In the Bible, Jesus has many names that identify His character. One of those names is Emmanuel, which means “God with us.” Before Jesus came to earth, the Spirit of God resided in the temple. The people had to go through all sorts of rituals to become clean enough to go near Him. Now, as believers, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. When we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, He is the one who cleanses us and actually makes His home in our hearts.
Isn’t it good to know that God is with us? He is closer than the very air that we breathe. His peace is always with us. His joy is always with us. His power is always with us, and His victory is always with us. The next time you feel alone, remember, you serve Emmanuel — the God who is always with you!
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
YOU MAY NOT KNOW YOUR TALENT UP TO THE LAST DAY OF YOUR LIFE
A tough looking group of bikers were riding when they saw a girl about to jump off a bridge, so they stopped. The leader, a big burly man, gets off his bike and says, "What are you doing?"
"I'm going to commit suicide," she says.
While he did not want to appear insensitive, he didn't want to miss an opportunity. He asked "Well, before you jump, why don't you give me a kiss?" So, she does and i...t was a long, deep lingering kiss.
After she's finished, the biker says, "Wow! That was the best Kiss I have ever had. That's a real talent you are wasting. You could be famous. Why are you committing suicide?"
"My parents don't like me dressing up like a girl......
Saturday, August 27, 2011
THE NEW COUPLE
A newlywed couple returned
to their apartment after being on their honeymoon.
"Care to go upstairs and do it?" the husband asked.
"Shh!" said the bride "All the neighbors will know
what we're about to do. These walls are paper
thin. In the future, we'll have to ask each other in
code. For example, how about asking, 'Have you
left the washing machine door open' instead?"
So, the following night, the husband asks, "I don't
suppose you left the washing machine door open,
did you?"
"No, I definitely shut it," replied the wife who rolled
over and fell asleep.
When she woke up however, she was feeling a
little frisky herself and she nudged her husband
and said, "I think I did leave the washing machine
door open after all. Would you like to do some
washing?"
"No, thanks," said the husband. "It was only a
small load so I did it by hand.
to their apartment after being on their honeymoon.
"Care to go upstairs and do it?" the husband asked.
"Shh!" said the bride "All the neighbors will know
what we're about to do. These walls are paper
thin. In the future, we'll have to ask each other in
code. For example, how about asking, 'Have you
left the washing machine door open' instead?"
So, the following night, the husband asks, "I don't
suppose you left the washing machine door open,
did you?"
"No, I definitely shut it," replied the wife who rolled
over and fell asleep.
When she woke up however, she was feeling a
little frisky herself and she nudged her husband
and said, "I think I did leave the washing machine
door open after all. Would you like to do some
washing?"
"No, thanks," said the husband. "It was only a
small load so I did it by hand.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
YOU ARE NOT YOUR MIND
A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by.
“Spare some change?” mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap.
“I have nothing to give you,” said the stranger. Then he asked: “What’s that you are sitting on?”
“Nothing,” replied the beggar, “Just a box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember.”
“Ever looked inside?”
“No,” said the beggar. “What’s the point? There is nothing in there.”
“Have a look inside,” insisted the stranger.
The beggar managed to pry open the lid.
With astonishment, disbelief and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.
I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside a box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.
“But I am not a beggar,” I can hear you say.
Those who have not found their true wealth, which is the radiant joy of Being and the deep, unshakable peace that comes with it, are beggars.
They are looking outside for scraps of pleasure or fulfillment, for validation, security, or love, while they have a treasure within that not only includes all those things but is infinitely greater than anything the World can offer.
-Eckhart Tolle-
( From his book the POWER OF NOW)
“Spare some change?” mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap.
“I have nothing to give you,” said the stranger. Then he asked: “What’s that you are sitting on?”
“Nothing,” replied the beggar, “Just a box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember.”
“Ever looked inside?”
“No,” said the beggar. “What’s the point? There is nothing in there.”
“Have a look inside,” insisted the stranger.
The beggar managed to pry open the lid.
With astonishment, disbelief and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.
I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside a box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.
“But I am not a beggar,” I can hear you say.
Those who have not found their true wealth, which is the radiant joy of Being and the deep, unshakable peace that comes with it, are beggars.
They are looking outside for scraps of pleasure or fulfillment, for validation, security, or love, while they have a treasure within that not only includes all those things but is infinitely greater than anything the World can offer.
-Eckhart Tolle-
( From his book the POWER OF NOW)
Friday, August 5, 2011
DEBUNKING THE GOVERNMENT’S CASE FOR LOW MINING TAXATION IN ZAMBIA.( BY CHOLA MUKANGA
By : Chola Mukanga
www.zambian-economist.com
The sustained resurgence in mineral prices has heightened the debate around mining taxation policy in Zambia. The clear public demand for a new mining policy has unfortunately been met by a government eager to encourage mining revenue flow into foreign bank accounts, rather than in the pockets of our people barely surviving on less than $1 a day. Unfortunately, the genuine anger by many people with the status quo has sadly not been accompanied by a strong intellectual platform to allow ordinary citizens make the case for change. Instead of offering leadership, the “Zambian intelligentsia” continue to allow government to dictate the debate with intellectually inept arguments for the status quo.
There has been no coherent vision of what people really want the mining industry as whole to achieve. It is particularly noticeable that most of the arguments have tended to begin and stop with the call for the restoration of the “windfall tax”. This higher revenue only approach has led to glaring confusion and a general lack of clarity on what the big questions are regarding mineral development in Zambia. There’s no vision of what mining should be delivering and how this sits with the economy as a whole. Where such a “vision” has been touted, it is usually been done by misguided political cadres through the government run press, occasionally supported by foreign interests. This has left our people not only deprived of what is rightly due to them, but also ignorant of how we should
move forward. Eliminating this confusion necessarily demands a clear debunking of the government false arguments for low mining taxation. We must first restate why Zambia finds itself in this bleak position and then cumulatively deconstruct the pro-mining companies’ stance of the current government. With the platform laid, it is then feasible to offer a bold and uniquely Zambian framework on how a new administration can ensure that mining plays a full role in the economic
emancipation of our people.
A People Betrayed
In January 2008 President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa (LPM) announced that Zambia was breaking the huge milestones hung around her neck by the Chiluba administration. Mining Development Agreements (DAs) was going to be abolished and replaced by a new fiscal regime. Following advice from expensively hired foreign consultants, LPM agreed with general opinion that “Zambia’s mining
fiscal regime to investors and provides the lowest revenues to the government”, than the next lowest country in the world. Zambia was going to take unilateral action to cancel the DAs and put in place a much fairer mining taxation system.
What preceded that decision was a round of high profile international campaign which stressed the injustice of the existing fiscal regime, principally led by Christian Aid and other NGOs. These organisations published significant reports that forcefully highlighted the scandal to the world. Soon, the IMF and World Bank were forced to join the change camp, concluding emphatically: “[we] commend the Government for taking steps to reform the fiscal regime of the mining sector while preserving Zambia as a competitive, credible, and attractive investment destination, but advocate the inclusion of an additional revenue-sharing mechanism that would capture a higher share of mineral rents for government during period of abnormally high international prices for minerals. Such a device is currently not part of the proposed reforms”. The message was simple: the international community was not ready to sustain significant aid payments when Zambia was pandering to foreign companies and failing to utilise resources at its disposal.
It looked like the tide had turned. The NGOs had won the debate largely through high quality reports, workshops and internet lobbying. It should never be forgotten that the push for a fairer share was a fight fought on our behalf by NGOs whose primary aim was the pursuit of justice, fairness and defence of the poor. Without the support of these NGOs nothing would have changed. With their support LPM was embolden and the reforms became irreversible, for a season.Under the LPM changes the corporate tax rate for mines was set at 30%, mining royalties on base metals at 3% of gross value (up from 0.6% in most DAs), and withholding tax on interest, royalties, management fees and payments to affiliates or subcontractors in the mining sector were set at a rate of 15%. While many of these measures, especially the increase of royalties had largely been anticipated, the introduction of a windfall tax on base metal revenues and the profit variable tax –took the mining companies by surprise. The windfall tax was to be triggered at different price levels for different base metals. For copper, a price between US$ 2.50 – US$ 3.00/lb attracted a windfall tax of 25%; between US$ 3.00 and 3.50, 50%, and 75% for prices above US$ 3.50/lb. At the time of the changes, copper prices were around the US$ 3.60 level, sufficient to trigger the maximum windfall penalty.
The reaction of the mining companies was total uproar, threatening Zambia with legal action and other bullying tactics. LPM stood firm, but the pressure also illustrated a fundamental problem in the implementation of the new regime. In typical single mindedness that characterised LPM’s tenure, there was no public consultation. Like the DAs before it was all done behind closed doors, the only
difference is that this time the proposed reforms were in favour of the people. As good as LPM’s intention were, the lack of consultation left a gap that mining companies exploited by lobbying other people, especially opposition politicians to their cause. The other problem was the lack of clarity on how the new profit variable tax related to the new windfall tax. This confusion was later going to be
used by the mining companies to build new momentum to reverse the entire regime and exact new concessions in face of the global recession. Even as the LPM administration was forging ahead, new seeds were being sown for a future reversal.
Fast forward to November 2008. LPM has died and Rupiah Banda (RB) is the country’s fourth president. His narrow ascendancy was greeted with cheers by the mining companies and their supporters, predicting gleefully: "It appears that the onerous tax rates enacted into legislation in Zambia earlier this year are likely to be significantly watered down”. It wasn’t long before the global downturn was going to be used by RB to justify removing the windfall tax, “we must ensure that we
do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. There is little point in taking in a few million dollars in tax if thousands of jobs are lost as a result". The ministerial chairs were going to be shuffled accordingly to pave way for the changes – out went the Minister of Finance Ng'andu Magande and the Minister of Minerals Kalombo Mwansa was moved to Home Affairs.
In January 2009, the new administration reversed the LPM changes following what the UK’s Financial Times described as ‘intense lobbying’ of the government by large, foreign owned copper mines. Windfall taxation which at the time was not binding due to low commodity prices was scrapped. The government also allowed hedging income to be included as part of mining income for tax purposes. A serious setback to our people as it is relatively easy to demonstrate a loss on hedging (and move
any profits offshore), allowing companies to further minimise their tax payments. It went further and allowed companies to write off 100% of any investment against tax as depreciation in the year in which the expense occurs – well beyond the international norm. These changes were an act of betrayal of the Zambian people. Government removed a tax that was not binding at the time, but which mining companies knew soon would be a big boon for them when base metals prices resumed the expected upward trend. What was left is the standard corporate tax, a mineral royalty of 3 per cent of gross value, and a variable levy on profits.
The betrayal goes unabated. In November 2010, it was announced that following the acrimony of the new fiscal arrangements with mining companies, the government has carved a new development agreement. Mining companies were offered a new fiscal stability period as part of the deal for them to pay legally mandated tax revenues owed to the Zambian government from previous
windfall taxes. The then Finance Minister Dr Musokotwane was on hand to declare “it has been agreed that a fiscal stability for a period of ten (10 years) be given to companies that will accede to the new tax regime. The stability will apply to corporate income tax, capital tax allowance, mineral royal and profit variable tax”. This action is against the spirit of the Mines and Minerals Development Act 2008 which calls for greater parliamentary say in such arrangements. There continues much secrecy regarding new DAs and the status of existing ones (e.g. Lumwana). To many Zambians, it is bad enough that new DAs are being signed, what is shocking is that they remain secretive.Despite all these concerns, the Banda administration continues to defend its intellectually bankrupt position through employing a range of incomplete and often incoherent arguments. The cautious joy
many Zambians felt with the LPM fiscal regime has now given way to feeling of despair and anger, especially given the strong commodity prices. The strength of this anger stems from an acute recognition of the injustice of the status quo particularly in relation to all the revenue. Billions of dollars are being lost due to ineptitude and unwillingness to act decisively for the poor. It is the serious nature of this issue that we must now examine the arguments government has
advanced in an effort to woo the masses. A closer examination reveals a series of broken arguments for the current fiscal regime that do not appear to hold water under serious scrutiny.
Broken Arguments
Argument 1: Zambia is earning enough tax revenue from its mineral wealth
The government’s most utilised argument, which is also implicit in its current posture, is that Zambia earns enough from its mineral wealth, consequently there’s no need to increase mineral taxation. In that vein the latest MMD manifesto does not propose to increase any mining taxation because it is content with the status quo. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. Zambia’s level of mining revenue collected under existing obligations is pitiful. In 2009, Zambia earned only a paltry $50m in mining royalty revenue with the figure rising to around $270m when non-mining taxation such as company taxes and PAYE are included. $50m is peanuts compared to the $5bn earned by the industry that year. This low revenues stand in sharp contrasts to experiences from comparable resource nations. Botswana’s Debswana model of 50% government ownership in diamond mines is well known. An even better example that puts Zambia to shame is a neighbour recovering from a prolonged civil war.The rapid development of diamond mining activities in Angola has been heavily trailed in the last few years, but what is not often reported is the remarkable difference between its non-oil mineral framework and Zambia’s, which is allowing the Luanda government significant revenues. Typically, a diamond mining company in Angola has to take on a large number of associated Angolan personnel at the exploration stage; thereafter the developer is expected to fund 100% of the capital expenditure although owning only around 40% of the mine. The rest of the equity is held by the Angolan government through Endiama and by nominated private Angolan investors all of whom are
entitled to a “free carry.” Once completed, the developer has priority over revenues until the capex outlay is recovered but may still get only about 80% of the initial revenues because of profit share agreements with the Angolans. It is therefore no surprise that Angola is benefiting greatly and growing at a faster pace than Zambia. These resources are paving the way for significant investment
in infrastructure.
