Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. (René Descartes, mathematician and philosopher,1599-1650)

Friday 31 August 2018

Labour is in a mess: Hosking for PM

Pn59
_______________________________________
Check out Snippets/Breaking News in the sidebar

What we need is someone to fix the mess that Mike Hosking exposes almost daily in the NZ Herald on line.  

Jacinda Adern, he says,  has failed to sack Claire Curran and  Meka Whaititi; her party can't run a summer camp, and the economy is in  a 'genuine and indisputable  mess.'   The PM needs to ' harden up and start actually being a proper leader... her honeymoon is over...'

With National being in at least equal disarray,  who better  to fix the mess than Hosking himself.  Not only would he do a better job, he's do it cheaper because he wouldn't need a number of ministries and government departments.  With the knowledge he's acquired since leaving school aged 16, there's not much he can't do. 

Immigration would go. He'd have let Canadians Southern and Molyneaux in and keep Chelsea Manning out  because she's a criminal and would make money out of her visit.

NZ uses an estimated $1.29 billion worth of plastic bags a year.
Gone too would  be  Environment.  We  all know the banning of plastic bags was a political stunt with no real effect on the environment.   He's still skeptical about climate change. 

Education would be out too.  He knows what to do about Te Reo in schools, charter schools, and the importance of calculus.  

What's more, he'd get rid of Statistics.  His radio talkback survey showed their earlier survey to be wrong.  (The ANZ survey would also become redundant as each month would show growth in the economy, leaving  ANZ with more profits to repatriate to Australia. A win-win situation.)

Gone too would be the working parties, Jim  Bolger's panel on Fair Pay Agreements and Christopher Luxon's Business Advisory Council.  All clever political stunts, he says, to divert attention from the main issues.  

 "I'm a money man",he told North and South a while back, "a capitalist. I'm to the right of Roger Douglas"  He'd know what to do about fair pay, the minimum wages, and getting business on board. He wouldn't need to consult anyone.

And as proof of his business acumen with his feet solidly planted in the 'real world',  just look at the income he receives from newspapers, radio and TV, -- not to mention the occasional Sky City Casino work.  Hosking is way up on the multi-million dollar list. The more provocative and outrageous  his comments, the more the money rolls in.

But who is this man Hosking and why does he get so much media attention?

 Michelle Langstone in a NZ Herald on line comment writes of seeing his tedious opinions on the front lines every time she opens the paper. "I don't want to see opinion pieces on the front pages of newspapers. I want proper reporting, facts and information." Dream on, Michelle.

Roll on the 2020 election when Mike could be given the chance to put his money where his mouth is, and seek a top placing on the National Party list and become PM with a little leaked comment or two.

Meanwhile, we should ask why an unofficial National Party spokesman is given so much media space,  and look around to see if there are any Labour-Greens-NZFirst journalists to provide the public with an equal exposure to their opinions.  

If this is how media should  use its freedom, I'll eat a plastic bag, knowing --thanks to Dr Mike --  that it will do me no harm. 

ACW

Thursday 30 August 2018

Four Views on the 'Whistleblowers' Proposed Visit


With Australia seemingly poised to deny a visa to Chelsea Manning, and our own position unclear, here are four links to varied opinions.
Golriz Ghahraman Pn57
The first from TVNZ expresses the view of Green lawyer and MP Golriz Ghahraman.

The second is a balanced comment by Jas -- followed by less balanced comments --  on David Farrar's right-wing  Kiwiblog

And the third, a thoughtful article on the left-wing blog Kiwipolitico where a distinction is made between racists and whistleblowers.

And the fourth view is from the National Party.  I'll leave you to work out what it said.  If you have an opinion, do add it to comments below.

Fraenkel asks were the 2014 Fiji Elections Rigged?

