| Malawi on the screen for international investors |
| Story by By Christina Mkutumula |
| Lilongwe July , 20 Mana: The Outgoing French Ambassador to Malawi, Francis Saundubray has described Malawi government development policy as extremely impressive for it has gained confidence of the international donors. |
| Saundubray said that has put Malawi on the world screen for international investors to establish their businesses. He told journalists on Thursday after holding an audience with the State President, Dr Bingu wa Mutharika at New State House, Lilongwe that development aid to Malawi has increased yearly which was proof of sound economic policies of the country’s leadership. |
| He disclosed that his government is about to sign a 100 percent debt cancellation agreement with Malawi following the HIPC convention points. Saundubray said: “Money close to 10 million Euros (K1.9 billion) will be given to Malawi government, and I have managed to convince the French government to open a field of operation of the French development agency soon, and we will also continue in the field of culture and teaching of French in Malawi.” |
| He explained the money is part of the Paris Club cancellation, but stressed on the need for the French and Malawi governments to agree on which phases the money would be put on. |
| The envoy said the French government in conjunction with the Malawi government would soon build a French Cultural Centre in Lilongwe. |
| He said the Blantyre Culture Centre would work hand in hand with the cultural centre in Lilongwe. |
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The opposition is behaving immorally
BY The Daily Times
09:01:28 - 25 July 2007
For the second time in three weeks, opposition Members of Parliament Tuesday refused to discuss the 2007/2008 national budget insisting that the House should first discuss issues of Section 65.
We want to tell the opposition MPs that this is being impervious to the plight, needs and aspirations of the very people they represent. In short, the opposition are behaving immorally and they will pay dearly for trying to torture the people.
Just to fill you in, some 83 MPs voted against the national assembly discussing the budget against 71 who wanted the budget discussed before Section 65 issues.
Leader of the House Henry Chimunthu Banda said at the end of the headcount voting that the result meant there was nothing to discuss in the House since the meeting was a budget one.
There being nothing to discuss, Second Deputy Speaker Jones Chingola rightly adjourned the House indefinitely.
To start with, the failure to discuss the budget means that in theory government, which was only given K12 billion to spend for one month, will have no money to spend beyond 31 July, 2007.
But in practice, government will continue to run and the opposition has only painted a bad name for itself.
The development has left government no choice but to invoke its constitutional mandate to allocate money to spend for four months. This is the most logical course of action for government to pursue for the reason that it has a duty to continue to run and provide services to the people. It is actually obscene for the opposition to think they can bring down government for the selfish reasons we have spelt out several times before.
The Constitution gives the Finance Minister authority to spend in advance of appropriation.
The relevant section of the Constitution reads: “The National Assembly may make provision under which, if it appears to the Minister responsible for Finance that the Appropriation Act in respect of any financial year, will not come into operation by the beginning of that financial year, he or she may authorize the withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund of moneys for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the Government until the expiration of four months from the beginning of that financial year or the coming into operation of the Appropriation Act, whichever is earlier.”
But by prioritizing Section 65 issues at the expense of the budget, the opposition have exposed themselves to the wrath of the 13 millions Malawians who have nothing to benefit from the section 65 issues.
People across the country have already bared their chests on the matter. This is that the opposition should set their priorities right and allow Parliament to discuss and pass the budget.
Members of the general public, chiefs, the faith community and the clergy, to mention just a few, have all pointed out the need for the opposition to see the writing on the wall and to do first things first. But all this seems to have fallen on the deaf ears. The question is: which constituents are the opposition MPs representing when they are in the House?
In fact, many people have spoken clearly and loudly that both the budget and Section 65 issues should be discussed. So just what is the problem with our opposition MPs?
We also question MPs such as former Vice President Justin Malewezi for abstaining. Why?
While people have the constitutional right to abstain, we are of the view that leaders like Malewezi and PPM vice president Mark Katsonga appreciate the plight of the beneficiaries of the budget better than most MPs. The two should, therefore, not have stood on the fence fearing a backlash from the opposition or the government side if they voted either way. Abstaining will not spare them the backlash from the people because in a vote like the one the House conducted yesterday, abstaining has the same effect as a no vote.
BY The Daily Times
09:01:28 - 25 July 2007
For the second time in three weeks, opposition Members of Parliament Tuesday refused to discuss the 2007/2008 national budget insisting that the House should first discuss issues of Section 65.