Zambia’s situation is even bleaker for non-copper industries, where we continue to lose substantial revenue. For example, Zambia has the world’s second largest emerald deposit in the world (after Colombia) and also boasts of Africa’s biggest amethyst and aquamarine fields. But one wouldn't know this from looking at the government coffers and the economic plight of our people. Zambia
gets very little from this enormous wealth. At the heart of this problem is that the industry remains unregulated and without any element of state production. Zambia’s current policy of simply providing licenses without regulation has led to emergency of foreign dominated emerald cartels. Ordinary Zambians have failed to get a foothold in the industry because it is simply cheaper and more immediately rewarding for many Zambians to allow foreign production (by charging the "fee")
rather than develop the mine themselves. To successfully develop these mines not only do you need credit, but also access to established supply chains. The foreign investor has all these things in abundance and crucially they are able to harness the economies of scale that are associated with pooling licences together. Bizarrely the more attractive gemstone becomes the more foreign investors push out the locals! Unfortunately for Zambia these foreign operators keep their revenues abroad. The gemstone industry (estimate over billions of dollars) is a classic example of wealth lost from Zambia. The same desperate picture emerges for other lost opportunities such as manganese and uranium
It should be clear from the above discussion that the failure to collect sufficient revenue is largely a political issue. A failure by the current administration to seek a better return for their people. However, it should be noted that even when Zambia has taken steps to earn more revenue, it has been impended by other additional factors. Three are particularly worth noting.
First, the refusal by mining companies to comply with their tax obligations under Zambian law. There have been many instances of mining companies refusing to pay taxes even where ZRA has correctly identified their obligations. In 2008, Zambia earned over $3bn from copper exports, but of the $421m that should have made its way into our Treasury, only $200m was actually collected. Secondly, the inability of ZRA to overcome asymmetric information problems. Mining companies are more knowledgeable than ZRA on the exact nature of the mining costs. Although in theory Zambia should be benefiting from a profit based system, it is unable to do so because profit based systems are difficult to implement. Multinational corporations prefer profit based taxes because it enables them to hide their profits through inflated costs and other things. This is why the mining companies successfully lobbied for the removal of the windfall tax. They knew they'll pay very little. Simpler taxation mechanisms are key to improving collection and it is now commonly understood that where information is incomplete and the political economy challenging, such systems are better than profit based taxes.
Third, many mining companies have erected sophisticated mechanisms of tax avoidance by channelling their profits through offshore companies. In recent times we have seen Glencore sanctioned by the EU for Mopani’s suspected tax evasion activities in Zambia. This is effectively
robbing a beggar.
Argument 2: ZCCM-IH is cashing in on the non-tax revenue
When confronted with the full evidence of paltry mining tax revenues dripping in the treasury the government’s repertoire is that ZCCM-Investment Holdings (ZCCM-IH) generates sufficient non-tax benefits. The argument is that it is entirely disingenuous to claim that Zambia does not benefit from mining because the Zambian state also owns these mining companies through ZCCM-IH shareholding. ZCCM –IH owns 20% plus shares in joint venture with foreign mining corporations e.g. FQM’s Kansanshi and Vendata’s Konkola Copper Mine. As transnational companies soar in their mining profits ZCCM-IH gains substantial windfall and so does the Zambian people. In other words, a "them versus us" approach, the government argues, does not t reflect reality on the ground, where ZCCM - IH is a big player with assets over $1bn. The current low mining taxation is allegedly intended to benefit ZCCM-IH. Some have even gone as far as to praise the recent “huge dividends” of around $18m by KCM to the Zambian people as proof.
What are we to make of this? It is certainly true that ZCCM-IH has interests in many of these companies, but it hardly possesses a “controlling interest” stake in any of the key joint investments. More worryingly it has been clear for a while that ZCCM –IH has not been receiving meaningful dividends from its jointly owned projects. To suffering Zambians, $18m hardly qualifies as "huge"
when in 2010 alone, the mineral industry made over $8bn in revenue. Indeed it is well understood that government has considered in the past converting financial liabilities into equity, in order to raise its stake in the copper mines. That the government recognised this possibility is a clear testament that the ZCCM-IH model is not working.
What rightly concern many people is that ZCCM - IH is not "empowering" ordinary Zambians. If ZCCM-IH was owned by ordinary Zambians rather than government a potential argument can be constructed that some money would eventually filter back to ordinary Zambians. ZCCM-IH is currently listed in Lusaka (alongside London, and Euronext Stock Exchanges), with the government owning 87.6% shareholding and the remaining 12.4% held by private equity holders largely abroad. Unfortunately the whole venture is not very transparent! According to foreign private equity holders the company went for many years without publishing a single financial report. Its inventories are also not formalised, which is quite remarkable for a listed company. It is hardly the sort of company one wants to appeal to as the reason for keeping mining taxation low.
Argument 3: Low mining taxes encourage Zambia’s competitiveness
It is sometimes argued by government, and effectively by mining companies in 2009 that low mining taxes are vital especially that other countries continue to keep their taxes low. The government believes at the heart of the mining revival is ensuring that taxes are kept as low as possible, a policy which has led to over billions being invested annually in the industry. Mongolia is often cited as an example of a country which imposed higher mining taxes only to find itself in a quagmire with investment drying up. Low taxation is the bedrock of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). It is therefore critical that we see mining in the overall context of Zambia’s successful FDI policy.
This argument is well crafted, but also patently misguided because it is based on several false premises. First, Zambia’s taxation threshold has enormous scope for increasing taxes without harming competitiveness. Zambia has one of the lowest tax regimes in the world. Prior to 2008, the effective tax rate stood at around 32%, with the LPM reforms it was intended to rise to 47%. Zambia was to tax more than Tanzania but less than resource rich nations Botswana, Mozambique and Angola. It is therefore wrong to suggest that we need to maintain the status quo to remain
competitive.
Secondly, there’s no concrete evidence that FDI is driven by lower taxes per se. Although tax competition is usually touted as the key to FDI, it is clear from literature that the key drivers of FDI tends to be political stability, cheap and diverse labour and, most importantly, prevailing global economic forces. Zambia’s mining industry is booming because the prices of commodities are high and will continue to be high for some time, aside from few fluctuations because of the long term global imbalance between demand and supply. Of equal importance is that the investors are confident of the political ambiance in the country.
Thirdly the government’s argument is structurally predicated on the idea that growth in mining must necessarily be driven by external investment – this need not be the case. Although FDI has a role to play in development, what matters is the structural transformation of the production side of the economy. To do that requires government investment in technologies and other supporting industries, which won’t happen without access to mining revenue. Indeed, without government revenue there can be no tangible and accelerated diversification.
Finally, the current low mining taxes may be attracting “wrong investors”. Many of the investors Zambia has attracted in the mining industry have been nothing short of short term vultures (the colloquial term is "infestors"), whose primary interest is to come into the country to siphon resources on the cheap and vacate premises when the going gets tough. Poorly designed incentives coupled with a poor regulatory structure continues to undermine Zambia. Slightly higher taxes can help screen out poor investors.
Argument 4: Low mining taxations encourage exploration
The Ministry of Mines has repeatedly argued that the biggest challenge for Zambia is to discover and exploit its vast mineral wealth and not rely on taxing existing mines. This requires mineral exploration which by nature is a costly and uncertain exercise. Exploration is undertaken only if there’s a strong possibility of finding something and being able to earn a return on it. Low taxation helps minimise the expected costs which incentivises greater exploration activities. Government
believes there’s significant need to incentivise investors to undertaken exploration to guarantee opening up of more copper mines, which would in turn create more employment for Zambians. This would eventually lead to greater collection of personal income tax from mining companies, with other sectors benefitting from wider catalytic impacts.
Though the argument has some merit, it suffers from three fundamental problems. First, it treats mining taxation in a generic way. It is important to distinguish the principle from the application. It is not true that any mining taxation reform would lead to lower exploration activity. Different incentive or taxation structures can be developed that would allow Zambians to benefit from current mining activities while incentivising future exploration. It not an either/or situation.
Secondly, the government’s argument is predicated on a highly uncertain future. The investments that would be incentivised, if the argument is to be believed, are those taking place from 2020 and beyond. However, given the current configuration of the mining fiscal regime, no significant revenue would begin to accrue from any such unknown investment until 2025 and beyond, as we have seen in Lumwana’s case. Simply put, this is an argument about an unknown and distant future. In the
meantime many Zambians continue to wallow in poverty.
Finally, the argument presupposes that only foreign firms can do “exploration activities”. There’s a strong case for government to assume a greater role in exploration activities to narrow the information loss between investors and government. This would also help reduce the sort of problems we have seen where Lumwana has huge uranium deposits off the back of a copper investment. More exploratory and geological exploration would put the Zambian people in the
driving seat of their resources. In sum, based on this argument alone, there’s no reason why mining taxation should be kept at current levels to attract mining investment.
Argument 5: Low mining taxation is vital for safety and better environment
The argument is that low mining taxation helps achieve the desired social effect because it prevents mining companies pushing the costs on workers and local communities. Mining safety and environmental damage would get worse if taxes were higher than at present because foreign firms would be keen to maintain their profits at all costs. Higher taxations may also affect service conditions of workers leading to a situation where we would be robbing Peter to simply pay Paul!
The government believe low mining taxation ensures that workers and local community come first!
There’s some truth in that argument. Low taxation can create positive incentives for social responsible practices by companies in general. However, this is not an argument for keeping taxes low per se. Rather it is an argument for why taxation policy must always be part of a broader strategy that takes safety and the local environment into account. Indeed such a strategy much also bring into line how any tax revenues are managed to empower local people and avoid the “Dutch disease” problem. It’s therefore simply wrong to suggest again that low taxation is necessary to achieve safety and a better environment. We can have both high tax revenue and a good environment if careful thought was given to these issues.
Indeed, the experience in Zambia is that low taxation has been accompanied by poor environmental conditions. Zambia suffers from what many have termed an “ecological debt” . Nothing illustrates this more than the shocking events of 2006. The day is November 6, 2006, women and children living on the banks of the Kafue have just been awaken by the Zambian sun. What do they see? A strange sight! The wonderful Kafue River has turned turquoise. Our precious investor Vedanta has accidentally discharged its toxic waste into it. Panic sets in Chingola, where 100,000 who draw water directly from the river are now deprived of drinking water for at least two days. In the next few weeks thousands flock for hospital check-ups after eating fish from the river. Analyses of the Kafue’s water later show that it contained 38.5mg manganese, 10mg copper and 1mg cobalt per litre:
concentrations 1.7 times, 10 times and 10.7 times higher respectively than the limits set by the World Health Organisation. With a pH of 1.5, the Kafue has become a river of acid.
A few weeks more, a Vedanta employee admits the company’s responsibility, only to be sacked on the spot. Reports abound that the company is threatening to withdraw advertising from Times of Zambia if the incident is reported. Will the editors curve in? Surprisingly not, as public pressure leads the Environmental Council of Zambia to call Vendanta to book and halt to its mining activities. The
company reluctantly pays $2.5m. Then business starts up again. The price of copper continues to rise, and with it, the pollution unabated and our people suffer quietly. An unauthorised visit by a foreign investigative reporter two years or so later to the massive Vedanta site during the rainy season revealed a vision from Dante’s Inferno: 3km from the mines, the pollution control dam was overflowing, spewing copper-coloured water, reeking of acid, into a tributary of the Kafue.
The stories are endless and Vendata is not alone. In January 2008 acid waste from Chingola’s mines reached the ground water at Mufulira, around 40km away. More than 800 people in the township adjoining the Mopani Copper Mines (MCM) complained of diarrhoea, abdominal pain and vomiting. The mine is co-owned by the Swiss group Glencore and the Canadian company First Quantum Minerals (FQM), and the joint venture was set up with the help of the European Investment Bank.
Mufulira’s mining townships for years have borne the full brunt of the environmental damage. Kankoyo, home to 30,000 people, is an eye sore on an otherwise fertile and verdant landscape. Only two things grow in Kankoyo: avocado trees and cactus. In exchange for this damage the economic input consist of open sewers, dilapidated shacks with tin roofs corroded by acid rain, abandoned pharmacies, and grocers’ shops with broken windows. That is the legacy of the mining companies. When the mines eventually close, is this all they'll leave behind? Our people living in mining communities are humble and peaceful people. Their only crime is that the creator has endowed them with a precious gift - the minerals below their feet. It cannot be
denied that they do not enjoy these precious gifts and continue to pay a huge price. It is a situation which would never be allowed in any society that values its citizens.
Argument 6: The “certainty principle” favours the status quo
The government has often postulated that the long-term outlook for copper mining in Zambia is still very uncertain following the period of government led ownership prior to liberalisation. Investors do not have sufficient confidence that the Zambian state is committed towards an open investment policy. Maintaining an existing low taxation system is therefore vital to inspire confidence. It is therefore argued that that what Zambia needs most is certainty and stability which fosters long term
investment rather than higher revenues today. Many who hold this position believe that Zambia can come back to this issue in 2015 or beyond. Moreover, Zambia must learn from successful resource economies like Chile, Australia and Canada who don’t arbitrary change their mining taxation regimes
But does this argument for low taxation stand up to scrutiny? The need for certainty is certainly valid, but it misses the more fundamental question – what drives certainty? Certainty is derived from ensuring that you have a mining settlement that has the full buy-in of all Zambians. Otherwise, every government that comes along will constantly alter its mining policies. This calls for a Zambian
solution, not an MMD or PF or UPND solution. The approach to mining policy must therefore be necessarily consultative and transparent. It is not just about the level of taxation but "how" you get these stable mining policies. The mining companies need to realize it’s in their long term interests to push for transparency - deals made under the table are not sustainable. The approach should be consultative and transparent. These are the foundation of “rule of law”. At present there’s no rule of law in this area because government continues to act without peoples’ consent. It should also be noted that the idea that other countries are not changing their taxation regimes is blatantly wrong as set out previously on Zambian Economist.