With elections due in October or November, accusations of fear, military threats and election rigging can be expected to increase. Prof Fraenkel's comments are therefore most timely.
NZ Expert Disagrees with Election Critics
Fiji Sun

Pn58
Professor Jon Fraenkel of Victoria University of Wellington does not agree with allegations made by Opposition parties that the 2014 General Election was hasty and unpersuasive.
He made this assessment during his address  at the CCF Forum on the  “Role of Elections in Democracy” at the Japan ICT Theatre, University of the South Pacific yesterday.
“I think the 2014 General Election results made sense,” he said.
“Many were confused about the numbers and many claimed and still claim till date that the 2014 election was rigged.
“No disputed returns were filed in the High Court after the elections by any of the opposition parties.”
Mr Fraenkel said that Fiji’s democracy was most obviously, greatly weakened by its history of coups and democracy is much more than just holding an election every three to four years.
He also commented that in the 2014 General Election the Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama had more than 40 per cent of the national votes, which was a lot to settle down.
Mr Fraenkel said in all the elections he had witnessed in Fiji the opposition MPs always claimed fraud and ballot rigging afterwards.
“Politicians expect to win after carrying out campaigns and as elections approach,” he said.
“The FijiFirst Party win was mainly decided on Viti Levu votes and FijiFirst won the election through Viti Levu votes because in Vanua Levu other parties were leading.”
Professor Fraenkel also said that there was no reason to suspect the Multinational Observer Group because for  the official tally there was no greater difference than two per cent when being compared with the unofficial tally.
“However, the Multinational Observer Group deserves criticism for the haste with which it organised a press conference at 4pm on September  18th before even the completion of the count,” he said. 

Wednesday 29 August 2018

China's aid to the Pacific in some sort of perspective

____________________________________________________________________
A NEW FEATURE. SEE 'SNIPPETS/BREAKING NEWS' IN THE SIDEBAR
____________________________________________________________________

One perception Pn46
The Pacific region is making headlines across Australia after Pacific and International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells harshly criticised Chinese aid in the region. 'Useless' is how Fierravanti-Wells has described Chinese aid projects, leading countries to take on debt they can't afford. While her concerns are legitimate, her blunt delivery hasn't been constructive and has led to some considerable political and diplomatic fallout.

