Papua New Guinea Teachers deserve better rewards

I am disgusted at the way the Education Department and it's provincial education divisions are treating the teachers with their leave fares. Teachers serve the communities diligently by executing their duties even though they are not well paid according to the enormous work they do to adhere to the government's policies.

Teachers work tirelessly to implement the government's education reforms and should be given a fair treatment. The 'leave fare' saga is an on going issue and needs to be solved amicably within the various education departments to avoid such disappointments among teachers.

It seems that no one in the education department is paying a close attention to this prolonged issue. This depicts a lack of communication, foresight, and poor administrative organization within the National Education Department and their counterparts in the provinces where most of the teachers are affected.
Balob Teachers College graduates ready to join their colleagues throughout Papua New Guinea to take on the challenges in teaching

This is an issue that needs to be given a top priority prior to the closing of the schools for the year so that teachers could have advance plans for their trips to their homes to spend the holidays with their families and loved ones.

Nothing has improved over the years. The same old issue is coming up every year which has an adverse impact on the poor teachers and their families to suffer the consequences of an issue that is not being addressed adequately by the education officials.

It's getting worse and worse every year because somebody is not doing his or her delegated duty. Let's not make the teachers suffer for something that they did not create. Teachers deserve better rewards!

Papua New Guinea Teachers deserve better rewards

I am disgusted at the way the Education Department and it's provincial education divisions are treating the teachers with their leave fares. Teachers serve the communities diligently by executing their duties even though they are not well paid according to the enormous work they do to adhere to the government's policies.

Teachers work tirelessly to implement the government's education reforms and should be given a fair treatment. The 'leave fare' saga is an on going issue and needs to be solved amicably within the various education departments to avoid such disappointments among teachers.

It seems that no one in the education department is paying a close attention to this prolonged issue. This depicts a lack of communication, foresight, and poor administrative organization within the National Education Department and their counterparts in the provinces where most of the teachers are affected.
Balob Teachers College graduates ready to join their colleagues throughout Papua New Guinea to take on the challenges in teaching

This is an issue that needs to be given a top priority prior to the closing of the schools for the year so that teachers could have advance plans for their trips to their homes to spend the holidays with their families and loved ones.

Nothing has improved over the years. The same old issue is coming up every year which has an adverse impact on the poor teachers and their families to suffer the consequences of an issue that is not being addressed adequately by the education officials.

It's getting worse and worse every year because somebody is not doing his or her delegated duty. Let's not make the teachers suffer for something that they did not create. Teachers deserve better rewards!

Papua New Guinea Teachers deserve better rewards

I am disgusted at the way the Education Department and it's provincial education divisions are treating the teachers with their leave fares. Teachers serve the communities diligently by executing their duties even though they are not well paid according to the enormous work they do to adhere to the government's policies.

Teachers work tirelessly to implement the government's education reforms and should be given a fair treatment. The 'leave fare' saga is an on going issue and needs to be solved amicably within the various education departments to avoid such disappointments among teachers.

It seems that no one in the education department is paying a close attention to this prolonged issue. This depicts a lack of communication, foresight, and poor administrative organization within the National Education Department and their counterparts in the provinces where most of the teachers are affected.
Balob Teachers College graduates ready to join their colleagues throughout Papua New Guinea to take on the challenges in teaching

This is an issue that needs to be given a top priority prior to the closing of the schools for the year so that teachers could have advance plans for their trips to their homes to spend the holidays with their families and loved ones.

Nothing has improved over the years. The same old issue is coming up every year which has an adverse impact on the poor teachers and their families to suffer the consequences of an issue that is not being addressed adequately by the education officials.

It's getting worse and worse every year because somebody is not doing his or her delegated duty. Let's not make the teachers suffer for something that they did not create. Teachers deserve better rewards!

Obama’s maiden visit to China confirms multilateral diplomacy

By Albert Tobby*

US President Barack Obama’s two and a half days visit in mid November this year to China has encountered a new platform of US-China relations.

Unlike his earlier visits to Japan, South Korea and Singapore where official programs were disrupted and shortened, in China President Obama followed every detail programs as planned by his host country.
Chinese President Hu Jintao shakes hands with visiting U.S. President Barack Obama after they meet the press at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Nov. 17, 2009. (Xinhua/Li Xueren)

Starting from the City Hall in Shanghai to the Badiling Great Wall in the chilly winter breeze of Beijing, every detail is not missed. President Obama standing at the podium inside the Great Hall of the People acknowledging Beijing as a near-equal. The SINO-US relation is no longer based on Washington making the demands and Beijing acceding to.

According to Forbes, President Obama is the first most powerful man on Earth followed by President Hu. The former is the head of the world’s most deadly and richest military, Presidents of the world’s largest, innovative and dynamic economy, finger on nuclear arsenal containing more than 5 000 warheads and his Democratic party has majorities in both US House and Senate.

The later is the President of a fifth of the world’s population, head of the largest standing army in the world, President of the rapidly growing economy soon to surpass Japan as the world’s second largest economy and fingers on largest nuclear arsenal in the Asia-Pacific region containing 240 warheads. The later being newly assertive power stand ready to confront Barack.

Obama’s four days visit to China is part of his first Asian trip as President. The 48 year old is the first US President to visit China within his first year of taking office. Obama’s Air Force One landed on Pudong International Airport in Shanghai at about 11 pm on Sunday November 15.

This visit underpins the bedrock principles of future engagement between the east – west and the north – south. Both Washington and Beijing are fully aware that the fate of their deeply interdependent economies in a rapidly changing global society depends on any consensus reached during these four days.

At the outset, Beijing’s welcome to Washington was a strictly controlled city hall flooded with aspiring Chinese Communist Party members, for questions and answers sessions. The mainstream TV channel was banned from broadcasting live throughout China, except a local TV channel. Something Obama acceded to but slam the Chinese government of blocking Internet websites such as Face book and YouTube during the session.

An imperial joint press conference in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Tuesday went swiftly as Beijing intended without a single question asked. Both leaders talked for two hours on issues of both bilateral and global concerns such as trade and military tensions, Taiwan, Tibet, global financial crisis, nuclear disarmament in Iran and North Korea and Climate Change.

Most of these issues were discussed over a 6 hours dinner the night before and a meeting few hours before the news conference. The joint news conference ended with neither of the leaders taking any questions from the reporters.