We want to tell the opposition MPs that this is being impervious to the plight, needs and aspirations of the very people they represent. In short, the opposition are behaving immorally and they will pay dearly for trying to torture the people.
Just to fill you in, some 83 MPs voted against the national assembly discussing the budget against 71 who wanted the budget discussed before Section 65 issues.
Leader of the House Henry Chimunthu Banda said at the end of the headcount voting that the result meant there was nothing to discuss in the House since the meeting was a budget one.
There being nothing to discuss, Second Deputy Speaker Jones Chingola rightly adjourned the House indefinitely.
To start with, the failure to discuss the budget means that in theory government, which was only given K12 billion to spend for one month, will have no money to spend beyond 31 July, 2007.
But in practice, government will continue to run and the opposition has only painted a bad name for itself.
The development has left government no choice but to invoke its constitutional mandate to allocate money to spend for four months. This is the most logical course of action for government to pursue for the reason that it has a duty to continue to run and provide services to the people. It is actually obscene for the opposition to think they can bring down government for the selfish reasons we have spelt out several times before.
The Constitution gives the Finance Minister authority to spend in advance of appropriation.
The relevant section of the Constitution reads: “The National Assembly may make provision under which, if it appears to the Minister responsible for Finance that the Appropriation Act in respect of any financial year, will not come into operation by the beginning of that financial year, he or she may authorize the withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund of moneys for the purpose of meeting expenditure necessary to carry on the services of the Government until the expiration of four months from the beginning of that financial year or the coming into operation of the Appropriation Act, whichever is earlier.”
But by prioritizing Section 65 issues at the expense of the budget, the opposition have exposed themselves to the wrath of the 13 millions Malawians who have nothing to benefit from the section 65 issues.
People across the country have already bared their chests on the matter. This is that the opposition should set their priorities right and allow Parliament to discuss and pass the budget.
Members of the general public, chiefs, the faith community and the clergy, to mention just a few, have all pointed out the need for the opposition to see the writing on the wall and to do first things first. But all this seems to have fallen on the deaf ears. The question is: which constituents are the opposition MPs representing when they are in the House?
In fact, many people have spoken clearly and loudly that both the budget and Section 65 issues should be discussed. So just what is the problem with our opposition MPs?
We also question MPs such as former Vice President Justin Malewezi for abstaining. Why?
While people have the constitutional right to abstain, we are of the view that leaders like Malewezi and PPM vice president Mark Katsonga appreciate the plight of the beneficiaries of the budget better than most MPs. The two should, therefore, not have stood on the fence fearing a backlash from the opposition or the government side if they voted either way. Abstaining will not spare them the backlash from the people because in a vote like the one the House conducted yesterday, abstaining has the same effect as a no vote.
Sec 65 should await constitutional review—CCAP
BY MIKE CHIPALASA
12:43:51 - 26 July 2007
Speaker Louis Chimango should halt the implementation of Section 65 until the Constitutional Review Commission concludes its findings, the Church and Society Programme of the Blantyre CCAP Synod has said.
Programme manager Billy Mayaya said on Tuesday their position was that the application of Section 65 could not be pursued in the absence of the Recall Provision and the Senate, which were both scrapped off from the Constitution in 1994.
The Constitutional Review Commission is currently working on proposals from various stakeholders to have certain sections of the Republican Constitution amended or incorporated.
Some people have, among other proposals, suggested that the Recall Provision and the Senate be brought back in the constitution to empower the electorate who political observers say are powerless in the absence of these two provisions.
Opposition political parties in the country insist that the Speaker has to declare seats of those MPs deemed to have crossed the floor vacant before discussions on the 2007/2008 national budget get underway.
But Mayaya argued that Section 65 was supposed to be read together with Section 64 and, if need be, referred to the Senate, but since the two provisions were removed, he said, it did not make sense for the speaker to act on Section 65 in isolation.
Mayaya said while they agreed with the June 15, 2001 Supreme Court ruling which validated Section 65, it was unreasonable for MPs to be baying to declared each other’s seats vacant when the powers to recall MPs should be vested in the people in the constituencies.
“The mandate to recall MPs comes from the people and the mandate to govern is from the people as well. MPs would have removed each other if there were impeachment procedures as is the case with the president and judges,” he said.
In dealing to end the current impasse, Mayaya suggested that the executive should use diplomacy in dealing with the legislature and the judiciary, as these three arms of government were supposed to work in harmony and not in antagonism.