Aid to the Pacific Islands

Total
$US (m)
%
China
%
Loan
%
Aust.
%
NZ
%
Other

Pop

GDP
PNG
4475
14.1
90
76.8
3.9
5.2
7.3M
15.4B
Vanuatu
1030
23.7
84
39.1
11.8
25.3
266K
798M
Fiji
921
39.1
89
32.9
5
23.2
881K
4B
FSM
1058
3.9
0
2.3
-
93.9
104K
333M
Samoa
809
28.4
75
30
15.1
26.5
190K
793M
Tonga
590
29.2
77
30.8
17.8
22.2
104K
473M
Cook Is.
175
28.6
58
17.1
49.7
4.6
13K
295M
Based on: Lowy Institute https://chineseaidmap.lowyinstitute.org/ figures for 2015. FSM Federated States of Micronesia. Aid figures rounded up. % Other: EU Institutions, France, Japan, USA. 'Loan'- low interest concessional loans from China, remaining percentage grants and cash. Solomon Islands recognizes Taiwan.It receives no aid from  the CPR. Niue not included. Calculated by Croz Walsh.
Author Jonathan Pryke, Director 
 Lowy Institute's Pacific Islands Program
The Pacific region is making headlines across Australia after Pacific and International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells harshly criticised Chinese aid in the region. 'Useless' is how Fierravanti-Wells has described Chinese aid projects, leading countries to take on debt they can't afford. While her concerns are legitimate, her blunt delivery hasn't been constructive and has led to some considerable political and diplomatic fallout.
So what's the real story? Is Chinese aid in the Pacific useless?
The answer is not so simple. China's aid program is so opaque it is very difficult to understand exactly what it is doing. China does not conform to the sophisticated reporting and accountability mechanisms that traditional Western donors have developed over decades of aid delivery. According to some estimates, China announced more than US$350 billion in aid between 2000 and 2014 under a shroud of secrecy, leading to considerable anxiety about where, why and how Chinese aid is given.
This anxiety extends to the Pacific, where since 2006 China has rapidly expanded both its commercial ties and aid program. The Lowy Institute has invested considerable time to better understand China's engagement. Our map of Chinese aid in the Pacific shows projects committed from 2006 to the middle of 2016. By scouring budget documents from countries across the Pacific, Chinese government websites, secondary sources such as conventional and social media, and conducting numerous interviews, we have compiled the most comprehensive picture of China's involvement in the region. It is not perfect, but it identifies and quantifies Chinese aid better than any other source.
Our research shows Chinese aid in the Pacific has grown substantially, with China committing more than US$1.7 billion in aid to eight Pacific Island countries (including Timor-Leste). To put this into context, total traditional aid to these countries over the same period was over US$9 billion, with aid from Australia making up almost two-thirds this amount.
President Xi Jinping
An important distinction must be drawn between Chinese projects and traditional ones. China typically engages in large infrastructure projects by providing low interest, or 'concessional', loans that eventually have to be repaid. There is often scant information beyond an announcement, with no detail on the terms of these loans or repayment schedule. Australia and other traditional donors typically provide one-way grants that do not need to be paid back and engage in more complex (albeit far from perfect) forms of assistance across multiple sectors, from humanitarian assistance to governance support.
To illustrate this point, while we have identified 216 Chinese aid projects in the Pacific from 2006, there have been more than 5000 projects carried out by traditional donors since only 2011. While Chinese numbers may appear large, it involves a concentration into select large projects. Because of this distinction, comparing Chinese aid to Australia's is like comparing apples and oranges. China has emerged as a significant donor, yet is it clearly still not the biggest player in the Pacific.
Understanding the quantum of Chinese aid is only the starting point. The greater challenge is understanding quality, the point that has landed Fierravanti-Wells in strife. Such judgments are not black and white, and ultimately projects have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The best research on this, looking at the experience of four countries in the region, has found that effectiveness of China's aid to be mixed; projects in Samoa have largely led to positive outcomes, while the experience in Tonga and Vanuatu has been less positive.
Importantly, the authors find that the quality of Chinese aid projects are 'dependent in large part on the actions of Pacific Island governments'. This shouldn't come as a surprise. China is not forcing aid on these countries; the Pacific governments have to tell China what they want and manage the projects to a standard that ensures China delivers. With these findings in mind, a criticism of Chinese aid is also an implicit criticism of the governments in the region that agreed to the projects in the first place.
The point Fierravanti-Wells makes about debt distress is a fair one. The International Monetary Fund has noted that TongaSamoa and Vanuatu all face considerable debt repayment pressures, and all have significant debt to China. Xi Jinping has even acknowledged the debt burden in the past, promising forgiveness that has yet to eventuate. There are also cautionary tales elsewhere in the world of China taking advantage of debt-distressed nations. Considering the portfolio of loans in Pacific countries (think government buildings and conference facilities, rather than critical infrastructure projects such as deep-sea ports or airports), this seems less of a problem, though certainly worth keeping a close eye on. But again, much of this responsibility must rest with Pacific governments. Australia can't criticise China without criticising decision-makers in the Pacific as well.