Argument 7: Zambia is already benefiting through employment
Investment in Zambia has grown significantly, with over $5bn invested in the mines in recent years, with more in the pipeline. For some in government this could not have been achieved without the current fiscal regime. Indeed, the government argues, it is beyond doubt that the reason Lumwana investment occurred after being dormant for many years was due to the favourable regimes. These
investments have in turn led to substantial job creation. In short, although Zambia gets little revenue from mining taxes it is apparently benefiting significantly from new jobs. No one has expressed this more forcefully than President Banda when he noted, "there is little point in taking in a few million dollars in tax if thousands of jobs are lost as a result”. He has even gone as far to suggest that employment rose from 22,000 jobs in 2000 to 48,000 jobs in 2009 in the mining sector because of
new investments. From the Banda administration perspective, any appraisal of Zambia's mining policies must account for the allegedly huge benefits she receives from what is seen as an extraordinary ramp up in job creation. The argument as formulated above is misleading because it is built on wrong presupposition. It is certainly true that FDI has increased, but the question is why? The answer is that it is the broader issues related to political stability, cheap / diverse labour and, most importantly, prevailing global economic forces. But more worrying is the “employment argument” itself for several reasons. First, the counter-factual used in the government’s case is all wrong. The so called jobs created by the MMD government of the last two decades are essentially the jobs they destroyed through the disastrous privatisation project of the early 1990s. Secondly, even if we accepted jobs have been created, the question is have workers benefited? The quality of these jobs has been largely poor, as
demonstrated by the tragic loss of lives in Chambishi incident. The safety record of Zambia’s new masters is certainly appalling, especially for Chinese firms.
A large contributor to the poor safety environment is casualisation - the situation in which a dual labour market develops: a core of permanent workers with a periphery of workers on fixed - term contracts, or contracted as self-employed individuals. Casualisation diminishes safety in two ways. First, it provides the employer the incentive to undertake dangerous and reckless mining activities
because the contracted labour is not fully tied to the mining company. The expected cost to the employer when something goes wrong is therefore diminished. With a large pool of unemployed labour in Zambia, casualisation has found a natural home in mining companies. Secondly, casual labour by its nature is less tied to the firm and therefore has minimal incentive to undertake mining activities that are safe for all employees in the long term. The most common accident in the mines is
"rock fall". These usually happens by casual labourers going mad developing [digging new seams] and leaving people exposed without support in roof sheets. Most of the development work in mining is done by casual labourers.
Casualisation has also led to poor wages. This has occurred through two complementary routes. The opportunity to have casual workers has provided an incentive to mining companies to get rid of contracted workers and hire casual employees. This has often led to reduction in contracted workers and reduced their bargaining power. Mining union power is being eroded as casualisation amplifies -
the wages of contracted workers have therefore remained stagnant. The other impact is that casualisation has reduced the opportunities for long term contracted work. The overall result is that the quality of employment from additional mining investment is generally poor.
Causal workers have no long term pension benefits to speak of. This is clearly a concern because as we have noted many of these casual workers tend to be ex-miners. Without long term pension security there's no transfer of wealth across generations and many people become again dependent on the state. The modern day mining worker is a casual worker living and working for today to support his family, but no security for tomorrow.
The “new jobs” also comes with poor labour rights. This is particularly pertinent for many employees of Chinese mining companies who are known to have been denied union rights. Their conditions are probably worse than for those working for Canadian, Swiss or South African multinationals.
These issues undermine the argument for low taxation in exchange for new jobs. When the issue of jobs is raised, Zambians must surely ask - of what quality? Our mining workers can now be added to the list of losers from the current mining policy, alongside mining communities and the country as a whole.
Argument 8: Low taxation is okay because we have corporate social responsibility!
In recent times the argument for low taxation has been buttressed by the social
responsibility (CSR) argument. Government has recently pointed to the “social projects” by First Quantum Minerals, Konkola Copper Mines and Lumwana.
The government believes these initiatives would not progress without lower mining taxation. Unfortunately, though CSR is a positive undertaking it is at best a distortionary second best scenario.The ideal scenario is that government should tax mineral resources sufficiently in a way that profits local people and does not impact negatively on the environment and safety of workers. The government is currently not pursuing the ideal and therefore its efforts should be directed at ensuring it does. The more serious problem with the argument is that it ignores the real menace of CSR. Such initiatives, though spun as “social projects” are essentially "bribes" to keep local people quiet. Firms do not engage in "social responsibility", they practice "shareholder responsibility". The projects flouted by mining companies should therefore be rightly seen as a small price that mining companies pay local people in Ndola and Solwezi lest they become agitated at the lack of development in the area and demand the Government to do more to tax the mine (which would be
bad news for the shareholders).
The other problem is that the impact of CSR has been pitiful. We have seen throughout that many mining communities are simply not benefiting from the status quo and its “corporate responsibility”. In fact the situation is even worse. The people are not just neutral to the existence of the mines in their areas. Local mining communities are currently suffering because of the mines. Or to put it even
more starkly - mines are doing more harm than good to our local communities. This becomes evident when we address the basic economic question: does the benefit of new mining activities to local communities, as currently delivered, outweigh the costs?
The other problem is that the impact of CSR has been pitiful. We have seen throughout that many mining communities are simply not benefiting from the status quo and its “corporate responsibility”.
In fact the situation is even worse. The people are not just neutral to the existence of the mines in their areas. Local mining communities are currently suffering because of the mines. Or to put it even more starkly - mines are doing more harm than good to our local communities. This becomes evident when we address the basic economic question: does the benefit of new mining activities to local communities, as currently delivered, outweigh the costs?
The most obvious benefit that any mining investor can give local communities is local tax revenues. These taxes can either be compensatory or predicated on local “exogenous rights” (i.e. taxes that recognise the pre-eminence of local rights with respect to the mining resource in question). Mining companies’ contribution through local taxes is essential for Zambia because it represents the only legislated benefits to local people. Unlike in developed countries, Zambian local councils have no
alternative value capture mechanisms and their power remains stunted in terms of engaging investors for local benefit. Local taxes are the only way local people capture development benefits from mining in a legally enforceable way.
At present local tax revenues are essentially negligible. There is currently no automatic mechanism for diverting resource revenues to the ground, which has meant many mining communities do not see direct benefits of new local investments. Figures released under the EITI process show that in many cases less than 2% taxes by mining companies are local - assuming all of it goes to the local
people. The current injustice has not been lost on many parliamentarians who continue to call for a better settlement through the establishment of mining communities development funds (MCDFs). Some warn that should government fail to establish MCDFs, people living in mining communities would have no option but to start agitating for it.
Normally the problem of poor local taxation would not be a significant problem if local communities are in some way integrated in the local economic system with the mines. The usual way of doing this is through the activities of the mines having sufficient linkages to local business. The reality is directly the opposite, a fact which has forced the government in recent years to initiate its own policies of empowerment.
The benefits of having local mines in the areas have not accruing to local economies because many mining companies simply feed suppliers, manufacturers and markets outside the country. The many local suppliers that used to exist prior to the privatisation process of the early 1990s have all but withered away. This is partly due to the fact that foreign companies come with their own supply
chains. Undoubtedly the larger problem is that local companies are currently unable to compete on quality and price with foreign suppliers. This can only be remedied by significant input from government to provide a system of incentives and resources that would tilt the balance. A proper starting point is development of a robust industrial policy designed to support local suppliers and to build a local manufacturing base processing copper
No industrial policy has emerged as yet, but there have been some promising signs of government taking proactive steps which a future visionary approach may build on. The move by LPM to increase tax on copper concentrates has helped incentivise mining companies to provide more smelting facilities, though the energy deficit has been a drawback. The LPM era also saw the emergence of the export led model spearheaded by the rise of Multi Facility Economic Zones (MFEZs) which is theoretically designed to allow local mining communities to benefit from additional investments. That remains to be seen and many unanswered questions persists on the general policy around MFEZs which go beyond this current essay. What is clear is that not enough has been done to directly empowerment local communities per se. It is therefore difficult to argue that local mining communities benefitting from mining activities or CSR.
www.zambian-economist.com
The sustained resurgence in mineral prices has heightened the debate around mining taxation policy in Zambia. The clear public demand for a new mining policy has unfortunately been met by a government eager to encourage mining revenue flow into foreign bank accounts, rather than in the pockets of our people barely surviving on less than $1 a day. Unfortunately, the genuine anger by many people with the status quo has sadly not been accompanied by a strong intellectual platform to allow ordinary citizens make the case for change. Instead of offering leadership, the “Zambian intelligentsia” continue to allow government to dictate the debate with intellectually inept arguments for the status quo.
There has been no coherent vision of what people really want the mining industry as whole to achieve. It is particularly noticeable that most of the arguments have tended to begin and stop with the call for the restoration of the “windfall tax”. This higher revenue only approach has led to glaring confusion and a general lack of clarity on what the big questions are regarding mineral development in Zambia. There’s no vision of what mining should be delivering and how this sits with the economy as a whole. Where such a “vision” has been touted, it is usually been done by misguided political cadres through the government run press, occasionally supported by foreign interests. This has left our people not only deprived of what is rightly due to them, but also ignorant of how we should
move forward. Eliminating this confusion necessarily demands a clear debunking of the government false arguments for low mining taxation. We must first restate why Zambia finds itself in this bleak position and then cumulatively deconstruct the pro-mining companies’ stance of the current government. With the platform laid, it is then feasible to offer a bold and uniquely Zambian framework on how a new administration can ensure that mining plays a full role in the economic
emancipation of our people.
A People Betrayed
In January 2008 President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa (LPM) announced that Zambia was breaking the huge milestones hung around her neck by the Chiluba administration. Mining Development Agreements (DAs) was going to be abolished and replaced by a new fiscal regime. Following advice from expensively hired foreign consultants, LPM agreed with general opinion that “Zambia’s mining
fiscal regime to investors and provides the lowest revenues to the government”, than the next lowest country in the world. Zambia was going to take unilateral action to cancel the DAs and put in place a much fairer mining taxation system.
What preceded that decision was a round of high profile international campaign which stressed the injustice of the existing fiscal regime, principally led by Christian Aid and other NGOs. These organisations published significant reports that forcefully highlighted the scandal to the world. Soon, the IMF and World Bank were forced to join the change camp, concluding emphatically: “[we] commend the Government for taking steps to reform the fiscal regime of the mining sector while preserving Zambia as a competitive, credible, and attractive investment destination, but advocate the inclusion of an additional revenue-sharing mechanism that would capture a higher share of mineral rents for government during period of abnormally high international prices for minerals. Such a device is currently not part of the proposed reforms”. The message was simple: the international community was not ready to sustain significant aid payments when Zambia was pandering to foreign companies and failing to utilise resources at its disposal.
It looked like the tide had turned. The NGOs had won the debate largely through high quality reports, workshops and internet lobbying. It should never be forgotten that the push for a fairer share was a fight fought on our behalf by NGOs whose primary aim was the pursuit of justice, fairness and defence of the poor. Without the support of these NGOs nothing would have changed. With their support LPM was embolden and the reforms became irreversible, for a season.Under the LPM changes the corporate tax rate for mines was set at 30%, mining royalties on base metals at 3% of gross value (up from 0.6% in most DAs), and withholding tax on interest, royalties, management fees and payments to affiliates or subcontractors in the mining sector were set at a rate of 15%. While many of these measures, especially the increase of royalties had largely been anticipated, the introduction of a windfall tax on base metal revenues and the profit variable tax –took the mining companies by surprise. The windfall tax was to be triggered at different price levels for different base metals. For copper, a price between US$ 2.50 – US$ 3.00/lb attracted a windfall tax of 25%; between US$ 3.00 and 3.50, 50%, and 75% for prices above US$ 3.50/lb. At the time of the changes, copper prices were around the US$ 3.60 level, sufficient to trigger the maximum windfall penalty.
The reaction of the mining companies was total uproar, threatening Zambia with legal action and other bullying tactics. LPM stood firm, but the pressure also illustrated a fundamental problem in the implementation of the new regime. In typical single mindedness that characterised LPM’s tenure, there was no public consultation. Like the DAs before it was all done behind closed doors, the only
difference is that this time the proposed reforms were in favour of the people. As good as LPM’s intention were, the lack of consultation left a gap that mining companies exploited by lobbying other people, especially opposition politicians to their cause. The other problem was the lack of clarity on how the new profit variable tax related to the new windfall tax. This confusion was later going to be
used by the mining companies to build new momentum to reverse the entire regime and exact new concessions in face of the global recession. Even as the LPM administration was forging ahead, new seeds were being sown for a future reversal.
Fast forward to November 2008. LPM has died and Rupiah Banda (RB) is the country’s fourth president. His narrow ascendancy was greeted with cheers by the mining companies and their supporters, predicting gleefully: "It appears that the onerous tax rates enacted into legislation in Zambia earlier this year are likely to be significantly watered down”. It wasn’t long before the global downturn was going to be used by RB to justify removing the windfall tax, “we must ensure that we
do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. There is little point in taking in a few million dollars in tax if thousands of jobs are lost as a result". The ministerial chairs were going to be shuffled accordingly to pave way for the changes – out went the Minister of Finance Ng'andu Magande and the Minister of Minerals Kalombo Mwansa was moved to Home Affairs.