BY MIKE CHIPALASA
12:43:51 - 26 July 2007
Speaker Louis Chimango should halt the implementation of Section 65 until the Constitutional Review Commission concludes its findings, the Church and Society Programme of the Blantyre CCAP Synod has said.
Programme manager Billy Mayaya said on Tuesday their position was that the application of Section 65 could not be pursued in the absence of the Recall Provision and the Senate, which were both scrapped off from the Constitution in 1994.
The Constitutional Review Commission is currently working on proposals from various stakeholders to have certain sections of the Republican Constitution amended or incorporated.
Some people have, among other proposals, suggested that the Recall Provision and the Senate be brought back in the constitution to empower the electorate who political observers say are powerless in the absence of these two provisions.
Opposition political parties in the country insist that the Speaker has to declare seats of those MPs deemed to have crossed the floor vacant before discussions on the 2007/2008 national budget get underway.
But Mayaya argued that Section 65 was supposed to be read together with Section 64 and, if need be, referred to the Senate, but since the two provisions were removed, he said, it did not make sense for the speaker to act on Section 65 in isolation.
Mayaya said while they agreed with the June 15, 2001 Supreme Court ruling which validated Section 65, it was unreasonable for MPs to be baying to declared each other’s seats vacant when the powers to recall MPs should be vested in the people in the constituencies.
“The mandate to recall MPs comes from the people and the mandate to govern is from the people as well. MPs would have removed each other if there were impeachment procedures as is the case with the president and judges,” he said.
In dealing to end the current impasse, Mayaya suggested that the executive should use diplomacy in dealing with the legislature and the judiciary, as these three arms of government were supposed to work in harmony and not in antagonism.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Why is the opposition failing to read the writing on the wall?
BY The Daily Times
09:31:07 - 18 July 2007
Malawians with the welfare of the people at heart ought to be disappointed that the opposition continues to pay a deaf ear to the cries and pleas of the people on the importance by the National Assembly to prioritise discussing the national budget before Section 65.
Unbelievably, both MCP and UDF leaders Tuesday also said they are disappointed that the Government side in the House has not capitulated on their demand that the House should first deal with the Section 65 issue before the budget.
The consequences of the impasse between the two sides, that is, the failure by Parliament to pass the budget, although not yet being fully felt now, will be disastrous in the not-too-distant future.
For now, some of the things that are already suffering are that ministries and government departments cannot make long term plans on development projects since they are being funded on a month-to-month basis.
Unfortunately, this looks like will be the case for the next few months. With the nation entering the second half of July with no idea of when the budget will be discussed and delivered to people's doorsteps, it is very likely that government will have to engage another stop-gap measure.
The development also means that government cannot also begin to take the budget to the people through paying the new perks for civil servants and chiefs as well as implement tax measures that are meant to help certain sectors.
In fact, it is hopelessly disappointing that the opposition cannot listen to the pleas and wishes of the people, chiefs, leaders of non-governmental organizations, students, the clergy, lawyers, etc., who want the MPs to serve the people they represent and not to behave like their masters.
UDF and MCP MPs as law-makers are expected to be better informed about the need to exhaust the processes in the application and interpretation of the law.
What is happening now is a continuation of the application of the ruling on Section 65. The opposition cannot claim the government side in the House is gagging the Speaker by obtaining an injunction restraining him from declaring some seats vacant.
Anyone, including the MP who got the injunction, has the right to seek legal redress through the courts on issues they feel they have been unfairly treated. If the MP did not have that right, the courts, whose job is to interpret the law, would not have granted them the reprieve they got. What we see, on the other hand, is a desperate bid by an estranged opposition to usurp the role of the Judiciary.
The opposition should let the judicial process take its full course, which will evidently take time because there are no shortcuts in legal and judicial processes. But that process is, surely, underway.
In fact, some MPs such as MCP president John Tembo, have previously benefited from same legal processes in the past when they were thrown out of the same House after being convicted on contempt of court charges. Tembo and former MCP secretary general Kate Kainja were saved by the same courts through a similar process. So what is the problem now?
As we have said before, the opposition is digging their own graves. They will need the same people whom they are victimising now to put them back into Parliament in 2009.
By now, the opposition should have read the bold and clear writing on the wall and swallowed their pride. They should not be deceived that people will forget. No way.
BY The Daily Times
09:31:07 - 18 July 2007
Malawians with the welfare of the people at heart ought to be disappointed that the opposition continues to pay a deaf ear to the cries and pleas of the people on the importance by the National Assembly to prioritise discussing the national budget before Section 65.
