U.S. Congress Apologises for Slavery

This Day (Lagos)
Africa: U..S. Congress Apologises for Slavery
Constance Ikokwu

20 June 2009
http://allafrica.com/stories/200906200007.html

Washington, D.c. — The United States Congress has for the first time in its 230-year history issued a formal apology for slavery and segregation, describing the dark period of that country as inhuman.

The apology issued by Senators on Capitol Hill on Thursday, however, did not agree to the payment of reparations, but it condemned centuries of injustice caused by slavery.

In a strongly worded document, the Congress unanimously voted to acknowledge the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws."

It stated that the US Congress "apologises on behalf of the people of the United States for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws."

According to Wikipedia, Jim Crow laws were local and state laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the US, mandating segregation in all public facilities, with a supposedly "equal but separate" status for black Americans.

If the House of Repres-entatives pass a similar measure as expected next week, it will mark the highest effort to apologise for the wrongs of the past.

A similar effort failed to make it to the Senate in 2008 after it was passed in the lower chamber.

The resolution affirmed the "principle that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and calls on all people of the United States to work towards eliminating racial prejudices, injustices and discrimination from our society."

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was quoted as saying that "no one pretends that a mere apology or any words can right the wrongs of the past, but it represents our recognition of the past and our commitment to fully live up to our nation's promise."

The sponsor of the resolution, Senator Tom Harkin noted that slavery "is an enduring national shame" for the country.

He added: "slavery and Jim Crow and their continuing consequences are not the historical baggage of one state, one region or one company."

Harkin said the resolution was long over due. He warned that more work lies ahead as the latest move would not wipe out all injustices automatically.

Reacting, some African-Americans said the apology was not enough but is a first step.

Former President Bill Clinton while in office had expressed regret for the act while George W. Bush described it as "one of the greatest crimes of history. But they stopped short of a proper apology.

Some states in the country have also previously adopted resolutions expressing regret for slavery, but no formal bill at the national level was officially passed.

Jim Crow laws were enshrined in the US Constitution to segregate blacks and whites.

The resolution also fell on June 19, being the celebration of the freedom of African-Americans at the end of the Civil War in 1865.

A ceremony to mark the passage of the new resolution is expected next month.

HAS COCA-COLA FINALLY MET ITS MATCH?

Self respecting marketers, marketing novices and the public at large know Coca-cola and its secret recipe as a massive marketing success for 'eons', I even dare think- what would we do without good old coke? Remote villages in nameless countries have the familiar shape Coca-cola bottles pregnant with the dark money making liquid perched invitingly on shelves in local village shops and pubs.

Recent activity in the Health sector though seemingly threaten coke's viability in the healthy eating habits persuasion. Will healthy eating habits affect Coca-colas dominance of the fizzy drinks market? Are we witnessing the slow death of a giant as we have known it ? Or will this just lead to healthier Coca-cola spin-offs? the later makes profitable sense.

In the meanwhile Venezuala has gone ahead and banned a version of Coca-cola citing possible health risks (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090611/twl-venezuela-bans-coke-zero-over-health-3fd0ae9.html). A couple of weeks ago I read a health article in a local london paper that stated that cola drinks deplete the body of some essential mineral if my memory serves me right, and this here now could be termed to be a consequential development ; My steadfast companion through the african heat, Coca-cola, what next?

Racial Discrimination at World Bank?

Report Details Racial Discrimination at World Bank

Published on Jun 9, 2009 - 9:35:50 AM

By: Government Accountability Project
http://yubanet.com/usa/Report-Details-Racial-Discrimination-at-World-Bank.php

WASHINGTON, D.C. June 9, 2009 - Today, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) released a report that investigates and finds evidence of racial discrimination against black professional grade employees at the World Bank. The report, which documents the treatment of these employees in recruitment, retention and internal judicial decisions, finds that a race ceiling exists at the institution, and that the Bank's legal system fails to address racial discrimination adequately. Read further....

http://whistleblower.org/doc/2009/RDWB.pdf

The Economic debate of our time? FT.com

Rising government bond rates prove policy works, The Financial Times Online
June 3, 2009 12:33am
by Martin Wolf

Is the US (and a number of other high-income countries) on the road to fiscal Armageddon? Are recent jumps in government bond rates proof that investors are worried about fiscal prospects? My answers to these questions are: No and No. This does not mean there is no reason for worry. It is rather that there are powerful arguments against fiscal retrenchment right now and strong reasons for welcoming recent moves in the bond markets.