In January 2009, the new administration reversed the LPM changes following what the UK’s Financial Times described as ‘intense lobbying’ of the government by large, foreign owned copper mines. Windfall taxation which at the time was not binding due to low commodity prices was scrapped. The government also allowed hedging income to be included as part of mining income for tax purposes. A serious setback to our people as it is relatively easy to demonstrate a loss on hedging (and move
any profits offshore), allowing companies to further minimise their tax payments. It went further and allowed companies to write off 100% of any investment against tax as depreciation in the year in which the expense occurs – well beyond the international norm. These changes were an act of betrayal of the Zambian people. Government removed a tax that was not binding at the time, but which mining companies knew soon would be a big boon for them when base metals prices resumed the expected upward trend. What was left is the standard corporate tax, a mineral royalty of 3 per cent of gross value, and a variable levy on profits.
The betrayal goes unabated. In November 2010, it was announced that following the acrimony of the new fiscal arrangements with mining companies, the government has carved a new development agreement. Mining companies were offered a new fiscal stability period as part of the deal for them to pay legally mandated tax revenues owed to the Zambian government from previous
windfall taxes. The then Finance Minister Dr Musokotwane was on hand to declare “it has been agreed that a fiscal stability for a period of ten (10 years) be given to companies that will accede to the new tax regime. The stability will apply to corporate income tax, capital tax allowance, mineral royal and profit variable tax”. This action is against the spirit of the Mines and Minerals Development Act 2008 which calls for greater parliamentary say in such arrangements. There continues much secrecy regarding new DAs and the status of existing ones (e.g. Lumwana). To many Zambians, it is bad enough that new DAs are being signed, what is shocking is that they remain secretive.Despite all these concerns, the Banda administration continues to defend its intellectually bankrupt position through employing a range of incomplete and often incoherent arguments. The cautious joy
many Zambians felt with the LPM fiscal regime has now given way to feeling of despair and anger, especially given the strong commodity prices. The strength of this anger stems from an acute recognition of the injustice of the status quo particularly in relation to all the revenue. Billions of dollars are being lost due to ineptitude and unwillingness to act decisively for the poor. It is the serious nature of this issue that we must now examine the arguments government has
advanced in an effort to woo the masses. A closer examination reveals a series of broken arguments for the current fiscal regime that do not appear to hold water under serious scrutiny.
Broken Arguments
Argument 1: Zambia is earning enough tax revenue from its mineral wealth
The government’s most utilised argument, which is also implicit in its current posture, is that Zambia earns enough from its mineral wealth, consequently there’s no need to increase mineral taxation. In that vein the latest MMD manifesto does not propose to increase any mining taxation because it is content with the status quo. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. Zambia’s level of mining revenue collected under existing obligations is pitiful. In 2009, Zambia earned only a paltry $50m in mining royalty revenue with the figure rising to around $270m when non-mining taxation such as company taxes and PAYE are included. $50m is peanuts compared to the $5bn earned by the industry that year. This low revenues stand in sharp contrasts to experiences from comparable resource nations. Botswana’s Debswana model of 50% government ownership in diamond mines is well known. An even better example that puts Zambia to shame is a neighbour recovering from a prolonged civil war.The rapid development of diamond mining activities in Angola has been heavily trailed in the last few years, but what is not often reported is the remarkable difference between its non-oil mineral framework and Zambia’s, which is allowing the Luanda government significant revenues. Typically, a diamond mining company in Angola has to take on a large number of associated Angolan personnel at the exploration stage; thereafter the developer is expected to fund 100% of the capital expenditure although owning only around 40% of the mine. The rest of the equity is held by the Angolan government through Endiama and by nominated private Angolan investors all of whom are
entitled to a “free carry.” Once completed, the developer has priority over revenues until the capex outlay is recovered but may still get only about 80% of the initial revenues because of profit share agreements with the Angolans. It is therefore no surprise that Angola is benefiting greatly and growing at a faster pace than Zambia. These resources are paving the way for significant investment
in infrastructure.
Zambia’s situation is even bleaker for non-copper industries, where we continue to lose substantial revenue. For example, Zambia has the world’s second largest emerald deposit in the world (after Colombia) and also boasts of Africa’s biggest amethyst and aquamarine fields. But one wouldn't know this from looking at the government coffers and the economic plight of our people. Zambia
gets very little from this enormous wealth. At the heart of this problem is that the industry remains unregulated and without any element of state production. Zambia’s current policy of simply providing licenses without regulation has led to emergency of foreign dominated emerald cartels. Ordinary Zambians have failed to get a foothold in the industry because it is simply cheaper and more immediately rewarding for many Zambians to allow foreign production (by charging the "fee")
rather than develop the mine themselves. To successfully develop these mines not only do you need credit, but also access to established supply chains. The foreign investor has all these things in abundance and crucially they are able to harness the economies of scale that are associated with pooling licences together. Bizarrely the more attractive gemstone becomes the more foreign investors push out the locals! Unfortunately for Zambia these foreign operators keep their revenues abroad. The gemstone industry (estimate over billions of dollars) is a classic example of wealth lost from Zambia. The same desperate picture emerges for other lost opportunities such as manganese and uranium
It should be clear from the above discussion that the failure to collect sufficient revenue is largely a political issue. A failure by the current administration to seek a better return for their people. However, it should be noted that even when Zambia has taken steps to earn more revenue, it has been impended by other additional factors. Three are particularly worth noting.
First, the refusal by mining companies to comply with their tax obligations under Zambian law. There have been many instances of mining companies refusing to pay taxes even where ZRA has correctly identified their obligations. In 2008, Zambia earned over $3bn from copper exports, but of the $421m that should have made its way into our Treasury, only $200m was actually collected. Secondly, the inability of ZRA to overcome asymmetric information problems. Mining companies are more knowledgeable than ZRA on the exact nature of the mining costs. Although in theory Zambia should be benefiting from a profit based system, it is unable to do so because profit based systems are difficult to implement. Multinational corporations prefer profit based taxes because it enables them to hide their profits through inflated costs and other things. This is why the mining companies successfully lobbied for the removal of the windfall tax. They knew they'll pay very little. Simpler taxation mechanisms are key to improving collection and it is now commonly understood that where information is incomplete and the political economy challenging, such systems are better than profit based taxes.
Third, many mining companies have erected sophisticated mechanisms of tax avoidance by channelling their profits through offshore companies. In recent times we have seen Glencore sanctioned by the EU for Mopani’s suspected tax evasion activities in Zambia. This is effectively
robbing a beggar.
Argument 2: ZCCM-IH is cashing in on the non-tax revenue
When confronted with the full evidence of paltry mining tax revenues dripping in the treasury the government’s repertoire is that ZCCM-Investment Holdings (ZCCM-IH) generates sufficient non-tax benefits. The argument is that it is entirely disingenuous to claim that Zambia does not benefit from mining because the Zambian state also owns these mining companies through ZCCM-IH shareholding. ZCCM –IH owns 20% plus shares in joint venture with foreign mining corporations e.g. FQM’s Kansanshi and Vendata’s Konkola Copper Mine. As transnational companies soar in their mining profits ZCCM-IH gains substantial windfall and so does the Zambian people. In other words, a "them versus us" approach, the government argues, does not t reflect reality on the ground, where ZCCM - IH is a big player with assets over $1bn. The current low mining taxation is allegedly intended to benefit ZCCM-IH. Some have even gone as far as to praise the recent “huge dividends” of around $18m by KCM to the Zambian people as proof.
What are we to make of this? It is certainly true that ZCCM-IH has interests in many of these companies, but it hardly possesses a “controlling interest” stake in any of the key joint investments. More worryingly it has been clear for a while that ZCCM –IH has not been receiving meaningful dividends from its jointly owned projects. To suffering Zambians, $18m hardly qualifies as "huge"
when in 2010 alone, the mineral industry made over $8bn in revenue. Indeed it is well understood that government has considered in the past converting financial liabilities into equity, in order to raise its stake in the copper mines. That the government recognised this possibility is a clear testament that the ZCCM-IH model is not working.
What rightly concern many people is that ZCCM - IH is not "empowering" ordinary Zambians. If ZCCM-IH was owned by ordinary Zambians rather than government a potential argument can be constructed that some money would eventually filter back to ordinary Zambians. ZCCM-IH is currently listed in Lusaka (alongside London, and Euronext Stock Exchanges), with the government owning 87.6% shareholding and the remaining 12.4% held by private equity holders largely abroad. Unfortunately the whole venture is not very transparent! According to foreign private equity holders the company went for many years without publishing a single financial report. Its inventories are also not formalised, which is quite remarkable for a listed company. It is hardly the sort of company one wants to appeal to as the reason for keeping mining taxation low.
Argument 3: Low mining taxes encourage Zambia’s competitiveness
It is sometimes argued by government, and effectively by mining companies in 2009 that low mining taxes are vital especially that other countries continue to keep their taxes low. The government believes at the heart of the mining revival is ensuring that taxes are kept as low as possible, a policy which has led to over billions being invested annually in the industry. Mongolia is often cited as an example of a country which imposed higher mining taxes only to find itself in a quagmire with investment drying up. Low taxation is the bedrock of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). It is therefore critical that we see mining in the overall context of Zambia’s successful FDI policy.
This argument is well crafted, but also patently misguided because it is based on several false premises. First, Zambia’s taxation threshold has enormous scope for increasing taxes without harming competitiveness. Zambia has one of the lowest tax regimes in the world. Prior to 2008, the effective tax rate stood at around 32%, with the LPM reforms it was intended to rise to 47%. Zambia was to tax more than Tanzania but less than resource rich nations Botswana, Mozambique and Angola. It is therefore wrong to suggest that we need to maintain the status quo to remain
competitive.
Secondly, there’s no concrete evidence that FDI is driven by lower taxes per se. Although tax competition is usually touted as the key to FDI, it is clear from literature that the key drivers of FDI tends to be political stability, cheap and diverse labour and, most importantly, prevailing global economic forces. Zambia’s mining industry is booming because the prices of commodities are high and will continue to be high for some time, aside from few fluctuations because of the long term global imbalance between demand and supply. Of equal importance is that the investors are confident of the political ambiance in the country.
Thirdly the government’s argument is structurally predicated on the idea that growth in mining must necessarily be driven by external investment – this need not be the case. Although FDI has a role to play in development, what matters is the structural transformation of the production side of the economy. To do that requires government investment in technologies and other supporting industries, which won’t happen without access to mining revenue. Indeed, without government revenue there can be no tangible and accelerated diversification.
Finally, the current low mining taxes may be attracting “wrong investors”. Many of the investors Zambia has attracted in the mining industry have been nothing short of short term vultures (the colloquial term is "infestors"), whose primary interest is to come into the country to siphon resources on the cheap and vacate premises when the going gets tough. Poorly designed incentives coupled with a poor regulatory structure continues to undermine Zambia. Slightly higher taxes can help screen out poor investors.
Argument 4: Low mining taxations encourage exploration
The Ministry of Mines has repeatedly argued that the biggest challenge for Zambia is to discover and exploit its vast mineral wealth and not rely on taxing existing mines. This requires mineral exploration which by nature is a costly and uncertain exercise. Exploration is undertaken only if there’s a strong possibility of finding something and being able to earn a return on it. Low taxation helps minimise the expected costs which incentivises greater exploration activities. Government
believes there’s significant need to incentivise investors to undertaken exploration to guarantee opening up of more copper mines, which would in turn create more employment for Zambians. This would eventually lead to greater collection of personal income tax from mining companies, with other sectors benefitting from wider catalytic impacts.
Though the argument has some merit, it suffers from three fundamental problems. First, it treats mining taxation in a generic way. It is important to distinguish the principle from the application. It is not true that any mining taxation reform would lead to lower exploration activity. Different incentive or taxation structures can be developed that would allow Zambians to benefit from current mining activities while incentivising future exploration. It not an either/or situation.
Secondly, the government’s argument is predicated on a highly uncertain future. The investments that would be incentivised, if the argument is to be believed, are those taking place from 2020 and beyond. However, given the current configuration of the mining fiscal regime, no significant revenue would begin to accrue from any such unknown investment until 2025 and beyond, as we have seen in Lumwana’s case. Simply put, this is an argument about an unknown and distant future. In the
meantime many Zambians continue to wallow in poverty.
Finally, the argument presupposes that only foreign firms can do “exploration activities”. There’s a strong case for government to assume a greater role in exploration activities to narrow the information loss between investors and government. This would also help reduce the sort of problems we have seen where Lumwana has huge uranium deposits off the back of a copper investment. More exploratory and geological exploration would put the Zambian people in the
driving seat of their resources. In sum, based on this argument alone, there’s no reason why mining taxation should be kept at current levels to attract mining investment.
Argument 5: Low mining taxation is vital for safety and better environment
The argument is that low mining taxation helps achieve the desired social effect because it prevents mining companies pushing the costs on workers and local communities. Mining safety and environmental damage would get worse if taxes were higher than at present because foreign firms would be keen to maintain their profits at all costs. Higher taxations may also affect service conditions of workers leading to a situation where we would be robbing Peter to simply pay Paul!
The government believe low mining taxation ensures that workers and local community come first!
There’s some truth in that argument. Low taxation can create positive incentives for social responsible practices by companies in general. However, this is not an argument for keeping taxes low per se. Rather it is an argument for why taxation policy must always be part of a broader strategy that takes safety and the local environment into account. Indeed such a strategy much also bring into line how any tax revenues are managed to empower local people and avoid the “Dutch disease” problem. It’s therefore simply wrong to suggest again that low taxation is necessary to achieve safety and a better environment. We can have both high tax revenue and a good environment if careful thought was given to these issues.