President Hu and his counterpart Obama reiterated at the news conference that they agreed to improve dialogue, communication and cooperation from a strategic and farsighted perspective and make joint efforts in building a positive cooperation and comprehensive SINO-US relations for the 21st century, so as to promote global peace and security, stability and prosperity. The Sino-US Joint Statement issued on Tuesday November 17th reflects the full outcome of the meetings held over the four days.

A general overview of the outcome of Obama’s visit to China on key issues such as trade and military friction, climate change, nuclear disarmament, and global financial crisis, reflects the success of the meeting.

Trade friction which was very tense over the past few weeks following the Obama’s Administrations imposing of the anti-dumping duties on steel pipes from China and China retaliated by launching an investigation into the US made automobiles remain unresolved.

Both leaders when talking from the podium inside the Great Hall of People rarely mention the obvious facts of the tension. However Obama fleetingly referred to China’s continuous effort in undervaluing Yuan and pegging it against US dollars.
President Hu on the other hand emphasized that both countries would uphold the WTO principles of free trade and avoids protectionism. However much of the trade tensions between the two countries remain unsolved.

Washington together with the European Union petitioned the WTO to end Chinese restriction on export of nine commodities. On the contrary Beijing’s complain to WTO for US to remove tariffs on Chinese tires sold to US is still unattended.

On climate change both leaders reiterated the position held by the APEC leaders in Singapore. While acknowledging that climate change pose immediate threat to the future of this planet, the pragmatic steps of reducing emission by the two of worlds’ largest emitters is far from near.

Instead the overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building. These includes cooperation in the areas of; Greenhouse gas inventory, Joint clean energy research center, Energy vehicles, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, 21 Century coal, Shale gas, Nuclear and Public-private partnership on clean energy.

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. However the two top emitters looking at the G20 has the proper vehicle to achieve successful outcome in international climate negotiation rather than taking the lead.

The two major nuclear powers in the world are also adamant about the nuclear proliferation in the Gulf region and the world. Both stressed to uphold international nuclear non-proliferation regime and to appropriately resolve the Iranian nuclear issues through dialogue and negotiations in the Middle East and the Gulf region.

However both appear to be standing on different platform for real action. While Obama is adamant about possible sanctions, Hu did not publicly discuss the possibility of sanctions. Obama said “Iran has the opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intention but if it fails to take this opportunity there will be consequences”. President Hu emphasized on dialogue and negotiation as paramount steps towards a peaceful and stable region and world. Not much was shared on North Korea.

On the issue of global financial crisis, the world’s largest saver and largest spender appear to be determined to work together to achieve a more sustainable and balanced economic growth.

While acknowledging each of their forceful and timely intervention that helped stabilize financial market and stem the decline in global output, both reiterated and affirmed the lasting solution shall be reached through multilateral vehicles such as the G20 and APEC summit.

However both did not publicly mention their obvious disagreements on key issues such as US dissatisfaction over continuous devaluation of China’s Reminbi and pegged against the US dollars to lower the cost of its manufactured products.

While China on the other hand mentioned nothing about its irritation of US lowering of interest rates in which China is the largest creditor of the US and nervously holding nearly US$ 2, 000 billion in foreign exchange.

It may appear that both have a strong vested interested in ameliorating the global downtown while preserving the foreign exchange value of dollar. Human Rights have always been the real test for bilateral trust between both countries. While both acknowledge having different views on the issues of the spirit of equality and mutual respect, both uphold that each country and its people have the right to choose their own path and choice of development model.

Home to one of world’s vibrant civil society, US President Obama appears to be weak on this issue by human rights activist and commentators. Even before coming to China Obama shows deference to China’s leadership by postponing his meeting with the Dalai Lama until after his trip.

Addressing these differences in the spirit of equality and mutual respect, as well as promoting and protecting human rights consistent with international human rights instruments, the two sides agreed to hold the next round of the official human rights dialogue in Washington D.C. by the end of February 2010.

The United States and China agreed that promoting cooperation in the field of law and exchanges on the rule of law serves the interests and needs of the citizens and governments of both countries.

In short President Obama’s maiden visit to China marked a new era of engagement in addressing global issues. This historical meeting of the two largest and increasingly interdependent economies of the North and South with the largest land mass triggered a new trend of global engagement.

The world is now becoming multi-polar world, moving away from the bi-polar world. That is clearly evident in the Joint Statement issued on Tuesday by both leaders. From climate change to financial crisis, both leaders portray unwavering support for multilateral approach through institutions such as G20 and APEC summit.

Such trend provides a window of opportunity for small developing members of the global community to have a meaningful engagement in international relations. Small countries like PNG should capitalize on this opportunity and maximize its benefits over issues with global significance.

* The writer is a PNG student at the prestigious Tsinghua University in Beijing

Obama’s maiden visit to China confirms multilateral diplomacy

By Albert Tobby*

US President Barack Obama’s two and a half days visit in mid November this year to China has encountered a new platform of US-China relations.

Unlike his earlier visits to Japan, South Korea and Singapore where official programs were disrupted and shortened, in China President Obama followed every detail programs as planned by his host country.
Chinese President Hu Jintao shakes hands with visiting U.S. President Barack Obama after they meet the press at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Nov. 17, 2009. (Xinhua/Li Xueren)

Starting from the City Hall in Shanghai to the Badiling Great Wall in the chilly winter breeze of Beijing, every detail is not missed. President Obama standing at the podium inside the Great Hall of the People acknowledging Beijing as a near-equal. The SINO-US relation is no longer based on Washington making the demands and Beijing acceding to.

According to Forbes, President Obama is the first most powerful man on Earth followed by President Hu. The former is the head of the world’s most deadly and richest military, Presidents of the world’s largest, innovative and dynamic economy, finger on nuclear arsenal containing more than 5 000 warheads and his Democratic party has majorities in both US House and Senate.

The later is the President of a fifth of the world’s population, head of the largest standing army in the world, President of the rapidly growing economy soon to surpass Japan as the world’s second largest economy and fingers on largest nuclear arsenal in the Asia-Pacific region containing 240 warheads. The later being newly assertive power stand ready to confront Barack.

Obama’s four days visit to China is part of his first Asian trip as President. The 48 year old is the first US President to visit China within his first year of taking office. Obama’s Air Force One landed on Pudong International Airport in Shanghai at about 11 pm on Sunday November 15.

This visit underpins the bedrock principles of future engagement between the east – west and the north – south. Both Washington and Beijing are fully aware that the fate of their deeply interdependent economies in a rapidly changing global society depends on any consensus reached during these four days.