Last week, the Financial Times carried two columns arguing that the US fiscal path was unsustainable, one by Stanford University’s John Taylor and the other by the Harvard historian Niall Ferguson. The latter, in turn, was a comment on a debate with, among others, the New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman at the end of April.
On one point all serious analysts agree: public debt cannot rise, relative to gross domestic product, without limit. To embark on fiscal stimulus in the short run, one must be credible in the long run.

So what is the disagreement? Prof Ferguson made three propositions: first, the recent rise in US government bond rates shows that the bond market is “quailing” before the government’s huge issuance; second, huge fiscal deficits are both unnecessary and counterproductive; and, finally, there is reason to fear an inflationary outcome. These are widely held views. Are they right?
The first point is, on the evidence, wrong. The jump in bond rates is a desirable normalisation after a panic. Investors rushed into the dollar and government bonds. Now they are rushing out again. Welcome to the giddy world of financial markets.

At the end of December 2008, US 10-year Treasury yields fell to the frighteningly low level of 2.1 per cent from close to 4 per cent in October (see chart). Partly as a result of this fall and partly because of a surprising rise in the yield on inflation-protected bonds (Tips), implied expected inflation reached a low of close to zero. The deflation scare had become all too real.
What has happened is a sudden return to normality: after some turmoil, the yield on conventional US government bonds closed at 3.5 per cent last week, while the yield on Tips fell to 1.9 per cent. So expected inflation went to a level in keeping with Federal Reserve objectives, at close to 1.6 per cent. Much the same has happened in the UK, with a rise in expected inflation from a low of 1.3 per cent in March to 2.3 per cent. Fear of deflationary meltdown has gone. Hurrah!

It is true that spreads between conventional US bonds and bonds issued by Germany and the UK have narrowed (see chart). But US yields were extraordinarily depressed during the panic.

Normality returns.
If inflation expectations are not worth worrying about, so far, what about the other concern caused by huge bond issuance: crowding out of private borrowers? This would show itself in rising real interest rates. Again, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.
The most recent yield on Tips is below 2 per cent, while that on UK index-linked securities is close to 1 per cent. Meanwhile, as confidence has grown, spreads between corporate bonds and Treasuries have fallen (see chart). One can also use estimates of expected inflation derived from government bonds to estimate real rates of interest on corporate bonds. These have also fallen sharply (see chart). While riskier bonds are yielding more than they were two years ago, they are yielding far less than in late 2008. This, too, is very good news indeed.
Now turn to the fiscal policy. The argument advanced by opponents is either that fiscal policy is always unnecessary and ineffective or, as Prof Ferguson suggests, redundant, because this is not a “Great Depression”. Monetarists argue fiscal policy is always unnecessary, since monetary expansion does the trick. Economists who believe in “Ricardian equivalence” – after the early-19th-century economist David Ricardo – argue fiscal policy is ineffective, because households will offset any government dis-saving with their own higher savings.

Economists disagree fiercely on these points. My approach is “Keynesian”: in extreme moments, the excess of desired savings over investment soars. Again, monetary policy, while important, becomes less effective when interest rates are zero. It is then wise to wear both monetary belt and fiscal braces.

A deep recession proves there is a huge rise in excess desired savings at full employment, as Prof Krugman argues. At present, therefore, fiscal deficits are not crowding the private sector out. They are crowding it in, instead, by supporting demand, which sustains jobs and profits.
Prof Ferguson argues that fiscal expansion was unnecessary because this is only a mild recession. The question, however, is why it is only a mild recession, since precursors of a depression were surely present.

The answer, in part, is the aggressive monetary policies of central banks and the rescue of the financial system. But is that all? What would have happened if governments had decided to cut spending and raise taxes? One might disagree on how much deliberate fiscal loosening was needed. But one of the most important reasons this is not the Great Depression is that we have learnt a lesson from experience then, and in Japan in the 1990s: do not tighten fiscal policy too soon. Moreover, historically well-run economies are certainly able to support higher levels of public indebtedness very comfortably.

