Time LLGs be autonomous
AFTER a brief deferral period, the writs for the local level government (LLG) elections will be issued tomorrow.
People will watch in dismay at the huge amount of money allocated to the maintenance of a parochial-type of government that barely functions in many provinces.
While law and good order is fast dissipating in the urban centres, rural areas seem to be lacking direction in development and service delivery.
Before people start voting for councillors, we should seriously reflect on the LLG.
Is this tier of government a viable mechanism for maintaining social order and for development in the rural areas?
Or is it only an idle State institution consuming the little money meant for simple people’s welfare?
In order to vote, we need to really understand the duties and responsibilities of LLG representatives.
We need to come up with a viable strategy for LLG development, including the council wards.
And we need an assurance of continued funding for sustained operation and management of LLGs.
Indeed, members of Joint District Planning and Budget Priority
Committees (JDP & BPC) should ensure that priority is given to ward development where real impact and sustainability of development projects is anticipated.
They should shun away from the personal development agenda of MPs which, from experience, were ephemeral.
Money in the control and direction of many national parliamentarians never trickle down to the ward level.
Thus, development was never coordinated, planned only at an ad hoc basis, and money has been squandered to buy votes.
It is time that LLGs be autonomous and be given larger budgets for development.
With the availability of K10 million for the electorate, a development plan can be drawn up for the wards for the next four years.
This idea is in fact contained in the Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Government (OLPG&LLG).
However, the implementation of this legal and policy directive has always been a problem for our government and the department responsible for implementing it.
Development funds for the electorate have been diverted by MPs.
I believe there is a group of people within the Department of National Planning and Rural Development working with MPs for their own benefit and impeding development in the rural areas.
For instance, an acquittal document delivered to the department show that a 6km feeder road in Simbu had been sealed.
I travelled along that road last week, and was stunned to see no sign of bitumen.
The K6 million must have ended up in the pockets of a few crooks.
This is probably just one example of how money needed for rural development is being misappropriated by our so-called leaders and public servants in the Department of National Planning and Rural Development.
Agencies responsible for monitoring and evaluating government development projects should wake up from their slumber.
People in the villages have no idea how LLG grants are being abused.
Candidates vying to be councillors must seriously consider ways to rectify this sad situation.
Those who have become puppets of MPs and have failed to exert the little authority they have to ensure that the grants are used properly to benefit the people should resign.
In many places, it is widely accepted that councillors do nothing and only know how to collect their allowances.
The one thing that people envisage in a lower tier of government is autonomy, free from national politicians’ interference.
The OLPG&LLG recommends that LLGs set up Ward Development Committees to:
l Work on social services which include health, education, sports activities and facilities. They should maintain elementary and primary school buildings and teachers’ quarters, aid posts and staff quarters, create literacy and non-formal education services, build sports and recreation facilities and provide subsidies to church-run schools;
l Ensure that there is peace and harmony by, amongst other things, working with the village courts, appointed auxiliary police and providing land mediation services;
l Promote business activities and in particular, those that involve women and youths. Members should find ways to secure markets for such livelihood activities and develop a saving culture among families.
l Maintain community facilities and infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water supplies, sanitation, telephones, community centres, etc. Member should promote community ownership of these services facilities and make land available for improving services facilities in the ward; and
l Be responsible for administrative matters and the general operation of the ward. Members should maintain an asset registry for the ward and make sure an update services data system for the ward is developed.
 
China has changed the world
By MIKE MOORE
I JUST made my 20th visit to China and my conclusion is that it will not change the modern world. It already has.
It has taken more than a million people a month out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, and now generate wealth, jobs and growth everywhere.
Over a thousand new vehicles are registered every hour!
The new airport at Beijing will welcome, efficiently, over a million passengers a week.
From being self-sufficient in energy 20 years ago, it is now the second biggest importer.
The increase in its energy demands over the past five years equals Japan’s total energy consumption.
Wages in coastal China exceed wages in the Philippines and Indonesia. Salaries are up 13% last year in the Pearl River delta.