Given this messy context, the statements by Fierravanti-Wells, while not without basis, have not been constructive. Attacking the new kid on the block is the easy way out, and Australia is a far from perfect player in the region. The government should instead be working harder to encourage the role of Chinese aid in the Pacific, acknowledging it as an important complement to Australia's aid. China's continuing attention on the region should also be a catalyst for Australians to take a hard look at themselves and ask how they can do more in the immediate region and work with all actors towards a more prosperous Pacific.
The Pacific region is making headlines across Australia after Pacific and International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells harshly criticised Chinese aid in the region. 'Useless' is how Fierravanti-Wells has described Chinese aid projects, leading countries to take on debt they can't afford. While her concerns are legitimate, her blunt delivery hasn't been constructive and has led to some considerable political and diplomatic fallout.
So what's the real story? Is Chinese aid in the Pacific useless?
The answer is not so simple. China's aid program is so opaque it is very difficult to understand exactly what it is doing. China does not conform to the sophisticated reporting and accountability mechanisms that traditional Western donors have developed over decades of aid delivery. According to some estimates, China announced more than US$350 billion in aid between 2000 and 2014 under a shroud of secrecy, leading to considerable anxiety about where, why and how Chinese aid is given.
This anxiety extends to the Pacific, where since 2006 China has rapidly expanded both its commercial ties and aid program. The Lowy Institute has invested considerable time to better understand China's engagement. Our map of Chinese aid in the Pacific shows projects committed from 2006 to the middle of 2016. By scouring budget documents from countries across the Pacific, Chinese government websites, secondary sources such as conventional and social media, and conducting numerous interviews, we have compiled the most comprehensive picture of China's involvement in the region. It is not perfect, but it identifies and quantifies Chinese aid better than any other source.
Our research shows Chinese aid in the Pacific has grown substantially, with China committing more than US$1.7 billion in aid to eight Pacific Island countries (including Timor-Leste). To put this into context, total traditional aid to these countries over the same period was over US$9 billion, with aid from Australia making up almost two-thirds this amount.
An important distinction must be drawn between Chinese projects and traditional ones. China typically engages in large infrastructure projects by providing low interest, or 'concessional', loans that eventually have to be repaid. There is often scant information beyond an announcement, with no detail on the terms of these loans or repayment schedule. Australia and other traditional donors typically provide one-way grants that do not need to be paid back and engage in more complex (albeit far from perfect) forms of assistance across multiple sectors, from humanitarian assistance to governance support.
To illustrate this point, while we have identified 216 Chinese aid projects in the Pacific from 2006, there have been more than 5000 projects carried out by traditional donors since only 2011. While Chinese numbers may appear large, it involves a concentration into select large projects. Because of this distinction, comparing Chinese aid to Australia's is like comparing apples and oranges. China has emerged as a significant donor, yet is it clearly still not the biggest player in the Pacific.
Understanding the quantum of Chinese aid is only the starting point. The greater challenge is understanding quality, the point that has landed Fierravanti-Wells in strife. Such judgments are not black and white, and ultimately projects have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The best research on this, looking at the experience of four countries in the region, has found that effectiveness of China's aid to be mixed; projects in Samoa have largely led to positive outcomes, while the experience in Tonga and Vanuatu has been less positive.
Importantly, the authors find that the quality of Chinese aid projects are 'dependent in large part on the actions of Pacific Island governments'. This shouldn't come as a surprise. China is not forcing aid on these countries; the Pacific governments have to tell China what they want and manage the projects to a standard that ensures China delivers. With these findings in mind, a criticism of Chinese aid is also an implicit criticism of the governments in the region that agreed to the projects in the first place.
The point Fierravanti-Wells makes about debt distress is a fair one. The International Monetary Fund has noted that TongaSamoa and Vanuatu all face considerable debt repayment pressures, and all have significant debt to China. Xi Jinping has even acknowledged the debt burden in the past, promising forgiveness that has yet to eventuate. There are also cautionary tales elsewhere in the world of China taking advantage of debt-distressed nations. Considering the portfolio of loans in Pacific countries (think government buildings and conference facilities, rather than critical infrastructure projects such as deep-sea ports or airports), this seems less of a problem, though certainly worth keeping a close eye on. But again, much of this responsibility must rest with Pacific governments. Australia can't criticise China without criticising decision-makers in the Pacific as well.
Given this messy context, the statements by Fierravanti-Wells, while not without basis, have not been constructive. Attacking the new kid on the block is the easy way out, and Australia is a far from perfect player in the region. The government should instead be working harder to encourage the role of Chinese aid in the Pacific, acknowledging it as an important complement to Australia's aid. China's continuing attention on the region should also be a catalyst for Australians to take a hard look at themselves and ask how they can do more in the immediate region and work with all actors towards a more prosperous Pacific.
-- Jonathan Pryke in The Interpreter, 11 Jan. 2018