This, then, brings us to the last concern: the fear of inflation. This is essentially the question of how to exit from current extreme policies. People need to believe that the extraordinarily aggressive monetary and fiscal policies of today will be reversed. If they do not believe this, there could well be a big upsurge in inflationary expectations long before the world economy has recovered. If that were to happen, policymakers would be caught in a painful squeeze and the world might indeed end up in 1970s-style stagflation.

The exceptional policies used to deal with extreme circumstances are working. Now, as a result, policymakers are walking a tightrope: on one side are premature withdrawal and a return to deep recession; on the other side are soaring inflationary expectations and stagflation. It is irresponsible to insist either on immediate tightening or on persistently loose policies. Both the US and the UK now risk the latter. But their critics risk making an equal and opposite mistake. The answer is both clear and tricky: choose sharp tightening, but not yet.

Write to martin.wolf@ft.comMore columns at www.ft.com/martinwolf

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Avoid e-mail mistakes with a single setting

Avoid e-mail mistakes with a single setting

* Date: June 9th, 2009
* Author: Susan Harkins
* Category: Outlook


We’ve all done it, and regretted it — sent an e-mail to the wrong person, sent an angry e-mail in haste, or sent an e-mail with mistakes. I don’t mind confessing my most humiliating e-mail mistakes because they’re so old:

• I sent an article to the wrong publisher. Now, that’s not horrible and as a freelancer, all my editors know that I work for other publishers, but it was still unpleasant because I looked stupid.
• I used the wrong publication name when corresponding with an editor. She responded with a curt, “I work for… ,” and I never received another assignment from her.

Most e-mail clients send e-mail as soon as you hit Send in the message window, and that’s why we get into trouble. Instead of sending each e-mail immediately, let them sit in the outbox. Later (usually a few hours or so), review the messages one last time and then send them. I often find small and seemingly unimportant mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless. Occasionally, I find something more important and I count my lucky stars! Letting a message sit for a while, especially if you’re angry when you respond, will give you a bit of time to rethink and perhaps, even save face.

Outlook is configured to send mail when you click Send in the New Message window. To reset this option so that you control when Outlook sends mail, do the following:

1. From the Tools menu, choose Options.
2. Click the Mail Setup tab.
3. Click Send/Receive in the Send/Receive options.
4. Uncheck the Include This Group In Send/Receive (F9) option in the Setting For Group “All Accounts” section. Most of us will set this for all accounts, but you can configure Outlook to handle each account differently.
5. Click Close and then OK.

After unchecking the Send/Receive option, you must remember to click Send/Receive on the Standard toolbar to send mail. You can also set Outlook to send e-mail when you launch or close Outlook, or schedule it to send and receive e-mail at regular intervals, so be sure to consider those options as well. You’ll still have to find the mistakes, but putting a little time between creating and sending messages makes it easier to catch mistakes you might otherwise miss.

OF EU ELECTIONS AND BRITISH LIFE.

I followed the arrows. I walked through the open south transept door, glancing around like a stranger usually does into the St Peters church hall crossing converted into a polling station; I felt some huge dissapointment at the scene unfolding before me, I had expected the sophistication of 'Europe', technical gadgets etceteras but there before my eyes was a basic electoral scene not dissimilar to that of my African home country, facing me were 5 makeshift open ended wood booths, to my immediate left sat three English ladies on a lone table with three heaps of differently coloured paper, the 25 years young silent one was far younger than the other two. The wall clock said 11 am UK time, yet I was the lone voter and undeservedly got more than the attention I needed; I looked the smiling one in the eye, smiled back and handed in my poll certificate, I confirmed my name as Kapito and my address of abode, was rewarded with a long voting card folded into three, with which I pranced on my black loafers silently to the first left wood booth.

I fished out a pen from my shirt pocket, unfurled the voting card, and heard the two ladies yell to my back 'you have to open it up to see all your options', I thought 'I have already sodding done that mai!' but mouthed a respectful 'thank you' instead, my eyes caressed the 10 or so parties listed on the firm black and white thin board paper and settled for a choice with an 'X' mark before walking to the right facing the church chancel, alter and sacristy, where just before the step stood a middle aged Englishman busy with something in his hands, he glanced at me briefly as I stuffed my vote into an opening in the black 'toolbox' like container atop a metal table and muttered something friendly, I muttered back. I had voted for my choice of a UK member of EU parliament (fondly called MEP's by mainstream media).

