After 24 years with Apec, what have we learnt?

IT is interesting to see the government public relations machinery going into overdrive trying to explain the different benefits of Apec to Papua New Guinea.
It almost suggests that Papua New Guineans are not appreciative or aware of the benefits of Apec. In fact they do.
Carefully examine the observations made by ordinary citizens that might be considered against Apec, and it is basically against the lavish expenditure spent on hosting the event.
It is against the over-exaggerations by Government of the immediate benefits to ordinary Papua New Guineans, and it is against the lack of transparency surrounding the awarding of contracts for services for Apec.
Nobody has said Apec will not benefit PNG.
If Apec was not beneficial then why did PNG join it in the first place?
Equally comical is the kowtowing assertion that Apec is a chance to learn new business ideas.
So, one is entitled to ask, what has PNG been doing in Apec for the past 24 years?
If it has not learnt good business practices, transparency in government procurement, non-interference in the management of SOEs, government budgetary discipline, expenditure restraint and responsibility over populist expenditure, adherence to commitments made at WTO and Apec in relation to trade liberalisation and facilitation (Ministers
Maru and Mori’s statements of recent suggest protectionism overtures), to name a few, then why should one believe that PNG will learn something now?
The huge costs associated with hosting Apec can only be justified if PNG implements the policies agreed to in Apec and brings good governance, best practice business ideas and budgetary discipline into its modus operandi.
Such an approach to policy-making will strengthen the economy in ways that will benefit ordinary Papua New Guineans.
It is not who attended these meetings, or the fact that we hosted the Apec meeting, but what was discussed and implemented by PNG that is crucial in determining whether or not we benefit from Apec.

Lance