At the outset, Beijing’s welcome to Washington was a strictly controlled city hall flooded with aspiring Chinese Communist Party members, for questions and answers sessions. The mainstream TV channel was banned from broadcasting live throughout China, except a local TV channel. Something Obama acceded to but slam the Chinese government of blocking Internet websites such as Face book and YouTube during the session.

An imperial joint press conference in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Tuesday went swiftly as Beijing intended without a single question asked. Both leaders talked for two hours on issues of both bilateral and global concerns such as trade and military tensions, Taiwan, Tibet, global financial crisis, nuclear disarmament in Iran and North Korea and Climate Change.

Most of these issues were discussed over a 6 hours dinner the night before and a meeting few hours before the news conference. The joint news conference ended with neither of the leaders taking any questions from the reporters.

President Hu and his counterpart Obama reiterated at the news conference that they agreed to improve dialogue, communication and cooperation from a strategic and farsighted perspective and make joint efforts in building a positive cooperation and comprehensive SINO-US relations for the 21st century, so as to promote global peace and security, stability and prosperity. The Sino-US Joint Statement issued on Tuesday November 17th reflects the full outcome of the meetings held over the four days.

A general overview of the outcome of Obama’s visit to China on key issues such as trade and military friction, climate change, nuclear disarmament, and global financial crisis, reflects the success of the meeting.

Trade friction which was very tense over the past few weeks following the Obama’s Administrations imposing of the anti-dumping duties on steel pipes from China and China retaliated by launching an investigation into the US made automobiles remain unresolved.

Both leaders when talking from the podium inside the Great Hall of People rarely mention the obvious facts of the tension. However Obama fleetingly referred to China’s continuous effort in undervaluing Yuan and pegging it against US dollars.
President Hu on the other hand emphasized that both countries would uphold the WTO principles of free trade and avoids protectionism. However much of the trade tensions between the two countries remain unsolved.

Washington together with the European Union petitioned the WTO to end Chinese restriction on export of nine commodities. On the contrary Beijing’s complain to WTO for US to remove tariffs on Chinese tires sold to US is still unattended.

On climate change both leaders reiterated the position held by the APEC leaders in Singapore. While acknowledging that climate change pose immediate threat to the future of this planet, the pragmatic steps of reducing emission by the two of worlds’ largest emitters is far from near.

Instead the overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building. These includes cooperation in the areas of; Greenhouse gas inventory, Joint clean energy research center, Energy vehicles, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, 21 Century coal, Shale gas, Nuclear and Public-private partnership on clean energy.

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. However the two top emitters looking at the G20 has the proper vehicle to achieve successful outcome in international climate negotiation rather than taking the lead.

The two major nuclear powers in the world are also adamant about the nuclear proliferation in the Gulf region and the world. Both stressed to uphold international nuclear non-proliferation regime and to appropriately resolve the Iranian nuclear issues through dialogue and negotiations in the Middle East and the Gulf region.

However both appear to be standing on different platform for real action. While Obama is adamant about possible sanctions, Hu did not publicly discuss the possibility of sanctions. Obama said “Iran has the opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intention but if it fails to take this opportunity there will be consequences”. President Hu emphasized on dialogue and negotiation as paramount steps towards a peaceful and stable region and world. Not much was shared on North Korea.

On the issue of global financial crisis, the world’s largest saver and largest spender appear to be determined to work together to achieve a more sustainable and balanced economic growth.

While acknowledging each of their forceful and timely intervention that helped stabilize financial market and stem the decline in global output, both reiterated and affirmed the lasting solution shall be reached through multilateral vehicles such as the G20 and APEC summit.

However both did not publicly mention their obvious disagreements on key issues such as US dissatisfaction over continuous devaluation of China’s Reminbi and pegged against the US dollars to lower the cost of its manufactured products.

While China on the other hand mentioned nothing about its irritation of US lowering of interest rates in which China is the largest creditor of the US and nervously holding nearly US$ 2, 000 billion in foreign exchange.

It may appear that both have a strong vested interested in ameliorating the global downtown while preserving the foreign exchange value of dollar. Human Rights have always been the real test for bilateral trust between both countries. While both acknowledge having different views on the issues of the spirit of equality and mutual respect, both uphold that each country and its people have the right to choose their own path and choice of development model.

Home to one of world’s vibrant civil society, US President Obama appears to be weak on this issue by human rights activist and commentators. Even before coming to China Obama shows deference to China’s leadership by postponing his meeting with the Dalai Lama until after his trip.

Addressing these differences in the spirit of equality and mutual respect, as well as promoting and protecting human rights consistent with international human rights instruments, the two sides agreed to hold the next round of the official human rights dialogue in Washington D.C. by the end of February 2010.

The United States and China agreed that promoting cooperation in the field of law and exchanges on the rule of law serves the interests and needs of the citizens and governments of both countries.

In short President Obama’s maiden visit to China marked a new era of engagement in addressing global issues. This historical meeting of the two largest and increasingly interdependent economies of the North and South with the largest land mass triggered a new trend of global engagement.

The world is now becoming multi-polar world, moving away from the bi-polar world. That is clearly evident in the Joint Statement issued on Tuesday by both leaders. From climate change to financial crisis, both leaders portray unwavering support for multilateral approach through institutions such as G20 and APEC summit.

Such trend provides a window of opportunity for small developing members of the global community to have a meaningful engagement in international relations. Small countries like PNG should capitalize on this opportunity and maximize its benefits over issues with global significance.

* The writer is a PNG student at the prestigious Tsinghua University in Beijing

Obama’s maiden visit to China confirms multilateral diplomacy

By Albert Tobby*

US President Barack Obama’s two and a half days visit in mid November this year to China has encountered a new platform of US-China relations.

Unlike his earlier visits to Japan, South Korea and Singapore where official programs were disrupted and shortened, in China President Obama followed every detail programs as planned by his host country.
Chinese President Hu Jintao shakes hands with visiting U.S. President Barack Obama after they meet the press at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Nov. 17, 2009. (Xinhua/Li Xueren)

Starting from the City Hall in Shanghai to the Badiling Great Wall in the chilly winter breeze of Beijing, every detail is not missed. President Obama standing at the podium inside the Great Hall of the People acknowledging Beijing as a near-equal. The SINO-US relation is no longer based on Washington making the demands and Beijing acceding to.