Like me millions across the UK partook a similar ritual, millions less than elections years before, the Sky News election results of this morning mention the historic low turnout of a mere 37.5% of registered voters. The economy, parliamentarian expenses scandals have taken their toll, the population has voted with their backsides, they sat the elections out, stayed home or pretended them away. How did the UK get here? now thats a long long story.

For me though the first answer was the top deck window seat ride of route 279 towards Enfield Borough, Zone 4, London. Not a single of the loud conversations around were in English, I wondered, perhaps aloud if I was really in London, the advertising boards that slowly flashed by as the bus motored ahead confirmed I was in London, so I thought instead about how the indigineous Englanders felt about this sustained 'invasion' of economic and academic migrants, it must be uncomfortable I thought, and indeed it was, since then I have seen the Home office push forward unprecedented reforms in immigration, strikes by British workers over immigrants 'taking' their jobs, have heard countless stories of people being deported ( 'ali mmanja mwa Boma'), visas refused, scandals of asian forgers of academic certificates at £4000 pounds, British driving licences, British passports caught and brought to book, I have seen the quiet tide turning against 'foreigners'. This is not the UK my father lived in way back in 1975, it is under siege mental or otherwise; anti EU sentiment, centuries of immigration and the opening up of the EU migration are taking its toll and the ordinary British fear for their way of life.

The UK has offered qualitative education for a long while now, on a comparative scale British education ranks better than other 'developed' nations. The reality on the ground though indicates that society is grappling with the realities of opening its borders to the outside world. The biggest issue affecting the UK now is immigration asides from the state of the economy, the guilt trip the UK took for colonising, harvesting and shipping all the goodies out of the colonies and then more by taxing the colonised locals is biting back. The indigenous UK population has spoken through this 2009 election, by voting in the far right party BNP and such parties into the European Parliament for the first time, some say its a protest vote against the main parties for their abuse of the system, I say its a real vote and a sign of things to come. Some non-UK visitors have long abused the system, illegally claiming benefits, working full time on student visas, falsifying documents, perpetuating various crimes, terrorising and bombing innocent people, all culminating in higher costs (security, social welfare, health etc) for the state, a deepening mistrust and now a xenophobic culture albeit in its infancy.

The future will see less students from african countries study in the UK, as student number intakes by approved educational institutions are closely monitored by the Home Office, scholarship numbers reduce, and the 'fees upfront' immigation policy weeds out undesirables before they reach the British shores, it will only serve to make British education more attractive, good old supply and demand laws at work, scarcity breeds value. So what next for UK Educational Institutions? Franchising? Supply the students in their home countries?

So whats my rant about? Its about voting, its about rising xenophobic tendencies, its about a closing door to access of education on British soil by non-EU citizens, its about private thoughts about immigrants now being made public. Alarmists are at play, in the media, in the dailies, everywhere and even on youtube, sample this if you may as an example of whipping up of the anti-immigration frenzy or rationalising depending on which side of the railtrack you are on:

OBAMA CAIRO, EGYPT SPEECH IN FULL.

Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda biography.

Hastings Kamuzu Banda Biography - Detoured on Road to Become a Doctor, Pursued Degrees with Diligence, Spoke Out Against Racism

Dambisa Moyo vs. Jeffrey Sachs in The Huffington Post. Does Africa really need aid?

Dambisa Moyo's thesis is an interesting and fresh approach to the perennial issue of donor aid. Originally from Zambia, Dambisa argues against the ills of aid in its current disbursement form, she outlines convincingly why donor aid is being abused and how the donors have used aid to dictate their policies on how recipients should run their countries, and how ultimately this African community fixation on aid will do Africans more harm than good. She cites the Marshall plan as assisting particular nations of that post-war era through one time injections of targeted aid rather than the now ritual annual doses of 'foreign aid' to African presidents holding out begging plates.



