Truncated communications
IT seems to us that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding foreign investment in Papua New Guinea.
On the one hand, we have a government that repeatedly states its absolute commitment to overseas investment and its recognition of competition.
Yet at the same time, the State-owned enterprises such as the telecommunications industry, the power utility and a host of other lesser but nevertheless vital agencies, continue to be hedged about with regulatory cocoons that make competition by others difficult, if not impossible.
If those industries had a record as major profit making enterprises and if at the same time they could show a positive record of service to the public, then the government might be justified in its attitude. But most of the public enterprises that PNG has been saddled with since independence have failed to perform profitably and above all, failed to carry out the services for which they were established.
The current battle between free enterprise and old-fashioned government entity emphatically underlines that fact.
As a people, we often have short memories. Some people may have forgotten the atrocious service offered by Telikom until recent times; for many others, the experience is permanently engraved in their minds.
Failure to install phone connections for months on end and the suspicion that connection depended upon under the counter bribes became a regular and justified public complaint.
Next – the communications behemoth had a permanent inadequacy of linesmen and a superfluous supply of rude and uninformed telephone staff dealing with the public.
As for business houses, the increasingly convoluted processes demanded to obtain business and commercial connections and the rigmarole of services variously the responsibility of Telikom or Pangtel all made for a nightmare operation.
We’re now told that Telikom is a different organisation, one that is dedicated to the public and one that will fulfill public expectations.
If B Mobile is sold, presumably much of the recent flood of money from the mobile network into Telikom will dry up overnight.
One of the perennial complaints by successive Telikom CEOs has been lack of funds. We have been told of shortages of money to keep the communicator abreast of international developments.
We have heard of lack of money to employ top of the range technical and telecommunications planners and network designers.
As the years pass, Telikom falls further and further behind the international standard.
Will a Telikom without B Mobile be able to generate sufficient money to meet 21st century goals?
Will the government prop up, in one way of another, yet another publicly owned white elephant?
Or will the government continue to hold a controlling share in B Mobile?
Digicel has shown the public just what can be achieved in terms of communication in PNG. With great speed, it has a network that offers superior quality connections and cheaper rates.
The issue of an international gateway is crucial.
For the first time, hundreds of PNG parents and relatives have been able to afford to contact their offspring in a variety of Australian and other national schools, training institutions and universities.
Families have been drawn together in a dramatic way.
Business has also benefited remarkably from that Digicel connection and particularly small to medium PNG businesses that frequently source either raw materials or finished products from neighbouring countries.
The door has been opened – we might add at the invitation of the PNG Government – and now that same government seems determined to slam the communications door shut.
We have yet to be given any cogent reason for this action.
The explanations offered last week in Parliament were classic examples of double-speak and when analysed, said nothing.
Further, the secrecy and behind the scenes activity that has characterised the whole issue for many months, sits uncomfortably with a government that repeatedly trumpets the virtues of transparency, accountability and honesty.
The public is not to be fobbed-off over this matter.
As far as ordinary people are concerned, the issue is simple.
They have been able to ring overseas for a fraction of Telikom charges and the question they now ask is straightforward. “If Digicel can offer affordable rates, why can’t Telikom?”
 
The long march in Nepal
By SANJEEV SHERCHAN
CONFOUNDING everyone except themselves, Nepal’s hard-line Maoists have taken a commanding role following the country’s landmark elections.
The people of Nepal have more than one reason to celebrate. The first nationwide poll in nearly a decade passed off relatively well and was endorsed by Nepali officials as well as the hundreds of international election observers.
According to former US president Jimmy Carter, the election was the most “transformational” of the many polls he has observed around the world. The high voter turnout, coupled with the relatively peaceful manner in which the election took place, is a testament to the people’s desire to cement the peace process and contribute in determining the political future of the country.
The Maoists, former rebels who until two years ago were waging a brutal “people’s” war, will soon lead the next government in Nepal. They have received the maximum number of seats in the constituencies where counting is complete.
Surprisingly, both local and international analysts had predicted them to finish third, behind the Nepali Congress (NC) and the United Marxist-Leninists (UML), the two largest parties that have been at the helm since multi-party democracy was restored in Nepal in 1990.
While experts are busy trying to explain the Maoists’ unprecedented triumph, much hope rests on the newly-elected members of the 601-seat Constituent Assembly.
The assembly’s first responsibility will be to draft a new constitution that can help reunify Nepal’s disparate communities. A second priority will be to decide the fate of Nepal’s centuries-old monarchy.
The Maoists ran on an anti-royalist platform, and it is widely anticipated that the first meeting of the assembly will abolish the monarchy and declare Nepal a “people’s republic”. But the king still has some support, though clearly far short of a majority.
Nepal has had a long history of monarchy, spanning close to two and a half centuries, and bringing an end to this tradition might prove to be more difficult than expected.
The Maoists’ willingness and ability to display a degree of sympathy and respect for their opponents will go a long way toward determining their success in office. It would certainly behoove the assembly to give serious and immediate consideration to the country’s deplorable socioeconomic conditions.
Nepal is one of the world’s poorest countries, ranking near the bottom even in the South Asian region. The incoming members of the assembly therefore must address everyday issues – employment, health care, education, social justice, minority rights, security, etc.
Suffice it to say that Nepal faces a multitude of flashpoints, as well as a large number of detractors who would like to see this historic process derailed.
The success or failure of the constituent assembly rests on whether the presumptive winner, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists), will work collaboratively with the other parties rather than trying to push its own agenda exclusively. The main challenge for the assembly is to forge onward, keeping in mind the road ahead is full of seemingly insurmountable challenges.
Nepal’s earlier experiments with democratic governance were not very successful; democratically-elected governments (in the late 1950s and the 1990s) were unceremoniously replaced by prolonged autocratic rule. So, leaving responsibility solely to political leaders and policymakers this time would be a grave mistake.
Every Nepali has a role to play to ensure that the country’s dark political history does not repeat itself, and thus to help move the country in the right direction.
Voting for change has sent a clear message; making sure that Nepal’s leaders follow the will of the people is an altogether different challenge. It is to be hoped that Nepal’s newly elected Maoists have the wisdom to listen to their newly empowered electorate. – Project Syndicate

Note: The author is a senior officer for South and Central Asia Programmes at the Asia Society.
Editorial