According to Forbes, President Obama is the first most powerful man on Earth followed by President Hu. The former is the head of the world’s most deadly and richest military, Presidents of the world’s largest, innovative and dynamic economy, finger on nuclear arsenal containing more than 5 000 warheads and his Democratic party has majorities in both US House and Senate.

The later is the President of a fifth of the world’s population, head of the largest standing army in the world, President of the rapidly growing economy soon to surpass Japan as the world’s second largest economy and fingers on largest nuclear arsenal in the Asia-Pacific region containing 240 warheads. The later being newly assertive power stand ready to confront Barack.

Obama’s four days visit to China is part of his first Asian trip as President. The 48 year old is the first US President to visit China within his first year of taking office. Obama’s Air Force One landed on Pudong International Airport in Shanghai at about 11 pm on Sunday November 15.

This visit underpins the bedrock principles of future engagement between the east – west and the north – south. Both Washington and Beijing are fully aware that the fate of their deeply interdependent economies in a rapidly changing global society depends on any consensus reached during these four days.

At the outset, Beijing’s welcome to Washington was a strictly controlled city hall flooded with aspiring Chinese Communist Party members, for questions and answers sessions. The mainstream TV channel was banned from broadcasting live throughout China, except a local TV channel. Something Obama acceded to but slam the Chinese government of blocking Internet websites such as Face book and YouTube during the session.

An imperial joint press conference in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Tuesday went swiftly as Beijing intended without a single question asked. Both leaders talked for two hours on issues of both bilateral and global concerns such as trade and military tensions, Taiwan, Tibet, global financial crisis, nuclear disarmament in Iran and North Korea and Climate Change.

Most of these issues were discussed over a 6 hours dinner the night before and a meeting few hours before the news conference. The joint news conference ended with neither of the leaders taking any questions from the reporters.

President Hu and his counterpart Obama reiterated at the news conference that they agreed to improve dialogue, communication and cooperation from a strategic and farsighted perspective and make joint efforts in building a positive cooperation and comprehensive SINO-US relations for the 21st century, so as to promote global peace and security, stability and prosperity. The Sino-US Joint Statement issued on Tuesday November 17th reflects the full outcome of the meetings held over the four days.

A general overview of the outcome of Obama’s visit to China on key issues such as trade and military friction, climate change, nuclear disarmament, and global financial crisis, reflects the success of the meeting.

Trade friction which was very tense over the past few weeks following the Obama’s Administrations imposing of the anti-dumping duties on steel pipes from China and China retaliated by launching an investigation into the US made automobiles remain unresolved.

Both leaders when talking from the podium inside the Great Hall of People rarely mention the obvious facts of the tension. However Obama fleetingly referred to China’s continuous effort in undervaluing Yuan and pegging it against US dollars.
President Hu on the other hand emphasized that both countries would uphold the WTO principles of free trade and avoids protectionism. However much of the trade tensions between the two countries remain unsolved.

Washington together with the European Union petitioned the WTO to end Chinese restriction on export of nine commodities. On the contrary Beijing’s complain to WTO for US to remove tariffs on Chinese tires sold to US is still unattended.

On climate change both leaders reiterated the position held by the APEC leaders in Singapore. While acknowledging that climate change pose immediate threat to the future of this planet, the pragmatic steps of reducing emission by the two of worlds’ largest emitters is far from near.

Instead the overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building. These includes cooperation in the areas of; Greenhouse gas inventory, Joint clean energy research center, Energy vehicles, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, 21 Century coal, Shale gas, Nuclear and Public-private partnership on clean energy.

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. However the two top emitters looking at the G20 has the proper vehicle to achieve successful outcome in international climate negotiation rather than taking the lead.

The two major nuclear powers in the world are also adamant about the nuclear proliferation in the Gulf region and the world. Both stressed to uphold international nuclear non-proliferation regime and to appropriately resolve the Iranian nuclear issues through dialogue and negotiations in the Middle East and the Gulf region.

However both appear to be standing on different platform for real action. While Obama is adamant about possible sanctions, Hu did not publicly discuss the possibility of sanctions. Obama said “Iran has the opportunity to present and demonstrate its peaceful intention but if it fails to take this opportunity there will be consequences”. President Hu emphasized on dialogue and negotiation as paramount steps towards a peaceful and stable region and world. Not much was shared on North Korea.

On the issue of global financial crisis, the world’s largest saver and largest spender appear to be determined to work together to achieve a more sustainable and balanced economic growth.

While acknowledging each of their forceful and timely intervention that helped stabilize financial market and stem the decline in global output, both reiterated and affirmed the lasting solution shall be reached through multilateral vehicles such as the G20 and APEC summit.

However both did not publicly mention their obvious disagreements on key issues such as US dissatisfaction over continuous devaluation of China’s Reminbi and pegged against the US dollars to lower the cost of its manufactured products.

While China on the other hand mentioned nothing about its irritation of US lowering of interest rates in which China is the largest creditor of the US and nervously holding nearly US$ 2, 000 billion in foreign exchange.

It may appear that both have a strong vested interested in ameliorating the global downtown while preserving the foreign exchange value of dollar. Human Rights have always been the real test for bilateral trust between both countries. While both acknowledge having different views on the issues of the spirit of equality and mutual respect, both uphold that each country and its people have the right to choose their own path and choice of development model.

Home to one of world’s vibrant civil society, US President Obama appears to be weak on this issue by human rights activist and commentators. Even before coming to China Obama shows deference to China’s leadership by postponing his meeting with the Dalai Lama until after his trip.

Addressing these differences in the spirit of equality and mutual respect, as well as promoting and protecting human rights consistent with international human rights instruments, the two sides agreed to hold the next round of the official human rights dialogue in Washington D.C. by the end of February 2010.

The United States and China agreed that promoting cooperation in the field of law and exchanges on the rule of law serves the interests and needs of the citizens and governments of both countries.

In short President Obama’s maiden visit to China marked a new era of engagement in addressing global issues. This historical meeting of the two largest and increasingly interdependent economies of the North and South with the largest land mass triggered a new trend of global engagement.

The world is now becoming multi-polar world, moving away from the bi-polar world. That is clearly evident in the Joint Statement issued on Tuesday by both leaders. From climate change to financial crisis, both leaders portray unwavering support for multilateral approach through institutions such as G20 and APEC summit.

Such trend provides a window of opportunity for small developing members of the global community to have a meaningful engagement in international relations. Small countries like PNG should capitalize on this opportunity and maximize its benefits over issues with global significance.