Indeed, the experience in Zambia is that low taxation has been accompanied by poor environmental conditions. Zambia suffers from what many have termed an “ecological debt” . Nothing illustrates this more than the shocking events of 2006. The day is November 6, 2006, women and children living on the banks of the Kafue have just been awaken by the Zambian sun. What do they see? A strange sight! The wonderful Kafue River has turned turquoise. Our precious investor Vedanta has accidentally discharged its toxic waste into it. Panic sets in Chingola, where 100,000 who draw water directly from the river are now deprived of drinking water for at least two days. In the next few weeks thousands flock for hospital check-ups after eating fish from the river. Analyses of the Kafue’s water later show that it contained 38.5mg manganese, 10mg copper and 1mg cobalt per litre:
concentrations 1.7 times, 10 times and 10.7 times higher respectively than the limits set by the World Health Organisation. With a pH of 1.5, the Kafue has become a river of acid.
A few weeks more, a Vedanta employee admits the company’s responsibility, only to be sacked on the spot. Reports abound that the company is threatening to withdraw advertising from Times of Zambia if the incident is reported. Will the editors curve in? Surprisingly not, as public pressure leads the Environmental Council of Zambia to call Vendanta to book and halt to its mining activities. The
company reluctantly pays $2.5m. Then business starts up again. The price of copper continues to rise, and with it, the pollution unabated and our people suffer quietly. An unauthorised visit by a foreign investigative reporter two years or so later to the massive Vedanta site during the rainy season revealed a vision from Dante’s Inferno: 3km from the mines, the pollution control dam was overflowing, spewing copper-coloured water, reeking of acid, into a tributary of the Kafue.
The stories are endless and Vendata is not alone. In January 2008 acid waste from Chingola’s mines reached the ground water at Mufulira, around 40km away. More than 800 people in the township adjoining the Mopani Copper Mines (MCM) complained of diarrhoea, abdominal pain and vomiting. The mine is co-owned by the Swiss group Glencore and the Canadian company First Quantum Minerals (FQM), and the joint venture was set up with the help of the European Investment Bank.
Mufulira’s mining townships for years have borne the full brunt of the environmental damage. Kankoyo, home to 30,000 people, is an eye sore on an otherwise fertile and verdant landscape. Only two things grow in Kankoyo: avocado trees and cactus. In exchange for this damage the economic input consist of open sewers, dilapidated shacks with tin roofs corroded by acid rain, abandoned pharmacies, and grocers’ shops with broken windows. That is the legacy of the mining companies. When the mines eventually close, is this all they'll leave behind? Our people living in mining communities are humble and peaceful people. Their only crime is that the creator has endowed them with a precious gift - the minerals below their feet. It cannot be
denied that they do not enjoy these precious gifts and continue to pay a huge price. It is a situation which would never be allowed in any society that values its citizens.
Argument 6: The “certainty principle” favours the status quo
The government has often postulated that the long-term outlook for copper mining in Zambia is still very uncertain following the period of government led ownership prior to liberalisation. Investors do not have sufficient confidence that the Zambian state is committed towards an open investment policy. Maintaining an existing low taxation system is therefore vital to inspire confidence. It is therefore argued that that what Zambia needs most is certainty and stability which fosters long term
investment rather than higher revenues today. Many who hold this position believe that Zambia can come back to this issue in 2015 or beyond. Moreover, Zambia must learn from successful resource economies like Chile, Australia and Canada who don’t arbitrary change their mining taxation regimes
But does this argument for low taxation stand up to scrutiny? The need for certainty is certainly valid, but it misses the more fundamental question – what drives certainty? Certainty is derived from ensuring that you have a mining settlement that has the full buy-in of all Zambians. Otherwise, every government that comes along will constantly alter its mining policies. This calls for a Zambian
solution, not an MMD or PF or UPND solution. The approach to mining policy must therefore be necessarily consultative and transparent. It is not just about the level of taxation but "how" you get these stable mining policies. The mining companies need to realize it’s in their long term interests to push for transparency - deals made under the table are not sustainable. The approach should be consultative and transparent. These are the foundation of “rule of law”. At present there’s no rule of law in this area because government continues to act without peoples’ consent. It should also be noted that the idea that other countries are not changing their taxation regimes is blatantly wrong as set out previously on Zambian Economist.
Argument 7: Zambia is already benefiting through employment
Investment in Zambia has grown significantly, with over $5bn invested in the mines in recent years, with more in the pipeline. For some in government this could not have been achieved without the current fiscal regime. Indeed, the government argues, it is beyond doubt that the reason Lumwana investment occurred after being dormant for many years was due to the favourable regimes. These
investments have in turn led to substantial job creation. In short, although Zambia gets little revenue from mining taxes it is apparently benefiting significantly from new jobs. No one has expressed this more forcefully than President Banda when he noted, "there is little point in taking in a few million dollars in tax if thousands of jobs are lost as a result”. He has even gone as far to suggest that employment rose from 22,000 jobs in 2000 to 48,000 jobs in 2009 in the mining sector because of
new investments. From the Banda administration perspective, any appraisal of Zambia's mining policies must account for the allegedly huge benefits she receives from what is seen as an extraordinary ramp up in job creation. The argument as formulated above is misleading because it is built on wrong presupposition. It is certainly true that FDI has increased, but the question is why? The answer is that it is the broader issues related to political stability, cheap / diverse labour and, most importantly, prevailing global economic forces. But more worrying is the “employment argument” itself for several reasons. First, the counter-factual used in the government’s case is all wrong. The so called jobs created by the MMD government of the last two decades are essentially the jobs they destroyed through the disastrous privatisation project of the early 1990s. Secondly, even if we accepted jobs have been created, the question is have workers benefited? The quality of these jobs has been largely poor, as
demonstrated by the tragic loss of lives in Chambishi incident. The safety record of Zambia’s new masters is certainly appalling, especially for Chinese firms.
A large contributor to the poor safety environment is casualisation - the situation in which a dual labour market develops: a core of permanent workers with a periphery of workers on fixed - term contracts, or contracted as self-employed individuals. Casualisation diminishes safety in two ways. First, it provides the employer the incentive to undertake dangerous and reckless mining activities
because the contracted labour is not fully tied to the mining company. The expected cost to the employer when something goes wrong is therefore diminished. With a large pool of unemployed labour in Zambia, casualisation has found a natural home in mining companies. Secondly, casual labour by its nature is less tied to the firm and therefore has minimal incentive to undertake mining activities that are safe for all employees in the long term. The most common accident in the mines is
"rock fall". These usually happens by casual labourers going mad developing [digging new seams] and leaving people exposed without support in roof sheets. Most of the development work in mining is done by casual labourers.
Casualisation has also led to poor wages. This has occurred through two complementary routes. The opportunity to have casual workers has provided an incentive to mining companies to get rid of contracted workers and hire casual employees. This has often led to reduction in contracted workers and reduced their bargaining power. Mining union power is being eroded as casualisation amplifies -
the wages of contracted workers have therefore remained stagnant. The other impact is that casualisation has reduced the opportunities for long term contracted work. The overall result is that the quality of employment from additional mining investment is generally poor.
Causal workers have no long term pension benefits to speak of. This is clearly a concern because as we have noted many of these casual workers tend to be ex-miners. Without long term pension security there's no transfer of wealth across generations and many people become again dependent on the state. The modern day mining worker is a casual worker living and working for today to support his family, but no security for tomorrow.
The “new jobs” also comes with poor labour rights. This is particularly pertinent for many employees of Chinese mining companies who are known to have been denied union rights. Their conditions are probably worse than for those working for Canadian, Swiss or South African multinationals.
These issues undermine the argument for low taxation in exchange for new jobs. When the issue of jobs is raised, Zambians must surely ask - of what quality? Our mining workers can now be added to the list of losers from the current mining policy, alongside mining communities and the country as a whole.
Argument 8: Low taxation is okay because we have corporate social responsibility!
In recent times the argument for low taxation has been buttressed by the social
responsibility (CSR) argument. Government has recently pointed to the “social projects” by First Quantum Minerals, Konkola Copper Mines and Lumwana.
The government believes these initiatives would not progress without lower mining taxation. Unfortunately, though CSR is a positive undertaking it is at best a distortionary second best scenario.The ideal scenario is that government should tax mineral resources sufficiently in a way that profits local people and does not impact negatively on the environment and safety of workers. The government is currently not pursuing the ideal and therefore its efforts should be directed at ensuring it does. The more serious problem with the argument is that it ignores the real menace of CSR. Such initiatives, though spun as “social projects” are essentially "bribes" to keep local people quiet. Firms do not engage in "social responsibility", they practice "shareholder responsibility". The projects flouted by mining companies should therefore be rightly seen as a small price that mining companies pay local people in Ndola and Solwezi lest they become agitated at the lack of development in the area and demand the Government to do more to tax the mine (which would be
bad news for the shareholders).
The other problem is that the impact of CSR has been pitiful. We have seen throughout that many mining communities are simply not benefiting from the status quo and its “corporate responsibility”. In fact the situation is even worse. The people are not just neutral to the existence of the mines in their areas. Local mining communities are currently suffering because of the mines. Or to put it even
more starkly - mines are doing more harm than good to our local communities. This becomes evident when we address the basic economic question: does the benefit of new mining activities to local communities, as currently delivered, outweigh the costs?
The other problem is that the impact of CSR has been pitiful. We have seen throughout that many mining communities are simply not benefiting from the status quo and its “corporate responsibility”.
In fact the situation is even worse. The people are not just neutral to the existence of the mines in their areas. Local mining communities are currently suffering because of the mines. Or to put it even more starkly - mines are doing more harm than good to our local communities. This becomes evident when we address the basic economic question: does the benefit of new mining activities to local communities, as currently delivered, outweigh the costs?
The most obvious benefit that any mining investor can give local communities is local tax revenues. These taxes can either be compensatory or predicated on local “exogenous rights” (i.e. taxes that recognise the pre-eminence of local rights with respect to the mining resource in question). Mining companies’ contribution through local taxes is essential for Zambia because it represents the only legislated benefits to local people. Unlike in developed countries, Zambian local councils have no
alternative value capture mechanisms and their power remains stunted in terms of engaging investors for local benefit. Local taxes are the only way local people capture development benefits from mining in a legally enforceable way.
At present local tax revenues are essentially negligible. There is currently no automatic mechanism for diverting resource revenues to the ground, which has meant many mining communities do not see direct benefits of new local investments. Figures released under the EITI process show that in many cases less than 2% taxes by mining companies are local - assuming all of it goes to the local
people. The current injustice has not been lost on many parliamentarians who continue to call for a better settlement through the establishment of mining communities development funds (MCDFs). Some warn that should government fail to establish MCDFs, people living in mining communities would have no option but to start agitating for it.
Normally the problem of poor local taxation would not be a significant problem if local communities are in some way integrated in the local economic system with the mines. The usual way of doing this is through the activities of the mines having sufficient linkages to local business. The reality is directly the opposite, a fact which has forced the government in recent years to initiate its own policies of empowerment.
The benefits of having local mines in the areas have not accruing to local economies because many mining companies simply feed suppliers, manufacturers and markets outside the country. The many local suppliers that used to exist prior to the privatisation process of the early 1990s have all but withered away. This is partly due to the fact that foreign companies come with their own supply
chains. Undoubtedly the larger problem is that local companies are currently unable to compete on quality and price with foreign suppliers. This can only be remedied by significant input from government to provide a system of incentives and resources that would tilt the balance. A proper starting point is development of a robust industrial policy designed to support local suppliers and to build a local manufacturing base processing copper
No industrial policy has emerged as yet, but there have been some promising signs of government taking proactive steps which a future visionary approach may build on. The move by LPM to increase tax on copper concentrates has helped incentivise mining companies to provide more smelting facilities, though the energy deficit has been a drawback. The LPM era also saw the emergence of the export led model spearheaded by the rise of Multi Facility Economic Zones (MFEZs) which is theoretically designed to allow local mining communities to benefit from additional investments. That remains to be seen and many unanswered questions persists on the general policy around MFEZs which go beyond this current essay. What is clear is that not enough has been done to directly empowerment local communities per se. It is therefore difficult to argue that local mining communities benefitting from mining activities or CSR.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
How 28 poor countries escaped the poverty trap
Remember the poverty trap? Countries stuck in destitution because of weak institutions put in place by colonial overlords, or because of climates that foster disease, or geographies that limit access to global markets, or simply by the fact that poverty is overwhelmingly self-perpetuating. Apparently the trap can be escaped.
The World Bank did its annual assessment of poor countries last week. Low-income countries are those with average gross national incomes (GNIs) of less than $1,005 per person per year.
And there are only 35 of them remaining out of the countries and economies that the World Bank tracks. That's down from 63 in 2000.
New middle-income countries this year include Ghana and Zambia. Lower middle-income countries are those with per capita GNIs of between $1,006 and $3,975 per year; while upper middle-income countries are those with per capita GNIs between $3,976 and $12,275.
The remaining 35 low-income countries have a combined population of about 800 million. Tanzania, Burma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia and Bangladesh account for about half of that total, and there are about 350 million people living on under $1.25 a day in the remaining low-income countries.
So what's behind all of this sudden income growth? Is it a story about aid? One prominent Zambian, Dambisa Moyo, has written of her country that "a direct consequence of the aid-driven interventions has been a dramatic descent into poverty. Whereas prior to the 1970s, most economic indicators had been on an upward trajectory, a decade later Zambia lay in economic ruin". In the 1980s, aid to Zambia averaged about 14% of the country's GNI. In the 2000s, a decade of strong growth, the same proportion was 17%. If Zambia's ruin in the 1980s was the result of aid, is Zambia's graduation to middle-income status in the new millennium a sign that aid now works really well?
