extends several messages after that. So this follow the message strategy is as follows. The adversary injects, you can think of it like that, injects corruption through either of the client.  The adversary could do the same thing from C2, corrupt C2 and whoever talked to him in the protocol. And now it's not hard to see that all the servers that ever speak in the protocol can be split in three sets. They might not be disjoint, but this doesn't matter. So this is the set Q1, corrupted by the adversary injecting corruption through C1. The set Q2, corrupting by the adversary, adversary two, injecting corruption through C2.  They just talk to each other and never communicate with any component connected to the servers. Hence, we can just ignore those guys. So their view is independent of the computation we can simulate. So if we ignore those guys, or if we give those guys to the adversary for free, then what we get is that the union of the sets that are corrupted covers everyone who speaks in the protocol. And once again, HM will kick in and so that you cannot compute the end gate. So that's the possibility. And the reason why the adversary can do this follow the message attack is because he has a linear budget and the only sublinear number of parties can speak through the protocol so that we maintain sublinear communication complexity. All right, so now about the protocol, this is even simpler. The adversary is very weak. He can only corrupt a sublinear number of parties and therefore we can again use the folklore protocol. Two times sublinear is sublinear. So let's just use more parties than the adversary can corrupt the majority of. C1 chooses two times the corruption budget plus one, which is sublinear, and we have them do the computation. Since this is sublinear, the computation complexity will be sublinear and since there are too many for the adversary, even adaptively to corrupt, you can only corrupt half of them. BGW will be secure and we're done. So this is a very pessimistic bound which is very easy to prove. Okay, so now going to the most interesting case which is adaptive corruption with erasers. And here I would like to demonstrate why there's hope, why the follow the message attack does not work. And let's look again at a run of the protocol. Let's assume that we start and this party here, this server here sends a message to that guy. Then he sends a message M2 to that guy.  They erase this information. And then this guy sends a message M3 to C1. It's easy to see that because M2 originated from that guy which originated from that guy while he knew M1, this message here, hence the view of C1, depends on M1. Now, assume that the protocol proceeds and this guy sends a message M4 and erases M4 and both erases the information of who sent the message to whom. And then in the next round M5 is sent here. And once again, same argument, M5 will depend on M4 which potentially depends on M1. Now, if we use the injecting corruption strategy here, the adversary can corrupt, he corrupts C1, he goes and corrupts the guy that talks to him, he corrupts the guy that talks to him and he's stuck. And on the other side he corrupts C2, corrupts the guy that talks to him and he's stuck. So now what we have is we have these two sets that do not cover everyone who's relevant for the computation. So this guy has a message which is correlated with the view of C1 and C2. And this means that we cannot use HM anymore. So this doesn't mean that we have a protocol but it means there's hope. And in order to explore this hope, the challenge is to figure out how we can activate the parties and route the messages so that the adversary cannot actually use this follow the message attack. And I'm gonna describe how, this is actually what I meant by the quest for a bound that was not rational. I'm gonna give you several solutions which are flawed leading to the final correct solution. The first solution, I'm gonna call dictatorship. This is actually the folklore protocol where we have one party, one client, C1, say he's the dictator, he chooses who is gonna help in the protocol, announces it and those guys help. This is clearly bad in the adaptive corruption case. Why? Because the adversary is gonna corrupt C1, he's gonna corrupt everyone that he suggests and therefore in this way he has everyone corrupted and hence we cannot do anything with them. So bad idea. What's better than dictatorship? Parliamentary democracy. So here C1 suggests his set of helpers, C2 suggests his set of helpers and together all those helpers help the parties run the protocol. This is clearly seems better but unfortunately it doesn't work. Why? Because the adversary can corrupt C1 and Q1, everyone he suggests, or C2 and Q2 everyone he suggests, those are again two sets that cover the entire set of parties that play in the protocol. It's empty scene, we cannot compute the end gate. The end gate is right. Okay, so what is the problem with these solutions? The problem is that the clients choose their helpers. So what can we do to circumvent this issue? We can have the helpers choose themselves, they volunteer, which leads me to the third type of protocols which I call non-government organizations or NGOs. Here any server might wake up with probability polylogue N over N. This will guarantee that no more than polylogue many servers wake up and he volunteers to help. So now the challenge is that we need to make sure that he doesn't help too much. If he speaks to the same guy in too many rounds then he gives too many chances with the adversary to corrupt. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna use a volunteering strategy which is us as non-interactive as possible and for that we're gonna use a oblivious transfer or pre-computed oblivious transfer. So what is oblivious transfer? Very briefly we have a sender that has two messages and a receiver that wants to receive one of them so that he learns nothing about the other message and the sender doesn't learn which message was received. So this is oblivious transfer. It's a fantastic primitive because it's complete for information theoretic MPC. If we can do that we can compute any function. So for the remainder of the talk we're gonna focus on implementing OT. And how are we gonna do it? How are the servers gonna help implementing OT? They're gonna act as OT dealers. So there is a way to pre-comput OT so that a dealer can compute a pair, so a value for the sender and a value for the receiver and distribute this pair and later on sender and receiver can use, doesn't really matter the protocol but matters is that they can use this pair to implement OT by the communication complexity which is the same as that of this pair. So the challenge now is to do this pre-computer OT in a way which cannot be followed the message kind of attack. Okay, so first attempt, the simple one. So just choose the pair, so the guy wakes up, he choose the senders and the receivers part, sends the part of the sender to the sender the part of the receiver to the receiver. Now if we do that, again, the adversary has corrupted C1, he can jump and corrupt the server here and then learn the other part of the pair. So it doesn't help much. So what can we do to avoid that? We can actually randomize who gets the message first. The guy that gets the message second doesn't have this chance if we erase. So what we can do is this guy again wakes up by himself, he prepares the pair and then he flips a coin to see who he's gonna talk to first. Let's say the coin says C1, he talks to C1, he erases and then talks to C2. Now it's easy to see that if the adversary has corrupted C2, who's the second guy that gets the message, he doesn't get anything by corrupting that guy at the point where C2 gets the message from him. Why? Because this has been erased. So we are actually quite good. This means that the probability, since we are choosing who goes first with probability one-half, the probability that both pairs are corrupted by having corrupted the client is now one-half, which does seem pretty good, but it's not enough. Because if any of those pairs is corrupted through probability one-half, then we are stuck with a setup where half of it is corrupted roughly and we cannot really do something with it. But if we could get somehow to a setting where less than one-half of these OTs are corrupted, then we're game, then we can do OT. We can use an OT combiner and compute a good OT that then allows us to do everything. Okay, so here's a way to get there. So this error once again wakes up, he prepares an OT pair, but doesn't speak to the clients. Instead, he volunteers someone else. He volunteers an intermediary and he sends him part of this OT pair and they both erase everything else, its other identity and the part that they don't know. And then they contact the clients. Now it's easy to see that in this protocol, by corrupting a client, the adversary doesn't get anything, right? Because by the time this client is contacted by a server, the information, the other half of the OT has been erased. But now we have another problem. And the problem is that unlike before, where an adversary that tries to throw darts on the servers and corrupt parties had one chance to hit the OT pair, now he has two. He can actually, at the beginning of the protocol, throw darts and if he hits that guy or that guy, in both cases, he corrupts the entire OT pair.   This is not wrong, this is the right solution. So this is the best we can do. We have a lower bound matching that. Okay, so by then I should say that the protocol, in the end of all this thing, uses an OT combiner to get a good OT, right? So very briefly, how does this protocol secure when this bound one minus square root of 0.5 holds? And that will also show you where the square root of 0.5 comes from. Let's look at the sketch of the proof. So and I will start with what I call the jackpot scenario, right? Which is the easiest to describe and actually the best for the protocol. And this is the one where by luck, the volunteers and the intermediaries are arranged in a perfect matching. There's no collusion. So no two volunteers speak to the same intermediary. So this I call the jackpot scenario. If this scenario occurs, let's look at what's the probability that one of those edges gets corrupted, meaning both those guys get corrupted, meaning the OT entirely gets corrupted. So this probability, because those edges appear completely randomly, right? This is a perfect matching. This probability is the probability that the adversary randomly hits that guy, corrupts him or randomly corrupts that guy, minus the probability that he corrupts both randomly because we counted this twice. And if we have a fraction tau of corruptions, this probability will be t plus t minus t square to t minus t square. So if we want half of those edges to be uncorrupted, which will yield to half of the OT's being uncorrupted, then what we need to do is solve this equation here. And this will give us t less than one minus square root of 0.5. So this is the turning point. So if we have tau less than that, then any of those edges is corrupted with less than probability, one half independently. And therefore, with overwhelming probability, the majority of those edges will be honest. And then we can use an OT combiner on them. So as I said, this is a dream scenario. The actual scenario is not like that. It's more like that. So there might be collisions, right? So we do random things. So it might be that the same volunteer is chosen by two intermediaries. This is not a problem because there's so few players, that's so few servers that speak, sublinear