New labour laws have raised wages and awareness of Chinese workers.
During the past year, 1,000 shoe factories have closed, and the Hong Kong Industry Federation expects up to 7,000 of Hong Kong-owned factories to close this year.
Many have moved inland in search of lower wages, some are moving to Africa and Vietnam.
This shows the circular nature of wealth creation caused by globalisation; Japan in the 1950s, then South Korea, Taiwan, now China and India; and as incomes grow, new opportunities open for poor countries. It becomes their turn.
Africa missed out on globalisation but is now catching up. There are now a million Chinese working in Africa.
African exports to China have increased by 40% since 2002. Of the top 20 fastest growing economies in 2006, five are in Africa, three in the top 10. As late as 1990, China’s GDP was US$390 billion, and Africa US$405 billion, now China’s economy is about five times bigger.
The largest-ever investment in Africa has been concluded by China into a South African bank.
Africa is still home to the worst conditions but there is reason to hope and invest.
In 1999, Nigeria had less than 500,000 telephone subscribers, today there are 36 million.
Political power has imperfectly changed hands democratically twice!
Now China is integrated into the world economy, its is facing the kind of threats to its reputation that all major mature nations face.
Pressure is mounting over China’s investments and arms sales to Sudan. The appalling crisis in Darfur now needs China’s intervention and good offices to put pressure on the government. And they are beginning to.
Senior politicians in the US and UK have publicly acknowledged that China is now working behind the scenes to nudge change.
The Olympics in Beijing is an opportunity for all sorts of causes to be raised, and China, like any other country, must respond.
This is unfamiliar territory for China. They never had to care about global opinion before. Now they do.
Some of the criticism is unfair but that’s the price of global integration. Reputation is everything.
When the grandmothers of America get scared about lead in toys, they will not purchase from China. That is economic democracy; choice.
All this is splendid, it is a better world when we rely on each other for growth and success.
Old-fashioned, discredited protectionist moods and methods are never far away.
Protectionism is raising its ugly reactionary head again in the US election campaign, and it is getting some traction. If it this bad with 5% unemployment, just imagine what it will be like with 10% unemployment.
A new target is the so-called sovereign funds. Most of these are state-owned funds or state-influenced funds.
It is not just the resource-rich nations, it is state-owned pension funds, and the welcome fact that after the Asian crisis, most governments have prudently built up financial reserves.
More mature economies – Singapore, Norway, Australia and New Zealand – with aging populations, now have investment funds managed and influenced by governments.
It is good but poses new challenges.
China now has the world’s largest reserves, bigger than Japan. Russia has billions in reserves. A Russian group is trying to buy a Singapore-listed China steelmaker.
An Indian, UK-based, now owns the biggest steel-making global conglomerate.
But when governments can back major commercial takeovers, questions will be asked.
There is a danger that governments can back their national champions now they are flush with cash.
What happens when a Chinese state-owned aluminium company moves into a bidding war for aluminium giants Rio Tinto, BHP, Billiton who with Alcoa, are dancing around one of the biggest takeovers or mergers in commercial history?
These reserves must go somewhere, the money in many cases is welcome.
Countries from the US to New Zealand have rebuffed investments from the Middle East, while investing madly themselves everywhere.
What is needed is transparency, global predictable rules and standards.
Eventually a global agreement on investment will be created.
When this was suggested a decade ago, there was outrage by many anti-globalisation supporters. Many are now demanding action. They were wrong then, they are right now.
Over-reaction would be even worse.
Capitalism and global financial movements has never faced such a situation before.
We have learnt one thing – protectionism makes us all poorer, investment is a good thing. But there needs to be predictable, transparent rules.

Note: Mike Moore was prime minister of New Zealand in 1990 and became leader of the opposition when his Labour Party lost in the subsequent general election. In 1999, he became director-general of the World Organisation, serving for four years. He is now Adjunct Professor at the La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, and writes a regular newspaper column in five countries. He has also written a number of books, ranging from politics to the Pacific.
Columns