Of course both the ideas that previous stagnation was all the fault of aid, or current growth was all the result, are ridiculous. The price of copper (Zambia's major export) was depressed in the 1980s and saw its price rocket in the middle of the last decade as China and India's economies grew and demand for the metal soared.
But growth among low-income countries in Africa and elsewhere isn't just limited to big mineral exporters. And the continent is fast drawing in more investment. Foreign direct investment to Africa is projected to rise to $150bn by 2015, reports the Africa Attractiveness Survey (that's more than the total global aid budget) – and domestic resources are being mobilised at a faster rate, too, as the Commission for Africa 2010 report discussed.
Even gold and diamond-producing Ghana, which declared itself 63% richer at the end of last year than previously thought, didn't suggest the newfound riches were the result of mineral exports. Instead, the recalculation was driven by the fact the country's services sector was a lot bigger than previously calculated. Part of that will reflect the incredible success of the telecoms sector - 75% of the country's population are mobile subscribers. And, of course, the expansion of telecoms is a worldwide phenomenon. So a lot of the growth we are seeing in poor countries is broad-based, not just reliant on the current commodity boom – which is good news for the future.
Of course there's much to do to translate this growth into better and faster poverty reduction. Looking at the progress data for the millennium development goals (MDGs) for Ghana and Zambia there's nowhere near the kind of progress you would hope to see on income poverty. Twenty years of growth in Ghana has reduced the number of people living on $1.25 or less from just over 7 million to just under 7 million – and inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) rose significantly. However, in both Ghana and Zambia, the number of children in primary school has climbed along with literacy rates, and infant mortality has fallen. Even if they're not on track to meet the MDGs, quality of life is getting much better.
What shall we take from this? Three things. First, consider the good news that there are fewer poor countries around. Not least, it suggests that public and private investment (including aid) can help even the poorest countries get rich(er). This is one more reason why optimism should come back into fashion.
Second, the World Bank country classifications - which are used to help determine types and levels of support provided by many aid agencies - may need a rethink. They are based on a decades old formula, and on the idea that most poor people live in poor countries. But we know that middle-income countries now account for most of the world's population living in absolute poverty. And the data suggests these aren't just poor countries by another name - they really are better off than low-income countries, not only in terms of average income but by human development and other development indicators too. We need aid allocation models to take account of poor people and of deprivations beyond income - not just poor countries with a low GNI. And fewer poor countries and poor people in time also suggests greater aid funds for global public goods - be these for climate adaptation, vaccines or other shared global issues that will shape the next 25 years.
Third, as countries develop their own resources, fighting poverty becomes increasingly about domestic politics. Not surprisingly, this means inequality is rising up the agenda. New research shows that the emerging middle classes may have a big role to play. Who they side with - the poorest or the economic elite - will determine what kind of development emerges in the new middle income countries.
In short, even the poorest countries can get richer – and that's a good news story.
• Charles Kenny is a research fellow at the Center for Global Development and the author of Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding - And How We Can Improve the World Even More.
• Andy Sumner is a research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies and a visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development
The World Bank did its annual assessment of poor countries last week. Low-income countries are those with average gross national incomes (GNIs) of less than $1,005 per person per year.
And there are only 35 of them remaining out of the countries and economies that the World Bank tracks. That's down from 63 in 2000.
New middle-income countries this year include Ghana and Zambia. Lower middle-income countries are those with per capita GNIs of between $1,006 and $3,975 per year; while upper middle-income countries are those with per capita GNIs between $3,976 and $12,275.
The remaining 35 low-income countries have a combined population of about 800 million. Tanzania, Burma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia and Bangladesh account for about half of that total, and there are about 350 million people living on under $1.25 a day in the remaining low-income countries.
So what's behind all of this sudden income growth? Is it a story about aid? One prominent Zambian, Dambisa Moyo, has written of her country that "a direct consequence of the aid-driven interventions has been a dramatic descent into poverty. Whereas prior to the 1970s, most economic indicators had been on an upward trajectory, a decade later Zambia lay in economic ruin". In the 1980s, aid to Zambia averaged about 14% of the country's GNI. In the 2000s, a decade of strong growth, the same proportion was 17%. If Zambia's ruin in the 1980s was the result of aid, is Zambia's graduation to middle-income status in the new millennium a sign that aid now works really well?
Of course both the ideas that previous stagnation was all the fault of aid, or current growth was all the result, are ridiculous. The price of copper (Zambia's major export) was depressed in the 1980s and saw its price rocket in the middle of the last decade as China and India's economies grew and demand for the metal soared.
But growth among low-income countries in Africa and elsewhere isn't just limited to big mineral exporters. And the continent is fast drawing in more investment. Foreign direct investment to Africa is projected to rise to $150bn by 2015, reports the Africa Attractiveness Survey (that's more than the total global aid budget) – and domestic resources are being mobilised at a faster rate, too, as the Commission for Africa 2010 report discussed.
Even gold and diamond-producing Ghana, which declared itself 63% richer at the end of last year than previously thought, didn't suggest the newfound riches were the result of mineral exports. Instead, the recalculation was driven by the fact the country's services sector was a lot bigger than previously calculated. Part of that will reflect the incredible success of the telecoms sector - 75% of the country's population are mobile subscribers. And, of course, the expansion of telecoms is a worldwide phenomenon. So a lot of the growth we are seeing in poor countries is broad-based, not just reliant on the current commodity boom – which is good news for the future.
Of course there's much to do to translate this growth into better and faster poverty reduction. Looking at the progress data for the millennium development goals (MDGs) for Ghana and Zambia there's nowhere near the kind of progress you would hope to see on income poverty. Twenty years of growth in Ghana has reduced the number of people living on $1.25 or less from just over 7 million to just under 7 million – and inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) rose significantly. However, in both Ghana and Zambia, the number of children in primary school has climbed along with literacy rates, and infant mortality has fallen. Even if they're not on track to meet the MDGs, quality of life is getting much better.
What shall we take from this? Three things. First, consider the good news that there are fewer poor countries around. Not least, it suggests that public and private investment (including aid) can help even the poorest countries get rich(er). This is one more reason why optimism should come back into fashion.
Second, the World Bank country classifications - which are used to help determine types and levels of support provided by many aid agencies - may need a rethink. They are based on a decades old formula, and on the idea that most poor people live in poor countries. But we know that middle-income countries now account for most of the world's population living in absolute poverty. And the data suggests these aren't just poor countries by another name - they really are better off than low-income countries, not only in terms of average income but by human development and other development indicators too. We need aid allocation models to take account of poor people and of deprivations beyond income - not just poor countries with a low GNI. And fewer poor countries and poor people in time also suggests greater aid funds for global public goods - be these for climate adaptation, vaccines or other shared global issues that will shape the next 25 years.
Third, as countries develop their own resources, fighting poverty becomes increasingly about domestic politics. Not surprisingly, this means inequality is rising up the agenda. New research shows that the emerging middle classes may have a big role to play. Who they side with - the poorest or the economic elite - will determine what kind of development emerges in the new middle income countries.
In short, even the poorest countries can get richer – and that's a good news story.
• Charles Kenny is a research fellow at the Center for Global Development and the author of Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding - And How We Can Improve the World Even More.
• Andy Sumner is a research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies and a visiting fellow at the Center for Global Development
Saturday, July 9, 2011
SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST IN YOUR LIFE FOR 5 minutes
Look back over your life and you will probably see that some of the best words of wisdom came from people who were only in your life for a short period of time. That's the way it's supposed to be. People are placed in your life for a reason and a season. If that season is for 5 minutes or 5 years, that season will eventually end and then it will be time to move on (unless of course you get married to that person). These people are there to get you from side of the street to the other. So don't stress out over not having someone in your life for a long period of time.
-
-
THE GOOD HUSBAND
A wife arrived
home after a long shopping trip, and was horrified
to find her husband in bed with a young, lovely
thing. Just as she was about to storm out of the
house, her husband stopped her with these
...words: "Before you leave, I want you to hear how
this all came about. Driving home, I saw this
young girl, looking poor and tired, I offered her a
ride. She was hungry, so I brought her home and
fed her some of the roast you had forgotten about
in the refrigerat or. Her shoes were worn out so I
gave her a pair of your shoes you didn't wear
because they were out of style. She was cold so I
gave her that new birthday sweater you never
wore even once because the color didn't suit you.
Her slacks were worn out so I gave her a pair of
yours that you don't fit into anymore. Then as she
was about to leave the house, she paused and
asked, 'Is there anything else that your wife doesn't
use anymore?' "And so, here we are!"
home after a long shopping trip, and was horrified
to find her husband in bed with a young, lovely
thing. Just as she was about to storm out of the
house, her husband stopped her with these
...words: "Before you leave, I want you to hear how
this all came about. Driving home, I saw this
young girl, looking poor and tired, I offered her a
ride. She was hungry, so I brought her home and
fed her some of the roast you had forgotten about
in the refrigerat or. Her shoes were worn out so I
gave her a pair of your shoes you didn't wear
because they were out of style. She was cold so I
gave her that new birthday sweater you never
wore even once because the color didn't suit you.
Her slacks were worn out so I gave her a pair of
yours that you don't fit into anymore. Then as she
was about to leave the house, she paused and
asked, 'Is there anything else that your wife doesn't
use anymore?' "And so, here we are!"
Saturday, June 11, 2011
TRIBAL COUSINS
Chief Mpenzeni and Chief Chitimukulu were visiting Chief Mukuni and sat in his Insaka enjoying Chibwantu and Gankata.
After a few cups of the brew, chief Chitimukula started to brag:
Chitimukulu : My chiefdom brought you Donald Nkabika of Andrew Kurt, who gave us Mobile Toilets. We also have Kapembwa Simbao who brought you Mobile Hospitals.
Not to be out done..Chief Mpezeni interjected..
Mpezeni : Naseo tekupani a Mobile President pela..Akulu mpuno SOURCE: www.zeleaks.com
After a few cups of the brew, chief Chitimukula started to brag:
Chitimukulu : My chiefdom brought you Donald Nkabika of Andrew Kurt, who gave us Mobile Toilets. We also have Kapembwa Simbao who brought you Mobile Hospitals.
Not to be out done..Chief Mpezeni interjected..
Mpezeni : Naseo tekupani a Mobile President pela..Akulu mpuno SOURCE: www.zeleaks.com
Sunday, May 22, 2011
THE COMPUTER!!
One day, Pete complained to his friend ''My elbow really hurts. I guess I should see a doctor."
His friend said, "Don't do that. There's a computer at the drug store that can diagnose anything quicker and cheaper than a doctor.
Simply put in a sample of your urine, and the computer will diagnose your problem and tell you what you can do about and it will only cost you $10.00."
Pete figured he had nothing to lose, so he filled a jar with a urine sample and went to the drug store. Finding the computer, he poured in the sample and deposited the K50 000
The computer started making some noise and various lights started flashing. After a brief pause, out popped a small slip of paper which read:
1. You have tennis elbow. 2. Soak your arm in warm water, avoid heavy labor. 3. It will be better in two weeks.......
That evening while thinking how amazing this new technology was and how it would change medical science forever, he began to wonder if this computer could be fooled.
He decided to give it a try. He mixed together some tap water, a stool sample from his dog, and urine samples from his wife and daughter. To top it off, he masturbated into the concoction.
He went back to the drug store, located the computer, poured in the sample and deposited the K50 000. The machine again made the usual noises, flashed its alights, and printed out the following analysis:
1. Your tap water is too hard.
2. Get a water softener.
3. Your dog has ringworm.
4. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo.
5. Your daughter is using cocaine.
6. Put her in a rehabilitation clinic.
7. Your wife is pregnant ....... twin girls. They aren't yours. Get a lawyer.
8. And if you don't stop masturbating, your elbow will never get better.
His friend said, "Don't do that. There's a computer at the drug store that can diagnose anything quicker and cheaper than a doctor.
Simply put in a sample of your urine, and the computer will diagnose your problem and tell you what you can do about and it will only cost you $10.00."
Pete figured he had nothing to lose, so he filled a jar with a urine sample and went to the drug store. Finding the computer, he poured in the sample and deposited the K50 000
The computer started making some noise and various lights started flashing. After a brief pause, out popped a small slip of paper which read:
1. You have tennis elbow. 2. Soak your arm in warm water, avoid heavy labor. 3. It will be better in two weeks.......
That evening while thinking how amazing this new technology was and how it would change medical science forever, he began to wonder if this computer could be fooled.
He decided to give it a try. He mixed together some tap water, a stool sample from his dog, and urine samples from his wife and daughter. To top it off, he masturbated into the concoction.
He went back to the drug store, located the computer, poured in the sample and deposited the K50 000. The machine again made the usual noises, flashed its alights, and printed out the following analysis:
1. Your tap water is too hard.
2. Get a water softener.
3. Your dog has ringworm.
4. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo.
5. Your daughter is using cocaine.
6. Put her in a rehabilitation clinic.
7. Your wife is pregnant ....... twin girls. They aren't yours. Get a lawyer.
8. And if you don't stop masturbating, your elbow will never get better.
''COMFORTABLE'
Two sisters,one blonde and one brunette, inherit the family ranch. Unfortunately, after just a few years, they are in financial trouble. In order to keep the bank from repossessing the ranch, they need to purchase a bull so that they can breed their own stock. Upon leaving, the brunette tells her sister, "When I get there, if I decide to buy the bull, I'll contact you to drive out after me and haul it home." The brunette arrives at the man's ranch, inspects the bull, and decides she wants to buy it. The man tells her that he will sell it for $599, no less.
After buying him, she drives to the nearest town to send her sister a telegram to tell her the news. She walks into the telegraph office, and says, "I want to send a telegram to my sister telling her that I've bought a bull for our ranch. I need her to hitch the trailer to our pickup truck and drive out here so we can haul it home."