number, so that these collisions are very, very, very few. So what we can do is we can simply give them all for free to the adversary. Everyone who's in sets over connected component can be given for free to the adversary and still we will have a majority of the edges that appear here being honest. Okay, so now going to the negative result. Why we cannot do anything better than one minus square root of 0.5. And in the next one minute, I'm gonna describe you the most technical proof of the paper, which means that I'm gonna give you a very, very, very high level intuition, which is floating many ways, but hopefully in one minute you won't notice. Okay, but the intuition, this is the intuition. So having that, you can do, you can at least understand why it's actually lower bound. Okay, so assume that the adversary corrupts more than that many guys. And now let's look again at these two cases. So the dream scenario, where we have a perfect matching, in that scenario, if the adversary corrupts, this is the turning point, which means that if the adversary corrupts more than that many parties, then each edge is corrupted with probability at least one half. And therefore, he has a decent chance and also a probability of corrupting a majority of the edges, which means that we cannot do anything. Now if, this is a dream scenario, right? In the non-dream scenario, we have overconnected components, which actually give the adversary more chances to corrupt, right?  So in the other case, he can corrupt even more. So which means that if this is a lower bound for the dream scenario, it's definitely a lower bound for the other case. Once again, this is a very, very, very vague sketch. The actual form of impossibility goes through a novel adversary that we introduced, which we call probabilistic adversary structures. Those are described by a probability distribution over player set, over subset of the player sets. And the distribution, this probability depends on both the coins of the adversary and the coins of the protocol, so that we can capture adaptive corrections. Okay. So this kind of completes my talk. This is the bounds that we have. And there's a bunch of open problems. Like, you know, we, as I said, everything I say extends to constant number of clients. How about super constant? What happens with the other cases of active corruption, like adaptive or corruption without a board? What happens with fairness? This is actually, those are part of ongoing work. And another very interesting question is, what are complete bounds for probabilistic adversary? So this is a new type of adversary. We don't know exactly what is a complete characterization. And I think that's a very interesting problem. Okay. And with that, I'd like to thank you.


Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem and As-Salaamu Alaykum ladies and gentlemen, we are basically continuing with our module on good corporate governance and the last time we were looking at the obligations to the shareholder, the primary stakeholder and now we are going to go on to the next important stakeholder and that is the obligations to the employees, the very backbone of any organization. Now ladies and gentlemen, when we are talking about employees then we have to understand that the whole organization is basically hinged upon its employees, their well-being and also the fact to create an enabling and conducive environment so that the employees can have high performance, high productivity, high morale and high results and perform according to expectations. Now ladies and gentlemen, one of the most important aspects in the obligations is fair employment practices by providing equal excess and fair treatment to all employees on the basis of merit. Now this is extremely important ladies and gentlemen because if we do not do employment based upon merit and transparency and established frameworks then what is going to happen is that it will create an environment of depotism, of favoritism, of despondency, of corruption. Why? Because we are selecting employees not based upon merit or some framework or some established job specifications or based upon the knowledge, skills, abilities and competencies of the individual but based upon a relationship. This is a loose-lose situation actually in the short term and the long run. Therefore for the longevity of any organization and to ensure that an organization remains as a high performing organization, this is a very very important perspective and aspect of engaging employees through fair employment practices which cannot be compromised at any time and then it has to be based upon free equal access also that it cannot be like this that some organization is hiring people without informing anyone so people are not even informed and therefore the only person who is informed is the one who gets recruited. So it actually is the responsibility of the human resource department of any good organization that they have to disseminate the position not only once but multiple times and ensure that it has a widespread audience. So the maximum number of appropriate people are applying for that position and then if they get employed or when they get employed then it's equally important that they have fair treatment to all employees. It cannot be that someone is given preference while the other person is given excessive workload, is not given holidays, is not given benefits while someone who is well connected is given all of the benefits and is also treated as a special child of the organization that would be against not only good governance that would be against morality in its very essence and it's very core also. So this thing is extremely important that while an organization is engaging with the employees and the employees are engaging with the organization that they should be