* The writer is a PNG student at the prestigious Tsinghua University in Beijing

Scrutinize overseas TV documentary crews‏ entering Papua New Guinea

While I appreciate overseas media and television crews coming into Papua New Guinea to report on Papua New Guinea, I don't like some of their documentaries. 'Madventures in Papua New Guinea', for example; was a documentary done by the Travel Channel and aired yesterday (10/19/2009) at 11 pm E/P time.

It wasn't appropriate for most of the viewers in the United States and worldwide. The whole documentary was focused on the question: Is cannibalism still alive? Most Papua New Guineans were offended by what was aired and contained in the documentary. The documentary portrays the Hamtai people of Morobe Province as cannibals.

The television crew even show pictures of skulls and bone fragments of human remains that they claim were remains after cannibalism. If the Hamatai people gave that information out, they were wrong in giving that kind of information but if the Travel Channel crew made up that information, we need clarification on that information.

Hamtai warrior holds human bones from a previous meal (Pic. from Travel Channel website)

I think the overseas media and TV crews have the practice of denigrating Papua New Guinea and sensationalizing past practices that have been done years ago just to make a good impression on themselves and to whom they work for, for a quick buck. We would appreciate if a bit of support would be more helpful of a different culture than merely past practices that scares visitors to Papua New Guinea.

Maybe those in the forefront who know exactly who is entering and leaving Papua New Guinea shores would prevent some of these bogus media and television crews from overseas who come to Papua New Guinea under the pretext of reporting to make quick, mega bucks to report issues from a country they have limited or no knowledge at all.

Concerned PNG Citizen,

Ohio, USA

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Scrutinize overseas TV documentary crews‏ entering Papua New Guinea

While I appreciate overseas media and television crews coming into Papua New Guinea to report on Papua New Guinea, I don't like some of their documentaries. 'Madventures in Papua New Guinea', for example; was a documentary done by the Travel Channel and aired yesterday (10/19/2009) at 11 pm E/P time.

It wasn't appropriate for most of the viewers in the United States and worldwide. The whole documentary was focused on the question: Is cannibalism still alive? Most Papua New Guineans were offended by what was aired and contained in the documentary. The documentary portrays the Hamtai people of Morobe Province as cannibals.

The television crew even show pictures of skulls and bone fragments of human remains that they claim were remains after cannibalism. If the Hamatai people gave that information out, they were wrong in giving that kind of information but if the Travel Channel crew made up that information, we need clarification on that information.

Hamtai warrior holds human bones from a previous meal (Pic. from Travel Channel website)

I think the overseas media and TV crews have the practice of denigrating Papua New Guinea and sensationalizing past practices that have been done years ago just to make a good impression on themselves and to whom they work for, for a quick buck. We would appreciate if a bit of support would be more helpful of a different culture than merely past practices that scares visitors to Papua New Guinea.

Maybe those in the forefront who know exactly who is entering and leaving Papua New Guinea shores would prevent some of these bogus media and television crews from overseas who come to Papua New Guinea under the pretext of reporting to make quick, mega bucks to report issues from a country they have limited or no knowledge at all.

Concerned PNG Citizen,

Ohio, USA

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Scrutinize overseas TV documentary crews‏ entering Papua New Guinea

While I appreciate overseas media and television crews coming into Papua New Guinea to report on Papua New Guinea, I don't like some of their documentaries. 'Madventures in Papua New Guinea', for example; was a documentary done by the Travel Channel and aired yesterday (10/19/2009) at 11 pm E/P time.

It wasn't appropriate for most of the viewers in the United States and worldwide. The whole documentary was focused on the question: Is cannibalism still alive? Most Papua New Guineans were offended by what was aired and contained in the documentary. The documentary portrays the Hamtai people of Morobe Province as cannibals.

The television crew even show pictures of skulls and bone fragments of human remains that they claim were remains after cannibalism. If the Hamatai people gave that information out, they were wrong in giving that kind of information but if the Travel Channel crew made up that information, we need clarification on that information.

Hamtai warrior holds human bones from a previous meal (Pic. from Travel Channel website)

I think the overseas media and TV crews have the practice of denigrating Papua New Guinea and sensationalizing past practices that have been done years ago just to make a good impression on themselves and to whom they work for, for a quick buck. We would appreciate if a bit of support would be more helpful of a different culture than merely past practices that scares visitors to Papua New Guinea.

Maybe those in the forefront who know exactly who is entering and leaving Papua New Guinea shores would prevent some of these bogus media and television crews from overseas who come to Papua New Guinea under the pretext of reporting to make quick, mega bucks to report issues from a country they have limited or no knowledge at all.

Concerned PNG Citizen,

Ohio, USA

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Bank of South Pacific (BSP) fees outrageous

The managing director of Bank South Pacific (BSP), Mr. Ian Clyne's claims for BSP's retail banking making 'zero profits' is nonsense. How many times have we seen Bank South Pacific making millions of kina annually as shown in it's financial reports. Mr. Clyne failed to tell the thousands of customers throughout Papua New Guinea how many times Bank South Pacific made a loss.

To simply say, fees are increased to aim at trying to make banking easier and more assessable to as many Papua New Guineans as possible is laughable. How many times has Mr. Clyne got out of that comfortable office and visited major towns during busy paydays and weeks? Customers had to wait long hours in long queues to withdraw or deposit their cash. This gets worse and worse each day in centers like Mount Hagen, for example. This this the kind of service that Mr. Clyne trying to provide to his customers?

So many BSP customers seem to wonder why Bank South Pacific charges hefty fees for ATM balance check, over the counter deposits, ATM mini statements, check clearance, and merchant EFTPOS withdrawals. They should be seen as value added services. For a poor farmer in the village who goes to Bank South Pacific to deposit his one hundred kina (K100)might be ripped off by the bank and hopeful he might end up with half or even less than his previous balance.

This is frustrating for so many customers who have worked hard to have that money but over time, the bank continues to use the money in their accounts just under the pretext of "better services for it's customers" Let me tell you, Mr. Clyne, since the privatisation we've not seen an efficient and effective services provided by the Bank of South Pacific. All the fees that you're imposing on the poor customers are free in most countries including the United States.

Papua New Guineans doesn't have that opportunity to choose among the banks to do their banking because they're few banks in Papua New Guinea and therefore, you're taking advantage of their hard earned cash. We are not totally trying to oppose your banking 'service' fees but it should be done in the best interest of your customers.