Unbelievably, both MCP and UDF leaders Tuesday also said they are disappointed that the Government side in the House has not capitulated on their demand that the House should first deal with the Section 65 issue before the budget.
The consequences of the impasse between the two sides, that is, the failure by Parliament to pass the budget, although not yet being fully felt now, will be disastrous in the not-too-distant future.
For now, some of the things that are already suffering are that ministries and government departments cannot make long term plans on development projects since they are being funded on a month-to-month basis.
Unfortunately, this looks like will be the case for the next few months. With the nation entering the second half of July with no idea of when the budget will be discussed and delivered to people's doorsteps, it is very likely that government will have to engage another stop-gap measure.
The development also means that government cannot also begin to take the budget to the people through paying the new perks for civil servants and chiefs as well as implement tax measures that are meant to help certain sectors.
In fact, it is hopelessly disappointing that the opposition cannot listen to the pleas and wishes of the people, chiefs, leaders of non-governmental organizations, students, the clergy, lawyers, etc., who want the MPs to serve the people they represent and not to behave like their masters.
UDF and MCP MPs as law-makers are expected to be better informed about the need to exhaust the processes in the application and interpretation of the law.
What is happening now is a continuation of the application of the ruling on Section 65. The opposition cannot claim the government side in the House is gagging the Speaker by obtaining an injunction restraining him from declaring some seats vacant.
Anyone, including the MP who got the injunction, has the right to seek legal redress through the courts on issues they feel they have been unfairly treated. If the MP did not have that right, the courts, whose job is to interpret the law, would not have granted them the reprieve they got. What we see, on the other hand, is a desperate bid by an estranged opposition to usurp the role of the Judiciary.
The opposition should let the judicial process take its full course, which will evidently take time because there are no shortcuts in legal and judicial processes. But that process is, surely, underway.
In fact, some MPs such as MCP president John Tembo, have previously benefited from same legal processes in the past when they were thrown out of the same House after being convicted on contempt of court charges. Tembo and former MCP secretary general Kate Kainja were saved by the same courts through a similar process. So what is the problem now?
As we have said before, the opposition is digging their own graves. They will need the same people whom they are victimising now to put them back into Parliament in 2009.
By now, the opposition should have read the bold and clear writing on the wall and swallowed their pride. They should not be deceived that people will forget. No way.
House conduct sickening
By The Daily Times - 24 July 2007 - 09:08:50
One would have thought that with the two-week suspension of the House over the indecent deadlock on Section 65, upright reasoning would have prevailed on our honourable Members of Parliament (MPs) from the opposition and they would have now settled on the best thing, which should come first in the House, the budget or Section 65.
Sadly, after starting their deliberations at 2 pm, our honourable legislators Monday ended their meeting prematurely for the simple reason that the opposition have stuck to their guns that come Parliament, Section 65 should be dealt with first ahead of the budget.
It all seems very vividly now that the more time elapses, the more the opposition harden their hearts and the more the deadlock continues. As a country, we cannot move forward like this!
It is more than clear from the views from various stakeholders, too numerous to mention, and it has been said over a thousand times that what the country needs at the moment is nothing less than the budget. The reasoning behind this is not political, but it is a question of the country’s very survival. The danger, as the clock ticks on and time flies away is that the country is headed for a gargantuan manmade social-economic catastrophe if this impasse does not get to an end.
This is so because our budget has a time factor in that there are certain programmes in the budget, for arguments’ sake the fertiliser subsidy programme, that better be executed as soon as possible before it is too late.
But one would dismiss this assertion as nothing new at all. Yes, it has been said over and over again, but we need to say it this time around too because it appears the message has not sunk in the hearts of our honourable opposition legislators.
It only requires one simple solution in the House, and that is for one side to eat a humble pie and put to the fore an issue that is for the national interest’s sake, and as Public Affairs Committee (Pac) states implicitly, that is the budget.
Yes indeed Section 65 is equally important, but in the meantime, in light of the injunction on the Speaker restraining him to declare any seats of MPs vacant, should lives of millions of Malawians be held at ransom for the same Section 65?
Frankly, the premature suspension of the House yesterday is really sickening, it’s so frustrating and we are getting tired with this impasse. Malawians need the budget much more now than before this section 65 fiasco started in June. It’s time for our honourable legislators to rise above party politics and strive to attain the general good-the budget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
Chinese
French
German
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Spanish