The Beauty of Misima

The Island of Gold is known for its mineral riches, however allow me to show the other side of the island Misima. As I had written in the first part, Misima, particularly Bagilina has fresh cold running rivers that are within walking distance of each other. The village is located at the edge of a steep range that leads to mount Oiatau, the highest peak in Misima. Bagilina is located at the foot of the range, it is impossible to build houses any higher up the range, hence; there is limited space. There are no playing fields or open spaces, there is no roads for vehicles, only a small track that stretches for about 10 kilometres to Ewena (the next village from Bagilina). The beauty of the place is indescribable; these are a few of the many pictures I took whilst there for Christmas holiday.

     

A Review of Muhamed Yunus's "Empowerment of the Poor: Eliminating Apartheid practiced by Financial Institutions"

Muhamad Yunus was teaching in the United States when there was a movement towards independence in his homeland Bangladesh. There was widespread war, bloodshed and misery at that time. But after nine months of fighting, Bangladesh gained independence, Muhamad decided to go to his homeland and help rebuild and create a nation they (Bangladeshis) aspire to create.

However, Bangladesh did not move forward, in fact the situation took a turn towards the worse. There was widespread poverty; people were hungry and dying in the streets and villages of Bangladesh.  This lead Mohamad to inquire why people were dying this way, and if there was anything he could do to help delay or stop it, even for one person.

It was one particular incident that pointed him to the right direction. A woman made beautiful bamboo stools and sold them for a very low profit, this was because she was a bonded labour to the person who was supplying her with the bamboos; hence, he would pay her at whatever price he wished. Deeply moved at how the woman made so little for so much labour, he began an observation with his students in different villages, after much examination he found that poor people did not need much to start up or fund their business ventures. From one his students findings; a group of 42 villagers needed just $27.

Muhamad started asking banks in Bangladesh to lend small loans to the poor to help them start their small businesses. However, he was either turned away or refused by major banks throughout the country. This led him to the idea of starting a bank of his own. It would be a bank for the poor which can lend small loans. After two years of convincing the authorities, the Grameen Bank was finally opened in 1983.

It was an alternate bank which had a different approach from the conventional establishments in Bangladesh; it was the bank for the women and the poor. At first it was not easy to persuade women to join the bank; traditionally men were not allowed to address women and decisions were always left to the men to make, therefore it was a daunting task to persuade women. However, after much convincing; women started to take small loans to fund their little businesses. This was seen as an ‘enormous leap’ as women were never regarded as breadwinners. This empowered the women not only financially, but also their self esteem and confidence that they can be breadwinners too.

Many good things happened with women being borrowers rather than men; this led to the bank focusing more on women. Today Grameen Bank works in 36 000 villages in Bangladesh, has 2.1 million borrowers, employs 21 000 people, 94% of borrowers are women, and has a recovery rate of more than 98% since inception.

Other banks loans to rural residents have never added up to Grameens $400 million mark. The World Bank Report showed that one third of borrowers have risen above poverty line, another one are near to achieving it, and the remaining one third are at different levels.The bank also advocated on family planning, sanitation, nutrition, and housing, hence today Grameen families are better off than non-Grameen families.

Muhamad stated that “poverty is created by institutions we have built around us. We need to redesign those institutions so that they do not discriminate against the poor. Poverty is a denial of human rights. We talk about human rights but we do not link human rights to poverty”. Therefore it is a must we have to alleviate poverty, because it is a human right that no one should live in poverty.

GOVERNMENT WITH NO MONEY?

The manner in which public money is spent is always a cause for concern when it comes to transparency and accountability. Apart from the obvious forms of corruptive, devious and deceitful practises that public officials apply to maximise their gain on funds meant for essential projects and services in the country, there are regulations in expenditure that permit officials to use portions of funds for activities that will not impact the intended projects or services.

One of such is the partial use of intended government money on personal emoluments and allowances, there is a certain percentage that can be spent on emoluments and allowances of persons implementing projects.

According to the Consultative Implementation & Monitoring Council (CIMC), in a conference held at Madang, the treasury audit stated that seventy per cent (70%) of public spending is absorbed by personal emoluments and allowances. The statistic is without a doubt shocking having to know how much public money being put into means contrary to the intended mission.

The public, NGOs and organisations have time and again criticised the government over its inability to deliver effectively. However, it has become widely acceptable to see public officials driving flashy vehicles, accommodated in luxurious hotels, and attending conferences in resorts, having a lump sum travel allowances, etc. 

So what is the point here? Well, the fact that PNG is so rich and yet so poor is because of the management of how we spend. Apart from the conventional corruptive practises that always eat away much of what is needed, laws also permit officials to use certain portions proposed for personal gains than the intended purpose, hence; there is only little left for the initial implementation of the project or service, and then we end up hearing people say “Gavman nogat moni (Government has no money)”. 

DESTROYING A SACRED INSTITUTION

I was watching a commentary by Dr. Ben Carson last week and was captivated by his remarks on marriages and the implications of changing its definition to be more liberal to same sex couples. His talk was in relation to the move by the government to legalize same sex marriages in the United States, and the thing that struck a chord with me was his referral of marriage as a Sacred Institution. Dr. Carson's reason was that marriage, being a sacred institution must be a union between a MAN and a WOMAN in the eyes of GOD. 

Now, with the proposed legislation to legalize same sex marriages, this in fact alters the definition of marriage to allow for the same sex couples. But the question that Dr. Carson emphasized on was, "How far can we go in  changing the definition?" People may now accept same sex marriages as being conventional, however there are consequences that will follow such a move. And how far can we go in changing its definition? It may be that in the future the definition will be changed to fit another set of interest group, and I can leave that to your speculation.

There was a move in Papua New Guinea to legalize sex work and same sex marriages, however it was met with stiff opposition on the grounds of its unchristian nature and its likeliness to offend culture and tradition. I can also remember that I debated on this issue, shockingly I found my team nominated to fight for the topic of the debate which was "Sex work and same sex marriages should be decriminalized". It was the most unpleasant situation our team was put into and personally a regrettable one, although we won.

Papua New Guinea has to be very careful not to cede to interest groups. Particularly those that do not in any way represent principles of Christianity and culture, let alone our national interest. Same sex marriage is one in particular that should never be recognized. 

I believe PNG has enough problems to deal with in corruption, basic services not reaching rural outskirts, people dying of curable diseases, lawlessness, tribal fights, settlement problems, high infant & maternal mortality rates, rape, sorcery killings, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, and the list goes on. If we submit to special interest groups or persons, we may create more problems than solving them because the ramifications such are not immediate. We cannot allow the destruction of a sacred institution. Marriage should always be between a man and a woman. 

by Nathan Matbob