Mbabane — People are calling Swaziland's first children's radio programme "Ses'khona", which literally means, "We're here", but in the SiSwati language it implies the arrival of a group that intends to stay and be heard.
Beginning in February, Swazi children will be able to tune in to hear their contemporaries report the news, entertain them and discuss issues that matter to pre-adult listeners.
"This is peer-to-peer communications in its purest form. We were looking to support meaningful child participation in programmes involving children," said Nonhlanhla Hleta-Nkambule, communications officer at the Swaziland office of the UN Children's Fund, UNICEF.
The programme is an outgrowth of "Super Buddies", a children's magazine launched in 2003 with UNICEF backing, which uses child actors in photo stories to address child welfare issues. Like the new radio programme, Super Buddies is written and, in some instances, photographed by children.
The magazine is the country's only publication aimed at children and has spawned a string of clubs where activities are carried out and discussions held on topics such as HIV/AIDS, teenage sex and pregnancy, peer pressure, bullying, education, abuse, family problems, friendship, poverty and love, which will also feature in the radio show.
"So far, we have 33 active school clubs nationwide and the demand for the clubs is growing. We felt there was a need to use another medium to reach these children," said Siphiwe Nkambule, National Coordinator of the clubs. "We are confident that through the forum of radio the children themselves will get an opportunity to discuss issues that affect them."
The show is to be broadcast on the government radio station, SBIS-2, and will feature four presenters, two producers and two technical directors, all aged 12 to 14.
We felt there was a need to use another medium to reach these children
Listeners will be able to suggest topics. "A child might write that a friend is thinking of committing suicide, so the reporters will find information on child suicides and get child welfare authorities, psychiatrists and others, as well as depressed children themselves, to contribute," said Nkambule.
Elizabeth Kgololo, communications director of Save the Children, an international NGO that works to improve the lives of children, along with a former broadcaster who now runs the government television service, has mentored the child producers and presenters.
"The children are extremely brilliant. It is amazing how they get behind the microphone and articulate peer issues. We've taken sample shows around to play at primary and secondary schools, and the students' feedback has been so positive. They find the topics relevant, and they are excited that the show's direction comes from children themselves," Kgololo told IRIN.
Finding youthful talent
The search for on-air and producing talent found children with broadcasting ability from all backgrounds. "We held auditions. Some [children] are from very poor neighbourhoods, like Msunduza [an impoverished township in the hills above Mbabane, the capital]," said Kgololo.
Technical training followed, impressing radio veterans like former government spokesman Percy Simelane, who now runs the national radio service. "Children's voices in our communities are muted, and there are limited avenues for them to express their aspirations," he said.
"There is a need to open platforms where they will not only talk to one another, but also articulate issues that affect them and influence policy, with special attention to ensuring that their voices are equally heard."
As much as 90 percent of Swaziland's population of 960,000 are regular radio listeners, and 200,000 children are expected to tune into "Ses'khona" each Saturday at two in the afternoon.
"A very high percentage of our youth and children rely on radio for information. There is a need to improve radio programming in both the SiSwati and English channels," said Simelane.
The first programme will be broadcast in SiSwati, and interviews with English speakers will be translated.
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Comments Post a comment
Already this year I have learnt something. I have learnt that all these experts who, week in and week out, bombard us with their opinions on these pages do not know what they want. These are the experts who, in their precious columns, tell us that life would be so much better here in Swaziland if the political leaders did a, b, c and d.
They profess to have answers to all the ills out there, and, interestingly enough, if you want to know their opinion on any issue under the sun just find out what governments position on that issue is, and theirs will be the direct opposite. I have always suspected that these experts and their ilk do not know what they want and events over the past two weeks or so have confirmed those suspicions.
For as long as I can remember, every writer in columns and guest spots has stated that one of the factors which exacerbate the beatings that the countrys image takes from time to time in international fora is the failure on governments part to respond strongly to international reports that sometimes surface.
One would, therefore, have expected some kudos for the Prime Minister for the way in which his office swiftly and pointedly responded to the report published by Amnesty International and the International Bar Association vis a vis the Suppression of Terrorism Act No.3 of 2008 earlier this month.
But alas with our experts, who are so blinded by their misguided opposition to anything that has to do with the establishment they do not notice and comment positively when they get what they have been asking for.
scheme
Small as it may seem in the bigger scheme of things, the mere fact that there was a response is a positive.
This, though, is an issue for another day but today, with the editors permission, of course, I would like to address myself on the issue of this Amnesty International report without taking anything away from the Prime Ministers response which was beautiful and complete on its own.
Amnesty International (AI) is an international non governmental organisation of good standing that has done a lot to fight against human rights abuses anywhere in the world since its inception in 1961. It is without a doubt a necessary entity in our world. History, however, has shown that there are instances where AI gets it wrong.
For example, AI refused to recognise Nelson Mandela and his comrades as Prisoners of Conscience during their incarceration for acts committed against the apartheid regime. AI itself coined the term Prisoner of Conscience in the 1960s and it refers to people "imprisoned because of their race, religion, colour, language, sexual orientation, belief or lifestyle so long as they have not used or advocated violence".
Once AI labels one a Prisoner of Conscience it means that the entire AI machinerywhich is hugewill be used to draw attention and exert pressure to ensure that any Prisoner of Conscience is released as soon as possible.
This is key support that was denied Mandela and his comrades because the ANC had started using violence in the latter part of 1961 following the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe.
It mattered not to AI that the precursor to the formation of Umkhonto was the Sharpeville massacre; it mattered not to AI that 69 unarmed Africans were slaughtered by the apartheid forces in Sharpeville on March 21, 1961; it mattered not to AI that of the 69 dead eight were women and 10 were children.
Therein lies the problem with AI. They come up with these ideas and definitions of what is right and what is wrong, and they deliberately and mischievously choose to ignore the circumstances on the ground.
killings
In the same way that they did not care about the Sharpeville killings that gave birth to Umkhonto, they also do not care about the circumstances that lead some of us to believe that Swaziland needs this piece of legislation at this time.
It matters not to AI that sometime last year in Swaziland a bridge fought back as terrorists tried to plant a bomb on a route that His Majesty the King frequents, a route the king was due to use a few hours later on his way to the airport. It matters not to them that this was not the first terrorist act.
It is worth noting that AI has been critical of just about every countrys Anti Terrorism legislation formulated after 9/11.
Actually take our Anti Terrorism law and put it beside the British and American law, and you will be forgiven for thinking that we are the leaders of the free world and the Brits and the Americans are the barbarians.
Most countries, including the two mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, have criticised AIs reports for being slanted and for failing to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor.
Sleeping with one eye open just does not do it for me, so until we are convinced that there are no people plotting and planting bombs in the dead of night I will sleep better knowing that there is a Suppression of Terrorism Act No.3 of 2008 and I will sleep even better knowing that it is Barnabas Sibusiso Dlaminis watch