The service fees for BSP published in the papers were too much for a village farmer to do his/her banking. Mr. Clyne, you mentioned that most of the 500,000 customers of BSP keep small balances but if you did your research, all of these are people from the village and they need to keep a low balance let alone the required twenty kina (K20) minimum balance which most people can't afford in a week.

Ultimately, Bank of South Pacific customers, if I were you; I would probably find a new bank with customer friendly fees for their services and a bit lenient on the banking activities with them. In other words, there should be a level playing field. The opposite is true for BSP and it's 500,000 plus customers nationwide.

Jika Kupingal

Colorado, USA

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Bank of South Pacific (BSP) fees outrageous

The managing director of Bank South Pacific (BSP), Mr. Ian Clyne's claims for BSP's retail banking making 'zero profits' is nonsense. How many times have we seen Bank South Pacific making millions of kina annually as shown in it's financial reports. Mr. Clyne failed to tell the thousands of customers throughout Papua New Guinea how many times Bank South Pacific made a loss.

To simply say, fees are increased to aim at trying to make banking easier and more assessable to as many Papua New Guineans as possible is laughable. How many times has Mr. Clyne got out of that comfortable office and visited major towns during busy paydays and weeks? Customers had to wait long hours in long queues to withdraw or deposit their cash. This gets worse and worse each day in centers like Mount Hagen, for example. This this the kind of service that Mr. Clyne trying to provide to his customers?

So many BSP customers seem to wonder why Bank South Pacific charges hefty fees for ATM balance check, over the counter deposits, ATM mini statements, check clearance, and merchant EFTPOS withdrawals. They should be seen as value added services. For a poor farmer in the village who goes to Bank South Pacific to deposit his one hundred kina (K100)might be ripped off by the bank and hopeful he might end up with half or even less than his previous balance.

This is frustrating for so many customers who have worked hard to have that money but over time, the bank continues to use the money in their accounts just under the pretext of "better services for it's customers" Let me tell you, Mr. Clyne, since the privatisation we've not seen an efficient and effective services provided by the Bank of South Pacific. All the fees that you're imposing on the poor customers are free in most countries including the United States.

Papua New Guineans doesn't have that opportunity to choose among the banks to do their banking because they're few banks in Papua New Guinea and therefore, you're taking advantage of their hard earned cash. We are not totally trying to oppose your banking 'service' fees but it should be done in the best interest of your customers.

The service fees for BSP published in the papers were too much for a village farmer to do his/her banking. Mr. Clyne, you mentioned that most of the 500,000 customers of BSP keep small balances but if you did your research, all of these are people from the village and they need to keep a low balance let alone the required twenty kina (K20) minimum balance which most people can't afford in a week.

Ultimately, Bank of South Pacific customers, if I were you; I would probably find a new bank with customer friendly fees for their services and a bit lenient on the banking activities with them. In other words, there should be a level playing field. The opposite is true for BSP and it's 500,000 plus customers nationwide.

Jika Kupingal

Colorado, USA

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Bank of South Pacific (BSP) fees outrageous

The managing director of Bank South Pacific (BSP), Mr. Ian Clyne's claims for BSP's retail banking making 'zero profits' is nonsense. How many times have we seen Bank South Pacific making millions of kina annually as shown in it's financial reports. Mr. Clyne failed to tell the thousands of customers throughout Papua New Guinea how many times Bank South Pacific made a loss.

To simply say, fees are increased to aim at trying to make banking easier and more assessable to as many Papua New Guineans as possible is laughable. How many times has Mr. Clyne got out of that comfortable office and visited major towns during busy paydays and weeks? Customers had to wait long hours in long queues to withdraw or deposit their cash. This gets worse and worse each day in centers like Mount Hagen, for example. This this the kind of service that Mr. Clyne trying to provide to his customers?

So many BSP customers seem to wonder why Bank South Pacific charges hefty fees for ATM balance check, over the counter deposits, ATM mini statements, check clearance, and merchant EFTPOS withdrawals. They should be seen as value added services. For a poor farmer in the village who goes to Bank South Pacific to deposit his one hundred kina (K100)might be ripped off by the bank and hopeful he might end up with half or even less than his previous balance.

This is frustrating for so many customers who have worked hard to have that money but over time, the bank continues to use the money in their accounts just under the pretext of "better services for it's customers" Let me tell you, Mr. Clyne, since the privatisation we've not seen an efficient and effective services provided by the Bank of South Pacific. All the fees that you're imposing on the poor customers are free in most countries including the United States.

Papua New Guineans doesn't have that opportunity to choose among the banks to do their banking because they're few banks in Papua New Guinea and therefore, you're taking advantage of their hard earned cash. We are not totally trying to oppose your banking 'service' fees but it should be done in the best interest of your customers.

The service fees for BSP published in the papers were too much for a village farmer to do his/her banking. Mr. Clyne, you mentioned that most of the 500,000 customers of BSP keep small balances but if you did your research, all of these are people from the village and they need to keep a low balance let alone the required twenty kina (K20) minimum balance which most people can't afford in a week.

Ultimately, Bank of South Pacific customers, if I were you; I would probably find a new bank with customer friendly fees for their services and a bit lenient on the banking activities with them. In other words, there should be a level playing field. The opposite is true for BSP and it's 500,000 plus customers nationwide.

Jika Kupingal

Colorado, USA

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Ex-servicemen and women deserve payments

Public servants and others who work under the Government should be compensated well for their efforts. The case between the ex-service men and women and the Government is a classic example of what the Papua New Guinea government has failed miserably to do, to pay the entitlements of the service men according to the law.

The good service men and women in rank and file have served the Government diligently in their time of service and it is proper for the government to thank them for what they have done for the country. It is frustrating and takes too long for the Government to react to what is rightfully theirs to claim by the ex-servicemen for the services they provided during their various terms in public service.

What amazes me is that the ex-service men and women had to take the Government to court to claim what is theirs under the law. While some still wait for their entitlements, others pass along the way and this makes situations difficult for families who have lost their loved ones.

Why give a lot of pain and suffering to the very people who served the government of Papua New Guinea with their entire life?The servicemen and women have dedicated their entire lives to serving the Government of Papua New Guinea and therefore, they should come good on those who leave the government with full entitlements.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Ex-servicemen and women deserve payments

Public servants and others who work under the Government should be compensated well for their efforts. The case between the ex-service men and women and the Government is a classic example of what the Papua New Guinea government has failed miserably to do, to pay the entitlements of the service men according to the law.