Huge debates have ensued online, and the simplistic and easiest responses I have seen in some cases ridicule her outright, some even blame her for Italys state aid withdrawal from a country in Africa. Being a lifetime student of history I am reminded of people that dared question the status quo in times past, the societal discomfort thus created by their thinking 'outside the box' resulting in their being excommunicated by their churches, barred by their communities or indeed for lack of a better word martyred by society on burning stakes. Picture this if you may; a way of life built on a false premise, the powerful were bound to lose clout, respect and a culture destroyed due to new insights, new technology, new thinking, this new revolution challenged the comfort of their way of life, all that they had lived and died for, it was unacceptable,the easiest way was and is to chuck out the revolutionary new thinking and stick with the tried and tested, as they say 'dont rock the boat', 'if it aint broke, dont fix it', and a coordinated character assasination of the revolutionary inclusive of expletives ensues, culminating with 'death to the revolutionary' chants by masses whipped into a frenzy by the change resistance brigade.


My take is we hear her out, she has very valid points, a response to the question she raises has to be multi-dimensional, yes or no answers may be too simplistic, while most arguments articulate the benefits of aid, that's the easy part, no one seems to be commenting on the negative end of aid, the fact that the donors pick and choose recipients (Pakistan, India, Israel and Egypt, a case in point), the abuse by governments, the loss of innovation, I believe Dambisa is daring to take the road less taken, to shift the paradigm, albeit with academic reserach prowess, she has a message that if you read her book without prejudice and avoid the urge to take sides before hearing her out is quite balanced.

Analyse if you may, the growth in Africa that has come about since China came up with aid formulas in spite of the west, its all around us, Dambisa argues that governments in impoverished states epitomise wealth hence the infighting and perpetual 'crying for votes' after elections, because that's where the wealth and power is concentrated, every self respecting politician wants that POWER, that government post that is funded by donor aid. Dambisa argues that governments should be judged on innovation and improved citizen welfare without factoring utilisation of foreign resources that would have still poured into particular economies irregardless of who won the election or who is at the helm........give her a chance, lets not behave like our ancestors in being afraid to be challenged by a different way of looking at things, at some point aid will dry up, we have to ready ourselves........shes just blowing the horn, as uncomfortable as she may make us the future is heading our way....

I am in love again, totally smitten, this time with Dambisa's way of thinking, Go girl Go!

Dambisa's website: http://www.dambisamoyo.com/

Huffington Post debate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dambisa-moyo/aid-ironies-a-response-to_b_207772.html

If you are on Facebook search for her page.

New Insurance Law introduced in Tanzania

FARAJA MGWABATI, Dodoma, 25th April 2009 @ 11:30.
THE DAILY NEWS (TANZANIA)

New insurance law to benefit public
Tanzanians stand to benefit from the new Insurance law that has been passed by the National Assembly this week whereby Insurance Companies (Insurers) will be forced to pay their customers’ claims within 45 days of occurrence of an accident.

The new law, Insurance Act 2009, has come at the moment when there are many cases of accidents happening in the country while victims are left without compensation, otherwise the compensation process takes years.

The Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Affairs, Omary Yusuf Mzee told the National Assembly on Friday that the new law is meant to protect the users of insurance services who for long have been complaining about how they were treated by Insurers.

“This law gives teeth to the Commissioner of Insurance (CI) to make sure that the insured get their claims within 45 days...We have done calculations and found that 45 days are enough to process payments,” he said.

Mr Mzee said if the Insurers fail to pay claims within the stipulated period the CI has power to assess the reasons, if proved genuine, the CI is entitled to add a few days (not exceeding 45) or if the reasons are not genuine, the Insurance company will be fined not more than 5m/- on top of the claim.

He said under the new law, the Insurance Appeal Tribunal and Tanzania Insurance Regulatory Authority would be established to enable Insurers, brokers and customers to file their appeals when they are not satisfied by CI’s decisions and customers submit their complains.

To give Tanzanians a chance to participate in the insurance business, he said the law requires Tanzanians to have at least 33 per cent of the stake in those companies. “Insurance is a business, if we (Tanzanians) can not invest in it, the whole industry will be dominated by foreign investors that is why we are giving at least one third of companies ownership to Tanzanians,” he said.