See also 
West accused of trying to spread discord over Chinese aid'


Tuesday 28 August 2018

Bridges: He Needs to Use the Other Mic



Pn55
If Opposition leader Simon Bridges would take some advice, I'd suggest he comes up with something positive about what National would do if it were in government (or perhaps explain why it didn't do it when it was) rather than repetitively criticize everything the Labour-led coalition is trying to do.

Today's comment was to criticise the announcement of a working group to develop a fair pay framework. Bridges called this "more talk, more slogans (and) the 153th working group." If this sounds like too much consultation to Bridges, it could in part be a consequence of  the lower level of consultations under National that has led to the need for redress under the present Government.

One  wonders whether tomorrow he'll be criticising the government's plan to establish a Business Advisory Council to be chaired by former Air New Zealand CEO Christopher Luxon. The PM hopes the Council will provide Government with "high level free and frank advice on key economic issues and harness expertise from the private sector to develop government's economic.policies.' Free meaning open, not costless for, of course, the process is costly as ACT leader David Seymour has pointed out. Whether it would be more costly not to consult is another question.

An advisory council is different from a working party. It has direct, ongoing contact with Government while working parties are more typically one-off affairs with some ongoing contact, at the other end of the spectrum, that later may lead to the sort of relationship enjoyed by advisory councils.

Criticising Government is fine. That's a large part of an Opposition's job.  It keeps Government on its toes. . But it also needs to actually say something new. To show why it would be the better government. Repeated criticism is unlikely to have this effect..  

On what may appear to be a completely unrelated topic -- although an informed public is is an essential part of a democracy -- I had a quick check through today's 1 News Now items. Of the 40-odd listed, Simon Bridges was mentioned once, Jacinda Adern and Government four times -- the same as Australian mentions--,six were on crime, and 14 were on sports and sports personalities. Umm!
-- ACW




Monday 27 August 2018

Fiji: Tough Media Laws and the Election Contenders

 The latest FijiSun/Razor polll showed 69% were in favour of tough social media laws, 21% were opposed, and 19% were undecided.  One thousand people were interviewed face-to-face at major urban bus stops. The merits and demerits of this type of interviewing was considered in an earlier post. See note at the end of this posting.


pn47

The result looks clear enough except for three things: 1) the methodology used (see note at the end of this posting) is questionable. 2) The poll came immediately after people posted photos of a gruesome multi-car crash on their mobile phones. A week earlier or three weeks later the result could have been quite different, and 3) 19% were undecided.

However, the result will please government which recently passed the Online Safety Act that will set up a commission to look into "combating abusive, hateful and illegal behaviour online."

Poll accuracy could also have been affected by having too many questions: one on tougher laws, the others on who those polled will be voting for in the forthcoming elections and who is their preferred prime minister after the elections.

The election answers

The election answers are interesting.  Bainimarama's governing party Fiji First were a clear first on 69%, the current main opposition party SODELPA came second on 13% but the National Federation Party, the only other party in the present parliament, obtained only 1%. 

The NFP is Fiji's oldest party and the major party once supported by Indo-Fiji.    One wonders whether there were fewer of them at the bus stops or whether Razor weighted the results to achieve a demography balance with Fiji's total population? My earlier email to the Sun for an explanation on the methodology used by Razor was not answered. 

This part of  the poll is also interesting because there were no "undecided" unlike the 19% "undecided" on the tougher laws question.

What we appear to have is a partial collapse of the "old" opposition parties, SODELPA to some extent, the  NFP and the Fiji Labour Party almost totally, and the rise of two parties until recently unheard of, Unity Fiji on 11% and Hope on 6%.

In the preferred prime minister poll Bainimarama had 69% of the vote (the same as his Fiji First), SODELPA's Sitiveni Rabuka had 15% and Ro Teimumu 9% (that combined far exceeded their party's 13%) and NFP's Dr Biman Prasad had 2% compared his party's 1%.

Attar Singh scored 1% compared with FLP's 3%, and Tupou Draunidalu scored 6% compared with Hope's 6%.  Nothing much to read into these figures.  

The real surprise is the Unity party preferred leader. His party polled 11% but Savenaca Narube scored only 1%.

My prediction is that Bainimarama and Fiji First will win the election, but if it's close they may need a coalition with Unity or Hope.  If SODELPA could resolve its internal troubles it could win  more than its polled 13%, which is down from 26% in an earlier poll. 

Its drop from favour, however,  is probably as much due to the rise of Unity and Hope -- which may also have taken some support away from FijiFirst. 

The same could be said for the NFP.  I would expect its election vote to be higher than the polled 1%, but this will depend on how many of its potential voters choose Unity, Hope and FLP.

Watch this space. 
ACW.

 NOTE
The three polls postings are 
#1. Why are polls so inaccurate? Pn24
#2.Comparing three sample polling methods Pn25
#3. Poll results and their commentators. Pn26
Write their Posting note (Pn) number in "Search this blog" near the top of the sidebar to read or make a note of the Pn to read later.