The telegraph operator explains that he'll be glad to help her, then adds, "It's just 99 cents a word."
Well, after paying for the bull, the brunette only has $1 left. She realizes that she'll only be able to send her sister one word.
After thinking for a few minutes, she nods, and says, "I want you to send her the word "comfortable". The telegraph operator shakes his head. "How is she ever going to know that you want her to hitch the trailer to your pickup truck and drive out here to haul that bull back to your ranch if you send her the word, "comfortable?'"
The brunette explains, "My sister's blonde. The word's big. She'll read it slow.
------------> COM-FOR-DA-BUL
After buying him, she drives to the nearest town to send her sister a telegram to tell her the news. She walks into the telegraph office, and says, "I want to send a telegram to my sister telling her that I've bought a bull for our ranch. I need her to hitch the trailer to our pickup truck and drive out here so we can haul it home."
The telegraph operator explains that he'll be glad to help her, then adds, "It's just 99 cents a word."
Well, after paying for the bull, the brunette only has $1 left. She realizes that she'll only be able to send her sister one word.
After thinking for a few minutes, she nods, and says, "I want you to send her the word "comfortable". The telegraph operator shakes his head. "How is she ever going to know that you want her to hitch the trailer to your pickup truck and drive out here to haul that bull back to your ranch if you send her the word, "comfortable?'"
The brunette explains, "My sister's blonde. The word's big. She'll read it slow.
------------> COM-FOR-DA-BUL
'The Tea Set'
One day my mother was out, and my dad was in charge of me.
I was maybe 2 and a half years old. Someone had given me a little 'tea set' as a gift,and it was one of my favorite toys.
Daddy was in the living room engrossed in the evening news when I brought him a little cup of 'tea', which was just water. After several cups of tea and lots of praise for such yummy tea, my mom came home.
My dad made her wait in the living room to watch me bring him a cup of tea, because it was 'just the cutest thing!' Mom waited, and sure enough, here I came down the hall with a cup of tea for Daddy; and she watched him drink it up.
Then she said, (as only a mother would know), "'Did it ever occur to you that the only place she can reach to get water, is the toilet?"
I was maybe 2 and a half years old. Someone had given me a little 'tea set' as a gift,and it was one of my favorite toys.
Daddy was in the living room engrossed in the evening news when I brought him a little cup of 'tea', which was just water. After several cups of tea and lots of praise for such yummy tea, my mom came home.
My dad made her wait in the living room to watch me bring him a cup of tea, because it was 'just the cutest thing!' Mom waited, and sure enough, here I came down the hall with a cup of tea for Daddy; and she watched him drink it up.
Then she said, (as only a mother would know), "'Did it ever occur to you that the only place she can reach to get water, is the toilet?"
DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU SUFFERED LONG ENOUGH?
After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you by the Messiah Jesus to his eternal glory, will RESTORE you, ESTABLISH you, STRENGTHEN you, and SUPPORT you. 1 Peter 5:10
-
Sometimes you get tired, very tired, but just as God knows how much you can take, He also knows what He has to do to get you back to where you need to be. That is why the scripture is so important. He says He is going to restore you. So even though you are tired, your restoration is right around the corner.
-
Sometimes you get tired, very tired, but just as God knows how much you can take, He also knows what He has to do to get you back to where you need to be. That is why the scripture is so important. He says He is going to restore you. So even though you are tired, your restoration is right around the corner.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
We serve a supernatural God!
He is not limited by anything or anyone and He’s ready to do the impossible in your life today through His supernatural power.
The word “supernatural” means different things to different people. Some people see it as make believe. Others think of dark, strange events which can cause fear and uncertainty. While many Christians believe in the “supernatural,” they believe in it for someone else.
Throughout the Bible, we find people who received a supernatural touch from God that brought healing, joy, restoration and a purpose for living. We see God supernaturally empowering people to rise above and to walk in victory.
This same supernatural power is available to you right now!
God didn’t reserve His supernatural power only for the people mentioned in the Bible or for presidents or kings. God’s constantly doing the impossible in your life. He’s so loving and wants to bless you in amazing ways. In 2 Peter 1:3, the apostle said it this way, “By His divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know Him, the one who called us to Himself by means of His marvelous glory and excellence” (NLT).
Isn’t that incredible? You don’t need to be stressed, or worried or afraid. You don’t have to wonder if you’re a “good enough” Christian to receive it. It has nothing to do with what you did or will ever do. By His divine (supernatural) power, God has given you everything you need.
Don’t trust in your strength, your skills, or your talents. Trust in God!
When we live this way — when we admit we’re not strong enough, smart enough, talented enough — we open ourselves to God’s supernatural help. You do not have to be limited by your own natural abilities any longer!
Expect God’s supernatural touch in your life. When you see it and realize how incredible it truly is, His supernatural touch will change your life.
JOEL & VICTORIA OSTEEN
He is not limited by anything or anyone and He’s ready to do the impossible in your life today through His supernatural power.
The word “supernatural” means different things to different people. Some people see it as make believe. Others think of dark, strange events which can cause fear and uncertainty. While many Christians believe in the “supernatural,” they believe in it for someone else.
Throughout the Bible, we find people who received a supernatural touch from God that brought healing, joy, restoration and a purpose for living. We see God supernaturally empowering people to rise above and to walk in victory.
This same supernatural power is available to you right now!
God didn’t reserve His supernatural power only for the people mentioned in the Bible or for presidents or kings. God’s constantly doing the impossible in your life. He’s so loving and wants to bless you in amazing ways. In 2 Peter 1:3, the apostle said it this way, “By His divine power, God has given us everything we need for living a godly life. We have received all of this by coming to know Him, the one who called us to Himself by means of His marvelous glory and excellence” (NLT).
Isn’t that incredible? You don’t need to be stressed, or worried or afraid. You don’t have to wonder if you’re a “good enough” Christian to receive it. It has nothing to do with what you did or will ever do. By His divine (supernatural) power, God has given you everything you need.
Don’t trust in your strength, your skills, or your talents. Trust in God!
When we live this way — when we admit we’re not strong enough, smart enough, talented enough — we open ourselves to God’s supernatural help. You do not have to be limited by your own natural abilities any longer!
Expect God’s supernatural touch in your life. When you see it and realize how incredible it truly is, His supernatural touch will change your life.
JOEL & VICTORIA OSTEEN
Friday, April 29, 2011
the K500 and the K50 000
A torn K50, 000 note and a similarly worn out K500 note arrived at the Bank of Zambia to be retired. As they moved along the conveyor belt to be burnt, they struck up a conversation. The K50, 000 note began to reminisce about its travels all over the country.
“I’ve had a pretty good life,” the K50, 000 proclaimed. “I’ve been to State House, Manda Hill, Garden’s cockpit, Times Cafe, Barclays Sports Complex, and Chez’ Ntemba, all manner of Cock tails, Arcades Complex, the finest restaurants and night clubs, you name it, I have been there. I have also been to the finest entertainment centers and hottest night clubs all over the country and even a cruise on the Lake Tanganyika and Siavonga.”
“Wow!” said the K500. You’ve really had an exciting life!”
“So tell me,” says the K50, 000, “where have you been throughout your lifetime?”
The K500 replies,
“Oh, I’ve been to the New Apostolic & Methodist Church, the Redeemed Christian Church, the AFM Church , the Deeper Life Bible Church , Bread of Life Church, Grace Ministries, Catholic Church, Winners’ Chapel, Miracle Life Family church, Anglican & Baptist Church, the C & S Church, CCC, ZAOGA,CMML, the Lutheran Church , Reformed Church In Zambia, Seventh Day Adventist Church, United Church of Zambia, the Evangelical Church in Zambia, Christ Embassy, Catholic Church, …”
The K50, 000 note interrupts, “What is a church?!!”
“I’ve had a pretty good life,” the K50, 000 proclaimed. “I’ve been to State House, Manda Hill, Garden’s cockpit, Times Cafe, Barclays Sports Complex, and Chez’ Ntemba, all manner of Cock tails, Arcades Complex, the finest restaurants and night clubs, you name it, I have been there. I have also been to the finest entertainment centers and hottest night clubs all over the country and even a cruise on the Lake Tanganyika and Siavonga.”
“Wow!” said the K500. You’ve really had an exciting life!”
“So tell me,” says the K50, 000, “where have you been throughout your lifetime?”
The K500 replies,
“Oh, I’ve been to the New Apostolic & Methodist Church, the Redeemed Christian Church, the AFM Church , the Deeper Life Bible Church , Bread of Life Church, Grace Ministries, Catholic Church, Winners’ Chapel, Miracle Life Family church, Anglican & Baptist Church, the C & S Church, CCC, ZAOGA,CMML, the Lutheran Church , Reformed Church In Zambia, Seventh Day Adventist Church, United Church of Zambia, the Evangelical Church in Zambia, Christ Embassy, Catholic Church, …”
The K50, 000 note interrupts, “What is a church?!!”
Monday, April 25, 2011
CONFESSION
A woman is having an affair during the day while her husband is at work.
Her nine-year-old son comes home unexpectedly, sees the illegal lovers and
hides in the bedroom cupboard to watch.
Then the woman's husband unexpectedly comes home. She hides her lover in
the cupboard, not realizing that her little boy is in there already.
The little Boy says : "Dark in here."
The Man says : "Yes, it is."
Boy : "I have a soccer ball; do you want to buy it?"
Man : "No, thanks."
Boy : "My dad's outside, I'll call him if you don't buy it!"
Man : "OK, how much?"
Boy : "k250 000-00."
A few weeks later it happened again and the boy and the lover were in
the cupboard together again.
Boy : "Dark in here."
Man : "Yes, it is."
Boy : "I have soccer boots."
The Man, remembering the last time, asks the boy: "How much?"
The Boy says : "k 750000-00."
The Man says : "Fine, I will buy them."
Her nine-year-old son comes home unexpectedly, sees the illegal lovers and
hides in the bedroom cupboard to watch.
Then the woman's husband unexpectedly comes home. She hides her lover in
the cupboard, not realizing that her little boy is in there already.
The little Boy says : "Dark in here."
The Man says : "Yes, it is."
Boy : "I have a soccer ball; do you want to buy it?"
Man : "No, thanks."
Boy : "My dad's outside, I'll call him if you don't buy it!"
Man : "OK, how much?"
Boy : "k250 000-00."
A few weeks later it happened again and the boy and the lover were in
the cupboard together again.
Boy : "Dark in here."
Man : "Yes, it is."
Boy : "I have soccer boots."
The Man, remembering the last time, asks the boy: "How much?"
The Boy says : "k 750000-00."
The Man says : "Fine, I will buy them."
RE: JOB APPLICATION
am apply to my job of security guard to u boss in you company of shopright.i complete to grade 8 examination in 2007.am 27 ears to be born of age and no malluied and no childish.my father is dead a long time ago and my mother mary in zaire country there 10 year now.no see she no body to help me.my certificate is just sitting home for itself,but passes in mathematics,science ,geography and all subject,but fail in english because of njanja teacher,mr phiri teaching me is jeros of myself,me wear expense cloth than ngoni teacher.i hear people you want security guard to you company and i tell u am 1 of that job experience for two years,i shoot thief dead,i want to join your company and chess criminal out with me ak47.please consider my application careful and call me anytime because me have celphone.am red for interviwes with you.i am very honest and can speek english free.PLEASE ALSO GREAT YOUR WIFE AND KNOW THAT ENGLISH IS NOT OUR MOTHERLAND. YOURS IN FAITH ************
MISERY LOVES COMPANY
Don't let anyone tell you that you can't do something.
Don't let anyone tell you that you can't have this or that.
Don't let anyone put you down and say that nobody would want you.
Don't feel that you have to settle for just anyone or anything.
You have the God given talent and intelligence to get what you want.
You have the God given ability to strive to be anything you want to be.
You don't need the negative words from people who are going nowhere. Misery loves company and that is why people try to keep you down by saying negative things to you. If they can keep you down on their level, they're happy.
You can't fall for that because you are too smart for that. You need to stand in front of a mirror, put your hands on your hips and say out loud, (I Look Good), (I Feel Good), (Watch Out World, Here I Come).
Don't let anyone tell you that you can't have this or that.
Don't let anyone put you down and say that nobody would want you.
Don't feel that you have to settle for just anyone or anything.
You have the God given talent and intelligence to get what you want.
You have the God given ability to strive to be anything you want to be.
You don't need the negative words from people who are going nowhere. Misery loves company and that is why people try to keep you down by saying negative things to you. If they can keep you down on their level, they're happy.
You can't fall for that because you are too smart for that. You need to stand in front of a mirror, put your hands on your hips and say out loud, (I Look Good), (I Feel Good), (Watch Out World, Here I Come).
Thursday, April 7, 2011
YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY
You know it eventually had to come to this. You have to make a decision. Some of the decisions that you have been putting off are:
-
Do you follow your passion and dream and start that business?
Do you end some of your friendships or relationships with people?
Do you start going to church?
Do you finally start that exercise problem you said you wanted to do?
Whatever your decision you have to make in your life, make that decision today.
-
Stop putting it off because it is not bringing you any closer to the enjoyment of life you want for yourself.
-
Do you follow your passion and dream and start that business?
Do you end some of your friendships or relationships with people?
Do you start going to church?
Do you finally start that exercise problem you said you wanted to do?
Whatever your decision you have to make in your life, make that decision today.
-
Stop putting it off because it is not bringing you any closer to the enjoyment of life you want for yourself.
Friday, April 1, 2011
I DON'T SEE A WALL (DO YOU?)
If obstacles or walls are put in front of you, you only have 5 options.