freedom of association, there should be privacy of the employee, you just cannot and we also had also done a case study in which excessive surveillance can be detrimental not only to the employee but also to the organization. So we have to basically safeguard their privacy also. There has to be the recognition of the right to engage in collective bargaining that means that there can be labor unions so that their rights are not infringed or encroached upon by the organization. There has to be a prohibition of forced compulsory and child labor. Now what that basically means is that you cannot force an employee to work during a stipulated holiday. It has to be by preference. It has to be based upon their own their own perspective of wanting to work on a holiday and then there should be no child labor at all because that is condemned around the world and also those laws that pertain to the elimination of any employment discrimination. So whatever is done, it has to be done according to rules, regulations, laws and frameworks. And in a country like Pakistan, we have 149 labor laws and and the court of labor laws this thick, I mean, it's a 3,700 page plus document. Now, even to understand that itself is a huge challenge. But that's the way how the rights of employees have been given protection by the law of the land and also internationally by the international labor organization, which tends to oversee how different countries are promulgating and implementing the different labor laws. So it's the obligation of a company that they also have to ensure adherence to those laws and also protect their employees so that they cannot be manipulated, exploited or discriminated upon. That is extremely important. Equal opportunities to handle for the employer equal opportunities for employment, irrespective of race, caste, religion, color, ancestry, marital status, sex, age, nationality, disability and veteran status. So right now in Pakistan, we have a reserved quota for the physically challenged. And that is extremely important that you cannot exclude different people that you have to have a diverse organization. You have to ensure that there is also gender inclusion. So again, by law, the female gender has reserved seats in organizations. So that is also very important that the law is being followed. And now there is there is there is a draft law that even transgender should be employed by organizations because all three genders are equal. And therefore, we cannot exclude people from employment. So this is very important that they should be equal opportunities. And the employer must ensure that the race, caste, religion, color, ancestry, marital status, sex, age, nationality, any ability or disability and veteran status is not a bar or is not a consideration for employment. So that is also very important in in the rights and obligations of the employee. Now, again, employees should be treated with dignity, with respect and in accordance with the policies which are stipulated. All matters should be given equal opportunity and also decisions should be married based. So again, the human resource department of any organization has these huge responsibilities to ensure that they do not tend to intimidate, manipulate, discriminate or do something which is illegal or unlawful. And that is the very essence of human resource in a good organization. Now, ladies in general, it's also very important that we encourage whistleblowing, proactive dealing with the whistleblowers and to make sure employees have comfortable reporting channels, awareness of and to appropriately deal with a concern before an illegal act has been committed. And more so the fact that if reporting is delayed, the company's reputation can be seriously harmed and it can face a risk of prosecution with all its disastrous consequences. So, ladies and gentlemen, what we are seeing is that whistleblowing and that basically means that if I am an employee of some organization, then I must blow the whistle. That means I must raise my voice. I must communicate to the concerned authorities within the organization or outside the organization if something illegal or wrong is happening in the organization. Now, one small instance sometimes can be overlooked, but if it is becoming repetitive and again it has it has many disastrous or larger consequences, then it is the responsibility of the person concerned to blow the whistle and to ensure that the organization is protected. Now, that is extremely important. Now, sometimes what happens is, is just like a case study that we had conducted earlier is that when the person blew the whistle, then he basically had to face the consequences. So, there is always that, but the law basically protects that. Now, even in Pakistan, in the National Accountability Bureau ordinance, whistleblowing is actually mandatory upon employees and then protection of the whistleblower is also mandatory by the government. Now, what actually happens? Well, that would depend upon the situation and from circumstance to circumstance. But yes, whistleblowing is important. And secondly, whistleblowers must be protected. So, again, when we're talking about all of this, it becomes extremely important that we do not overlook or we do not tend to disengage when things are going wrong. It is our responsibility as employees that we make sure that everything is done judiciously, honesty, and also with integrity within an organization. And it is the organization's responsibility that if I blow the whistle, then I must be given appropriate protection and I must not be penalized for it. I must not be sidelined for it and I must not be punished for it. And therefore, this is a very, very important aspect of employee obligations from the company and also the employee responsibility to the company. Thank you so much.