The good service men and women in rank and file have served the Government diligently in their time of service and it is proper for the government to thank them for what they have done for the country. It is frustrating and takes too long for the Government to react to what is rightfully theirs to claim by the ex-servicemen for the services they provided during their various terms in public service.

What amazes me is that the ex-service men and women had to take the Government to court to claim what is theirs under the law. While some still wait for their entitlements, others pass along the way and this makes situations difficult for families who have lost their loved ones.

Why give a lot of pain and suffering to the very people who served the government of Papua New Guinea with their entire life?The servicemen and women have dedicated their entire lives to serving the Government of Papua New Guinea and therefore, they should come good on those who leave the government with full entitlements.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Ex-servicemen and women deserve payments

Public servants and others who work under the Government should be compensated well for their efforts. The case between the ex-service men and women and the Government is a classic example of what the Papua New Guinea government has failed miserably to do, to pay the entitlements of the service men according to the law.

The good service men and women in rank and file have served the Government diligently in their time of service and it is proper for the government to thank them for what they have done for the country. It is frustrating and takes too long for the Government to react to what is rightfully theirs to claim by the ex-servicemen for the services they provided during their various terms in public service.

What amazes me is that the ex-service men and women had to take the Government to court to claim what is theirs under the law. While some still wait for their entitlements, others pass along the way and this makes situations difficult for families who have lost their loved ones.

Why give a lot of pain and suffering to the very people who served the government of Papua New Guinea with their entire life?The servicemen and women have dedicated their entire lives to serving the Government of Papua New Guinea and therefore, they should come good on those who leave the government with full entitlements.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

New heads vital for change

The Somare-Temu regime need to show the people of Papua New Guinea what tangible developments they have accomplished over the last seven or so years when they were in power. The people have suffered for so long and they need to be reassured of what the National Alliance led-Government has in store for them.

Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare (L) with National Alliance Highlands block leader Don Polye (Center) and Deputy Prime Minister Sir Puka Temu at the press conference yesterday

What has been promised during political rallies from the highlands to the coast has been pure political gimmick and blundering hearsay. It is prevalent to the people that the Government led by NA only knows one thing and that is to make decisions to suit their interests and hidden agendas.

They are just too good for signing deal after deal under the table to lure foreign investors to suit themselves and their cohorts.If the rumours around the corridors of Waigani are true, we need a change of the Government for the better. When good leaders rule, there is stability and the nation is prosperous but when unscrupulous leaders lead, there is confusion and frustrations which ultimately leads to destruction.

Will the Opposition led by Sir Mekere Morauta shed some light on our darkest moments? We could only pray and hope that a new government if formed should serve the best interest of the people of this country.Improve people’s lives, not your own.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

New heads vital for change

The Somare-Temu regime need to show the people of Papua New Guinea what tangible developments they have accomplished over the last seven or so years when they were in power. The people have suffered for so long and they need to be reassured of what the National Alliance led-Government has in store for them.

Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare (L) with National Alliance Highlands block leader Don Polye (Center) and Deputy Prime Minister Sir Puka Temu at the press conference yesterday

What has been promised during political rallies from the highlands to the coast has been pure political gimmick and blundering hearsay. It is prevalent to the people that the Government led by NA only knows one thing and that is to make decisions to suit their interests and hidden agendas.

They are just too good for signing deal after deal under the table to lure foreign investors to suit themselves and their cohorts.If the rumours around the corridors of Waigani are true, we need a change of the Government for the better. When good leaders rule, there is stability and the nation is prosperous but when unscrupulous leaders lead, there is confusion and frustrations which ultimately leads to destruction.

Will the Opposition led by Sir Mekere Morauta shed some light on our darkest moments? We could only pray and hope that a new government if formed should serve the best interest of the people of this country.Improve people’s lives, not your own.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

New heads vital for change

The Somare-Temu regime need to show the people of Papua New Guinea what tangible developments they have accomplished over the last seven or so years when they were in power. The people have suffered for so long and they need to be reassured of what the National Alliance led-Government has in store for them.

Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare (L) with National Alliance Highlands block leader Don Polye (Center) and Deputy Prime Minister Sir Puka Temu at the press conference yesterday

What has been promised during political rallies from the highlands to the coast has been pure political gimmick and blundering hearsay. It is prevalent to the people that the Government led by NA only knows one thing and that is to make decisions to suit their interests and hidden agendas.

They are just too good for signing deal after deal under the table to lure foreign investors to suit themselves and their cohorts.If the rumours around the corridors of Waigani are true, we need a change of the Government for the better. When good leaders rule, there is stability and the nation is prosperous but when unscrupulous leaders lead, there is confusion and frustrations which ultimately leads to destruction.

Will the Opposition led by Sir Mekere Morauta shed some light on our darkest moments? We could only pray and hope that a new government if formed should serve the best interest of the people of this country.Improve people’s lives, not your own.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The Active Economy of Papua New Guinea (PNG‏)

In response to the Central Bank's statement on Tuesday's National News Paper about "Economy Active" in terms of the six points mentioned. In fact, Economy is Active as a result of surplus national budget of PNG in the recent years due to minerals boom. The minerals boom has resulted in a greatly increased flow of revenue into PNG Treasury Account.

Ironically, on yesterday’s National News Paper, government urged the members to tighten their belts when they draw down their proposed development budgets for their respective electorates because their will be no supplementary budgets for the years to come until 2012 due to no windfall gains. Do we have these to administrations, BPNG and Government, working hand-in-hand to formulate monetary and fiscal policies to gain strong financial position in PNG?

The current balance of payment was reported to be K616 million for the last six months compared to K400 million in 2007 and 2008. I want to stress on last point that was mentioned by the BPNG on its statement. As a measure of how sensitive the budget figures are to a change in minerals prices, K1, 900.6 million out of the K6, 161.8 million in tax revenues in 2006 were from mining and petroleum taxes (equivalent to 31 % of the total).

While there was fiscal discipline in early years of the Somare Government, in 2005-2008 expenditures rose as fast as, or even faster than revenues in 2008 and first quarter of the 2009 fiscal year. The rapid rise during the minerals boom is a worrying sign. In boom times, the budget should ideally be run in surplus to buy down the debt incurred in times of low minerals prices.

Emergent canopy tree fall for timber in the Gulf Province, Papua New Guinea

There is some (small) buy-down of debt proposed in the 2007 Budget. However, does the PNG government buffering itself sufficiently for the inevitable drop in minerals prices in the near to middle term? The wisdom of running a small deficit during a minerals boom seems doubtful indeed.