He said Insurance companies would be forced to declare to the public their financial accounts to enhance accountability and good governance within the industry. “Another good thing about this law is that it provides wide ranges of insurance cover including the marriage cover…We are used to seeking help from colleagues for donations when you want to get married, but with marriage insurance when you are 18 you start saving,” he said.

The Deputy Minister said the government would finalize reforms to stabilize the National Insurance Corporation (NIC) to enable it to compete efficiently in the market and provide better services to the public. Debating the Bill, some Members of Parliament advised the Minister to provide education to Tanzanians on the importance of insurance services in life and attract them to participate as investors.

Responding to the comments, he said it was true many Tanzanians including MPs did not give greater importance to insurance services and those who cared about their health or properties only took third party insurance which does not help them much. “Its true we need to educate our people...I hope MPs you will help the government to sensitize the public on that,” he said, adding that people should take a comprehensive insurance covers. The new law if endorsed by President Kikwete would replace the Insurance Act of 1996 chapter 394.

STAFF WRITER, 5th May 2009 @ 00:00, (Excerpts).

After a decade since its liberalisation, the insurance industry is now poised for robust and sustainable growth following changes on the law to boost efficiency and accountability.The National Assembly recently pass the Bill for the Insurance Act 2009, which among other things, provides for settlement of claims after 45 days and establishment of the appeals tribunals.Tanzania's insurance industry had for three decades since 1967, been under the hegemony of the state, where there were only two players in the market.

The market in Tanzania mainland was the monopoly of the National Insurance Corporation (NIC), while in the the Isles, the Zanzibar Insurance Corporation (ZIC) was the sole operator. Tanzania’s Insurance Industry was liberalized in 1996 with the objective of making it a sound and competitive agent for national saving mobilization and development of investment channeling.

Other reasons included promoting insurance sector as an effective catalyst for enhanced economic growth, strengthening and promoting the industry health and orderly growth through establishment of operating performance standards and prescriptions.There are now about 18 insurers, a reisurance company, dozens of brokerage firms and over 500 agents and loss adjusters in the domestic market.

Some of the insurance companies and brokerage firms operating in the country have connections with world-class houses that provide a myriad of products."We are in a situation where you are covered for various risks. You have life and health assurance, motor and property coverage. There is now more security," said Salum Hussein a Dar es Salaam agent.

Some analysts say the proposed law comes at a moment when there are many road, fire and other kinds of accidents happening in the country, while victims are left for long without compensation.

“This law gives teeth to the Commissioner of Insurance (CI) to make sure that the insured get their claims within 45 days...We have done calculations and found that 45 days are enough to process payments,” Deputy Finance and Economic Affairs Minister Omar Yusuf Mzee told Parliament in Dodoma while moving the bill for its second reading.

Mr Mzee said the proposed law empowers the commissioner to extend the period for settling a claim upon being furnished with genuine reasons, as well as punishing defaulters.

An insurer, for example, may end up coughing 5m/- on top of the claim for non-compliance.The proposed law has adopted the principle of the industry's ombudsman, under which stakeholders with complaints against the commissioner could be handled.

It provides for establishment of the Insurance Appeal Tribunal and Tanzania Insurance Regulatory Authority to enable Insurers, brokers and customers file appeals when they are not satisfied by commissioner's decisions.

The law requires firm's to allocate at least one-third mandatory stake to Tanzanians for it to secure registration. "This is a deliberate move to empower Tanzanians take part in the lucrative industry," Mr Mzee noted.

Analysts say the proposed law consolidates the regulatory framework enshrined in the Insurance Act 1996 and Insurance Regulations 1998. The law had set strict prudential guidelines to ensure that the nascent insurance industry was established on strong foundations.

This strictness manifests itself in rules that govern the operation of insurance firms: Insurance firms must meet paid-up share capital and solvency margin requirements and must hold certain percentage holdings of various investments.


The insurance business faces a number of challenges including failure by some firms to maintain minimum solvency margin which impedes their ability to meet their financial obligations. Other challenges include lack of training facilities for professionals within the country especially actuarial science and other related risk management studies.

The insurance industry at end of 2007 employed 2,530 staff, out of whom 982 (39 per cent) were working in insurance firms, while 1,548 (61 per cent) were engaged by insurance agencies, broking houses and loss assessors and adjusters.