Posts

The break-up of PNG - The real resource curse

Image
SUSAN MERRELL Like a wet blanket amidst the excitement being generated by the resources boom in Papua New Guinea (PNG), Hillary Clinton during her visit to the Pacific last year gloomily warned of an unwanted potential consequence known as ‘the resources curse’.  A well-documented phenomenon, it points to negative possible outcomes for a national economy that is heavily dependent on resources. It is what caused Sheik Ahmed Yamani, a minister from the oil-rich Saudi Arabian government, to lament: “All in all, I wish we had discovered water.”  Negative consequences of the curse include inflation, revenue volatility and its effects on excessive (good time) borrowings, lack of diversification of the economy, the creation of circumstances conducive to corruption and a draining of human resources away from other areas into the more lucrative resources sector. And PNG is already experiencing some of the aforementioned negative socio-economic effects—like shortage of teachers—some having been

Home Shift in resource ownership

Image
OP/ED Former prime minister Sir Julius Chan asked three questions yesterday to the parliamentary referral committee on minerals and energy. 1.Can you buy what you already own? 2.Does it make economic or business sense to transfer title in property to someone freely or for a paltry payment of K10,000 and then buy back a 30% interest in that same property for K300 million? 3.Does it make sense for a country to earn billions in income and not be able to improve the lives of its people? To all of these questions, Sir Julius, now governor of New Ireland, answered in the affirmative. He elaborated: “First, the state cedes exploration and production rights to foreign companies for next to nothing. Insignificant licence fees are charged – often K10,000 – and royalties of 2% are levied. “But, for this pittance, the foreign developer gets full control of all the wealth that can be taken from the ground. “The next step is for the state to seek equity in the project, usually 30% in a mining projec

Home Shift in resource ownership

Image
OP/ED Former prime minister Sir Julius Chan asked three questions yesterday to the parliamentary referral committee on minerals and energy. 1.Can you buy what you already own? 2.Does it make economic or business sense to transfer title in property to someone freely or for a paltry payment of K10,000 and then buy back a 30% interest in that same property for K300 million? 3.Does it make sense for a country to earn billions in income and not be able to improve the lives of its people? To all of these questions, Sir Julius, now governor of New Ireland, answered in the affirmative. He elaborated: “First, the state cedes exploration and production rights to foreign companies for next to nothing. Insignificant licence fees are charged – often K10,000 – and royalties of 2% are levied. “But, for this pittance, the foreign developer gets full control of all the wealth that can be taken from the ground. “The next step is for the state to seek equity in the project, usually 30% in a mining

ARNOLD AMETS CLAIMS ARE BASED ON OUTDATED UK LAWS

Image
DR SAMUEL MAIMA The attorney-general’s statement in The National that the state owns all resources six feet and more under the ground has to be challenged for the sake of our indigenous and customa­ry landowners of Papua New Guinea. What he endorsed was similar to the resource law that was passed by the British parliament in 1922 which basically exploited all its colonies’ wealth from the Africa to Asia, Australia and elsewhere. It was designed to exploit without due regard to the rights of the native and indigenous landowners. The law that was passed by the British parliament stated that the equity participation of the indigenous landowners was a mere 0.00000125%, almost zero. The same law was inherited when PNG became a colony of the then Australian administration prior to independence. These laws on resources were pre-colonial and pre-constitutional laws. When PNG became an indepen­dent state, we drew our own constitution and all pre-constitutional and pre-independence laws ceased t

ARNOLD AMETS CLAIMS ARE BASED ON OUTDATED UK LAWS

Image
DR SAMUEL MAIMA The attorney-general’s statement in The National that the state owns all resources six feet and more under the ground has to be challenged for the sake of our indigenous and customa­ry landowners of Papua New Guinea. What he endorsed was similar to the resource law that was passed by the British parliament in 1922 which basically exploited all its colonies’ wealth from the Africa to Asia, Australia and elsewhere. It was designed to exploit without due regard to the rights of the native and indigenous landowners. The law that was passed by the British parliament stated that the equity participation of the indigenous landowners was a mere 0.00000125%, almost zero. The same law was inherited when PNG became a colony of the then Australian administration prior to independence. These laws on resources were pre-colonial and pre-constitutional laws. When PNG became an indepen­dent state, we drew our own constitution and all pre-constitutional and pre-independence laws cea

MORE QUESTIONS FOR NASFUND

Image
CONCERNED NATIONALIST Mitchel did try to defend himself but his defence raises many more questions. He is lying when he says he came well after Noel Wright. Mitchel was here for at least 6 months working with Noel Wright. I remeber them working together. And anyway, Whistle blower has a point there. Another thing I know is that Mitchel knew Maladina only dealt with less than K3 million ( still a lot), but well over K150 Million was lost elsewhere.  Why did Mitchel try to hang it all on Jimmy and Herman Leahy? That was dishonest wasnt it? Mitchel knew those friends of Mekere and his wife who ripped off the Contributors and the Fund. Yet Mitchel acted to protect those people. What part did Mekere and his wife play to protect these people, I wonder. Interesting isnt it? Who designed the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry to protect these people as Whistle Blower asks. Rod doesnt answer this directly, but he does admit to being close friends of Mekere and Roslyn Morauta. Now the public ar

MORE QUESTIONS FOR NASFUND

Image
CONCERNED NATIONALIST Mitchel did try to defend himself but his defence raises many more questions. He is lying when he says he came well after Noel Wright. Mitchel was here for at least 6 months working with Noel Wright. I remeber them working together. And anyway, Whistle blower has a point there. Another thing I know is that Mitchel knew Maladina only dealt with less than K3 million ( still a lot), but well over K150 Million was lost elsewhere.  Why did Mitchel try to hang it all on Jimmy and Herman Leahy? That was dishonest wasnt it? Mitchel knew those friends of Mekere and his wife who ripped off the Contributors and the Fund. Yet Mitchel acted to protect those people. What part did Mekere and his wife play to protect these people, I wonder. Interesting isnt it? Who designed the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry to protect these people as Whistle Blower asks. Rod doesnt answer this directly, but he does admit to being close friends of Mekere and Roslyn Morauta. Now the public