A further worrying sign is the increase in recurrent expenditure. Recurrent expenditure is budgeted to increase from K3, 447.6 million in 2006 to K3, 824.6 in 2007-an 11% increase. Likewise, wage bill portion of recurrent expenditure is rise from K1, 265. 8 million in 2006 to K1, 404.2 million in 2007-also an 11% increase to compensate for the price increase at the same rate. Now that due to the inflation government has increased the minimum wage rate.

The wage bill portion of recurrent expenditure is politically difficult to cut in PNG. These rapid increases in the public sector wage bill will leave future government in a difficult situation when revenues fall. If mineral revenues fall during the term of the next government, it will find itself in the same position in which previous governments found themselves.

High level of politically untouchable recurrent expenditures and falling tax revenues meant that the only recourse was to substantially increase public debt. Apparently government is panicking about the next year’s budgets and onwards because it realised that the budgets will not be backed up by any windfall gains.

It is really unpredictable for one to say ‘we are rich enough just because we have the mineral resources’ without taking other factors that affects the revenue into consideration like exchange rate volatility, aggregate demand, world financial crisis, etc...

Therefore, what is the BPNG's advise to the Government and what are the current government’s effective plans to cater for this? Or government wants to use up all the reserves and leave the country suffering in silence for the years to come?

PNG, this is the real situation we are facing now but we are being brain washed in media reports. We will face this problem sooner than later, what is your say on this?

Mathew KAKARAYA,

Nanjing, CHINA.

Economy of Papua New Guinea (Facts)

*** Papua New Guinea is richly endowed with natural resources, but exploitation has been hampered by rugged terrain and the high cost of developing infrastructure. Agriculture provides a subsistence livelihood for 85% of the population. Mineral deposits, including oil, copper, and gold, account for 72% of export earnings.

Former Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta had tried to restore integrity to state institutions, stabilize the kina, restore stability to the national budget, privatize public enterprises where appropriate, and ensure ongoing peace on Bougainville.

The Morauta government had considerable success in attracting international support, specifically gaining the backing of the IMF and the World Bank in securing development assistance loans.

Significant challenges face the current Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, including gaining further investor confidence, continuing efforts to privatize government assets, and maintaining the support of members of Parliament. The third quarter (September, 2004) Reserve Bank Report by the Governor of Bank of PNG showed positive economic stance by the Government, with inflation at zero.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The Active Economy of Papua New Guinea (PNG‏)

In response to the Central Bank's statement on Tuesday's National News Paper about "Economy Active" in terms of the six points mentioned. In fact, Economy is Active as a result of surplus national budget of PNG in the recent years due to minerals boom. The minerals boom has resulted in a greatly increased flow of revenue into PNG Treasury Account.

Ironically, on yesterday’s National News Paper, government urged the members to tighten their belts when they draw down their proposed development budgets for their respective electorates because their will be no supplementary budgets for the years to come until 2012 due to no windfall gains. Do we have these to administrations, BPNG and Government, working hand-in-hand to formulate monetary and fiscal policies to gain strong financial position in PNG?

The current balance of payment was reported to be K616 million for the last six months compared to K400 million in 2007 and 2008. I want to stress on last point that was mentioned by the BPNG on its statement. As a measure of how sensitive the budget figures are to a change in minerals prices, K1, 900.6 million out of the K6, 161.8 million in tax revenues in 2006 were from mining and petroleum taxes (equivalent to 31 % of the total).

While there was fiscal discipline in early years of the Somare Government, in 2005-2008 expenditures rose as fast as, or even faster than revenues in 2008 and first quarter of the 2009 fiscal year. The rapid rise during the minerals boom is a worrying sign. In boom times, the budget should ideally be run in surplus to buy down the debt incurred in times of low minerals prices.

Emergent canopy tree fall for timber in the Gulf Province, Papua New Guinea

There is some (small) buy-down of debt proposed in the 2007 Budget. However, does the PNG government buffering itself sufficiently for the inevitable drop in minerals prices in the near to middle term? The wisdom of running a small deficit during a minerals boom seems doubtful indeed.

A further worrying sign is the increase in recurrent expenditure. Recurrent expenditure is budgeted to increase from K3, 447.6 million in 2006 to K3, 824.6 in 2007-an 11% increase. Likewise, wage bill portion of recurrent expenditure is rise from K1, 265. 8 million in 2006 to K1, 404.2 million in 2007-also an 11% increase to compensate for the price increase at the same rate. Now that due to the inflation government has increased the minimum wage rate.

The wage bill portion of recurrent expenditure is politically difficult to cut in PNG. These rapid increases in the public sector wage bill will leave future government in a difficult situation when revenues fall. If mineral revenues fall during the term of the next government, it will find itself in the same position in which previous governments found themselves.

High level of politically untouchable recurrent expenditures and falling tax revenues meant that the only recourse was to substantially increase public debt. Apparently government is panicking about the next year’s budgets and onwards because it realised that the budgets will not be backed up by any windfall gains.

It is really unpredictable for one to say ‘we are rich enough just because we have the mineral resources’ without taking other factors that affects the revenue into consideration like exchange rate volatility, aggregate demand, world financial crisis, etc...

Therefore, what is the BPNG's advise to the Government and what are the current government’s effective plans to cater for this? Or government wants to use up all the reserves and leave the country suffering in silence for the years to come?

PNG, this is the real situation we are facing now but we are being brain washed in media reports. We will face this problem sooner than later, what is your say on this?

Mathew KAKARAYA,

Nanjing, CHINA.

Economy of Papua New Guinea (Facts)

*** Papua New Guinea is richly endowed with natural resources, but exploitation has been hampered by rugged terrain and the high cost of developing infrastructure. Agriculture provides a subsistence livelihood for 85% of the population. Mineral deposits, including oil, copper, and gold, account for 72% of export earnings.

Former Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta had tried to restore integrity to state institutions, stabilize the kina, restore stability to the national budget, privatize public enterprises where appropriate, and ensure ongoing peace on Bougainville.

The Morauta government had considerable success in attracting international support, specifically gaining the backing of the IMF and the World Bank in securing development assistance loans.

Significant challenges face the current Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, including gaining further investor confidence, continuing efforts to privatize government assets, and maintaining the support of members of Parliament. The third quarter (September, 2004) Reserve Bank Report by the Governor of Bank of PNG showed positive economic stance by the Government, with inflation at zero.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@