Myself Rohit Kumar Rudrapa Vakhtarikar, working as an assistant professor at Computer Science and Engineering Department at Valsitra Technology, Solapur. Today, we are going to see how to insert an element at a specific position in a list using STL. Learning outcomes, at the end of the session, students will be able to perform the insertion of an element at a specific position in a list using the STL. So, before this video, we have already seen one video based on the list using STL. So, in this list, we have performed many operations like retrieving the first element, last element and even merging the different list in a list STL. So, now, but in list, they have not given any function which allows us to insert a specific element at a specific position in our list. So, for that here, we need to implement our own method which is going to take the input from the user as in which position you are going to insert the element. So, there will be the two things you have to take from the user. That is one is the position or the index and another one is the element where actually you are going to insert that particular element. So, let us see the implementation, how we are going to done that one. So, see here, first of all, we need to include the list because we are going to perform the operations on the list, fine. And one more important thing is about iterator header file. So, this iterator header file allows us to iterate over the list, fine. We are iterating over the list. So, now, the main objective of our video is what? Insert the element at a specific position. So, first what we will do? Let us take the two input from the user that is the position, where do you want to actually insert the element and another one is the actual element which you want to insert, fine. So, after that, we need to have one list which has hold some values, right. So, now, here this list header files, one instance we have created list one of the integer data type which is going to store these elements. Here by default we have placed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 6 elements here, fine. So, here after that we are trying to display the list elements for that here again we have written on show list method. This show list has one argument called the list one. So, this list one is a reference or the object of this list type, fine. So, I am sending this list one to the show list function, right. So, let us see here the show list function or method. So, wide show list has one argument of the list type. Its name is L1. So, here we need to initiate or initialize our iterator on which list it is going to be work out, okay. So, now here we will have the iterator it which is going to iterate over the list which has a integer variables, fine. Now, here we need to write the for loop which travels over the list. So, now let us initialize this iterator it is equals to L1.begin. Means this it initially going to point on the list begin. We have already seen this begin in our previous video, right. Then till where it is going to be iterate till we will got the end of the list that is L1.end and then iterator plus plus, right. So, now by this line it is going to iterate the iterator on a list till we will get the end of the list, fine. So, now after that what we are going to do? We are simply going to display the iterator values, right. So, now that particular list element is going to be stored in this it that is the reference of this iterator and we have stored there. So, now this iterator is going to display this elements, fine. So, if you look at the code till here we got the only element from the list. So, let us see here, list 1 will have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 these are the 6 elements will have in our list, ok. So, now come to the main objective. Now here what we are going to do? We want to perform the insertion at a specific position. So, here we need to take the input from the user that is on which position is going to store the or the inside the element. So, for that we are going to use this end position here. So, now user will enter the position and it is going to be stored in this POS, ok fine. So, obviously in this iterator directly we are not going to access that particular position, ok. So, how we are going to do then? Here we need to write one more iterator over the list, fine. So, see here this is the very important steps. So, here the list of integers where iterator sp this is sp that is stack pointer or list pointer whatever you can say that is going to be point on a begin, see here, right. Means sp is a pointer which is pointed on this list 1 dot begin, begin of the pointer. So, what we need to do then? So, now we have already taken the position from the user on which position we are going to store that is first, second, third, fourth, right. So, here we need to iterate or increment the pointer sp pointer till the specified position, right. It means integer i is equals to 0, i is less than POS minus 1 that is entered position minus 1 because it is start from the 0, 1, 2, 3, right. So, here we are dealing with the directly 1, 2, 3, 4, fine we will start from the 1. That is why what we have done position minus 1 then i plus plus. So, it is going to increment the pointer sp pointer and now what we will do? Take the input from the user, right. That is what? Enter element is going to enter the element value and now here there is a one more function called the insert. That insert allows us to insert the element, right, insert the element. So, now what we will do that insert the element into the sp position, right. So, this is sp position and specific one element, which element. So, now again what we are going to do? Simply we are going to print the values, ok. So, let us see how it is going to be work. So, initially in my list I will have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 element. So, let us say I want to insert the element at the second position, fine. That means 1, 2. On this position I want to insert, right. So, position I have given the 2 and enter the element, right, 200. So, see here what we have done. On the first it is 1 and the second position here we will have the 2, but on the second position we are going to insert the 200. So, now here it will become the 200, right. And we are just forwarding these pointers to the next elements in our list, ok. So, let us say now I want to insert the element at a fourth position, fine. Let us say I want to insert the 400. So, where is the fourth position that is this one, right. So, what we are expecting output 1, 2, 3, 400, 4, 5 and 6, fine. Let us see what is the output, see here, 1, 2, 3, then 400, right. On the fourth position we have inserted the element and now this 4, 5, 6 has been shifted, right. It means like in the linked list what we are going to do is we are going to create one node that new node we are going to place into the list, right. So, there is no need to perform the right shift of the 4, 5, 6 elements, right. Because this is the list, that is why we are going to prefer the list over the array, fine. So, think and write. Is it possible to delete any element from the list from any position? It means like currently we are going to accessing the element, right, from the specific position. I am going to retrieving the element. So, can we delete that a particular specific element from the list? Yes, think, yes, that is possible. We can perform this operation by simply traversing the pointer. We will traverse the pointer over there and we can delete that particular element. So, we can write our own delete method also, right, which we have written now. Hope everyone is getting this concept. References are Obvious Learning Programming with C++ 6th Edition by Ibal Guru Swami. Thank you.