(1) Go over the wall.
(2) Go around the wall.
(3) Go under the wall.
(4) Go through the wall.
(5) Act like you don't see a wall and keep moving.
There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.
It doesn't matter which option you choose, just make it to the other side where success, joy and happiness is waiting for you.
-
SAYING HURTFUL WORDS * TRUST ISSUES * CHEATING * TAKING THINGS THE WRONG WAY * TOO SENSITIVE * BEING LAZY * JEALOUSY * WAY TOO MANY ARGUMENTS * DOUBLE STANDARDS * LACK OF COMMUNICATION * NO RESPECT * HAVING A CLOSED MIND * NO STIMULATING CONVERSATION * DOING THINGS BASED ON EMOTIONS
-
If these sound like problems that you are facing in your relationship, then get the answers to how to fix these and other problems you may be having.
(1) Go over the wall.
(2) Go around the wall.
(3) Go under the wall.
(4) Go through the wall.
(5) Act like you don't see a wall and keep moving.
There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.
It doesn't matter which option you choose, just make it to the other side where success, joy and happiness is waiting for you.
-
SAYING HURTFUL WORDS * TRUST ISSUES * CHEATING * TAKING THINGS THE WRONG WAY * TOO SENSITIVE * BEING LAZY * JEALOUSY * WAY TOO MANY ARGUMENTS * DOUBLE STANDARDS * LACK OF COMMUNICATION * NO RESPECT * HAVING A CLOSED MIND * NO STIMULATING CONVERSATION * DOING THINGS BASED ON EMOTIONS
-
If these sound like problems that you are facing in your relationship, then get the answers to how to fix these and other problems you may be having.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Why This Election Matters
Why This Election Matters
In Jesus’ parable of the talents, a master gives a coin to each of his servants before leaving for a while. When he returns, he asks what profit each has made. Suffice it to say it doesn’t go well for the guy who hides the money and hands it back with no gain. The moral is clear: God’s gifts come with a responsibility to use them in His service. And, for those of us who are Zambians citizens and over 18, one of these gifts is your vote—a say in one of the Fastest growing economies these parts of the earth.
Many younger Christians take a dim view of politics, oftentimes based on personal exposure to the missteps of a previous generation’s foray into governmental activism. In many ways, this represents a welcome shift toward a more holistic mission toward culture as a whole.
But the importance of government in Scripture should make us cautious about letting the pendulum swing away entirely from political engagement. Earthly citizenship—and, by implication, its most basic actions of voting and paying taxes—are upheld by the New Testament. Three decades after Jesus’ ascension, Paul wrote to the Roman Christians that even the officials of the pagan imperial “powers that be” were, literally, “ministers of God” for upholding good and punishing evil.
No country is a substitute for the Kingdom of God. But in Kingdom-seekers’ patient waiting for God’s completed rule, we are exhorted to see the hand of God in the righteous administration of human government. This truth endures even into our current system of a government of, by and for the people. The gift of modern democracy comes with a responsibility: if you want to find “the powers that be,” ordained by God for the good of all, just look in the mirror. We’re it.
With this kind of mandate, simply opting out is not an option. So why does it feel so tempting to blow off voting—especially in a distinctly un-glamorous election?
One significant problem is that our culture is decreasingly suited to the act of voting. Our cultural obsession with individual customization means we live more and more in environments tailored to our specific preferences—and we demonstrate less and less patience with situations that don’t reflect our wishes. Voting doesn’t make much sense in this climate. After all, being a voter is the opposite of being at the center of the action. But this is also why, in our current social moment, voting is a profoundly countercultural act of loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Many younger Christians feel disillusioned with all parties (MMD, PF and UPND)—and maybe the state of candidates and government in general. That’s why it’s important to remember that elections are about people—and don’t let anyone get away with saying it doesn’t matter who wins. That’s always a cop-out. It may be that no candidate feels completely satisfying to vote for, but your satisfaction isn’t the point of voting. The point is making an informed decision about the person you think will best serve your neighbors.
Elections are going to happen whether or not Christians are ready to vote. And the people who are elected will make decisions on issues large and small. The same is true for the various referenda and regulations put forward by our Goverment and municipalities. The vast majority of these decisions won’t affect the vast majority of us directly. But each affects somebody, and there’s the rub: Whether you’re personally motivated by a given issue or candidate, do you love your neighbor enough to learn what’s at stake in your community’s life, and then pull the lever?
Of course, there’s zero chance one person’s vote will sway an election either way, and if the results don’t go your way, you still have to live with them. But voting in spite of the seeming insignificance of individual action may be the most subtly redemptive aspect of thuming the ballot. We don’t vote because it’s a guaranteed way to make a difference. We vote because it’s an act of fidelity to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, to which God has called us.
So how should you vote? It requires work: voting is just the tip of the iceberg of informed citizenship. And you’ll find good information on more local issues in the endorsements from your local papers (whether or not you agree with them) and trusted regional nonprofits.
We can also all benefit from the advice of former Sen. Sam Nunn (USA) when asked what kind of candidates we should look for: Someone who lets facts determine their opinions and puts country above party.
As someone has said, you don’t blame a house for being dark at night—you blame the people who don’t turn on the lights. When Christians can’t be bothered to bring the light of neighbor-love to the ballot box, we shouldn’t be surprised—or look for anyone else to blame—when those with less noble aims bend the machinery of power to their purposes. If we don’t show up to represent a God whose common grace serves the common good—sun and rain that nourish the wicked and righteous alike—who will?
Register as a Voter Today!
acknowledgements.......www.facebook.com/truthmagazine
In Jesus’ parable of the talents, a master gives a coin to each of his servants before leaving for a while. When he returns, he asks what profit each has made. Suffice it to say it doesn’t go well for the guy who hides the money and hands it back with no gain. The moral is clear: God’s gifts come with a responsibility to use them in His service. And, for those of us who are Zambians citizens and over 18, one of these gifts is your vote—a say in one of the Fastest growing economies these parts of the earth.
Many younger Christians take a dim view of politics, oftentimes based on personal exposure to the missteps of a previous generation’s foray into governmental activism. In many ways, this represents a welcome shift toward a more holistic mission toward culture as a whole.
But the importance of government in Scripture should make us cautious about letting the pendulum swing away entirely from political engagement. Earthly citizenship—and, by implication, its most basic actions of voting and paying taxes—are upheld by the New Testament. Three decades after Jesus’ ascension, Paul wrote to the Roman Christians that even the officials of the pagan imperial “powers that be” were, literally, “ministers of God” for upholding good and punishing evil.
No country is a substitute for the Kingdom of God. But in Kingdom-seekers’ patient waiting for God’s completed rule, we are exhorted to see the hand of God in the righteous administration of human government. This truth endures even into our current system of a government of, by and for the people. The gift of modern democracy comes with a responsibility: if you want to find “the powers that be,” ordained by God for the good of all, just look in the mirror. We’re it.
With this kind of mandate, simply opting out is not an option. So why does it feel so tempting to blow off voting—especially in a distinctly un-glamorous election?
One significant problem is that our culture is decreasingly suited to the act of voting. Our cultural obsession with individual customization means we live more and more in environments tailored to our specific preferences—and we demonstrate less and less patience with situations that don’t reflect our wishes. Voting doesn’t make much sense in this climate. After all, being a voter is the opposite of being at the center of the action. But this is also why, in our current social moment, voting is a profoundly countercultural act of loving our neighbors as ourselves.
Many younger Christians feel disillusioned with all parties (MMD, PF and UPND)—and maybe the state of candidates and government in general. That’s why it’s important to remember that elections are about people—and don’t let anyone get away with saying it doesn’t matter who wins. That’s always a cop-out. It may be that no candidate feels completely satisfying to vote for, but your satisfaction isn’t the point of voting. The point is making an informed decision about the person you think will best serve your neighbors.
Elections are going to happen whether or not Christians are ready to vote. And the people who are elected will make decisions on issues large and small. The same is true for the various referenda and regulations put forward by our Goverment and municipalities. The vast majority of these decisions won’t affect the vast majority of us directly. But each affects somebody, and there’s the rub: Whether you’re personally motivated by a given issue or candidate, do you love your neighbor enough to learn what’s at stake in your community’s life, and then pull the lever?
Of course, there’s zero chance one person’s vote will sway an election either way, and if the results don’t go your way, you still have to live with them. But voting in spite of the seeming insignificance of individual action may be the most subtly redemptive aspect of thuming the ballot. We don’t vote because it’s a guaranteed way to make a difference. We vote because it’s an act of fidelity to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, to which God has called us.
So how should you vote? It requires work: voting is just the tip of the iceberg of informed citizenship. And you’ll find good information on more local issues in the endorsements from your local papers (whether or not you agree with them) and trusted regional nonprofits.
We can also all benefit from the advice of former Sen. Sam Nunn (USA) when asked what kind of candidates we should look for: Someone who lets facts determine their opinions and puts country above party.
As someone has said, you don’t blame a house for being dark at night—you blame the people who don’t turn on the lights. When Christians can’t be bothered to bring the light of neighbor-love to the ballot box, we shouldn’t be surprised—or look for anyone else to blame—when those with less noble aims bend the machinery of power to their purposes. If we don’t show up to represent a God whose common grace serves the common good—sun and rain that nourish the wicked and righteous alike—who will?
Register as a Voter Today!
acknowledgements.......www.facebook.com/truthmagazine
Friday, March 4, 2011
EMOTIONAL & MENTAL BAGGAGE (How many bags do you have?)
They are nice, smart, sweet, thoughtful, nice looking, encouraging and motivating. They have everything you could possibly want in a person but the baggage they bring into the relationship whether it be emotional or mental baggage makes all of those positive qualities just disappear. Without the baggage, you would marry them in a heartbeat.
But when you think of what life would be like with them along with the baggage they have, you say to yourself absolutely not. If you ever plan to have a future with someone, you must always take that inventory of whether or not you want to deal with all the baggage and drama they bring into the relationship.
The only way that a person can get rid of that mental and emotional baggage is to have Jesus cleanse their heart and mind and to restore that person to where the pain and heartache no longer hinders them.
But when you think of what life would be like with them along with the baggage they have, you say to yourself absolutely not. If you ever plan to have a future with someone, you must always take that inventory of whether or not you want to deal with all the baggage and drama they bring into the relationship.
The only way that a person can get rid of that mental and emotional baggage is to have Jesus cleanse their heart and mind and to restore that person to where the pain and heartache no longer hinders them.
FAVOR
One definition of the word “favor” is an advantage for success. When you put God first, when you obey His commands, you open the door for His favor — you have the advantage for success! Even if someone has wronged you and it looks like they have the upper hand, even if it looks like things are never going to change, you need to keep reminding yourself, “I have an advantage. God is in control of my destiny. He’s fighting my battles for me. He is my vindicator, and it’s just a matter of time before things change in my favor.”
I love the scripture in Hebrews that says, “Don’t cast away your confidence.” One translation says, “...for payday is coming.” In the difficult times, you have to remind yourself that payday is on its way! God is a faithful God. If you’ll keep doing the right thing, honoring Him and expecting His favor, God has promised He will pay you back. He will restore everything in your life that the enemy has stolen so you can live the abundant life He has promised to you.
I love the scripture in Hebrews that says, “Don’t cast away your confidence.” One translation says, “...for payday is coming.” In the difficult times, you have to remind yourself that payday is on its way! God is a faithful God. If you’ll keep doing the right thing, honoring Him and expecting His favor, God has promised He will pay you back. He will restore everything in your life that the enemy has stolen so you can live the abundant life He has promised to you.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
QUOTES
To carry a grudge is like being stung to death by one bee.
It’s not about time, it’s about choices. How are you spending your choices?
The best way to predict the future is to create it.
We are where we should be, doing what we should be doing, otherwise we would be somewhere else doing something else.
You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice because thorns have roses.
The ball is in your court, now bounce it.
I always win. Because I come out of every situation still whole, still new, and still capable of moving forward. Every experience of my life moves me on to my next experience. All my experiences teach me wisdom, give me courage, and set me free to go on living.
It’s not about time, it’s about choices. How are you spending your choices?
The best way to predict the future is to create it.
We are where we should be, doing what we should be doing, otherwise we would be somewhere else doing something else.
You can complain because roses have thorns, or you can rejoice because thorns have roses.
The ball is in your court, now bounce it.
I always win. Because I come out of every situation still whole, still new, and still capable of moving forward. Every experience of my life moves me on to my next experience. All my experiences teach me wisdom, give me courage, and set me free to go on living.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THE GIFT GOD GAVE YOU?
I heard a Pastor say before, if you don't use the gift God gave you, He will take it from you and give it to someone else. Now that wouldn't be a good thing would it?
Your gift is something specific that God put in you to please and praise Him with. Your gift, also when used for God can open so many doors for you but you would never know this because you are not using that gift. You are letting it go to waste.
Question: If you give a person a gift and they take that gift, don't open it and just place it the corner under some other things, how would you feel? When you don't use your gift, it is like you are saying to God, thanks for the gift but since I'm not going to use it, I'll just put it over here under some other things.
Bottom line. Pick up that gift, open it and use it. There are literally thousands of people waiting for you to use and bless them through your gift. Don't pass up this opportunity. This is the time to praise and glorify God through the gift He gave you.
Your gift is something specific that God put in you to please and praise Him with. Your gift, also when used for God can open so many doors for you but you would never know this because you are not using that gift. You are letting it go to waste.
Question: If you give a person a gift and they take that gift, don't open it and just place it the corner under some other things, how would you feel? When you don't use your gift, it is like you are saying to God, thanks for the gift but since I'm not going to use it, I'll just put it over here under some other things.
Bottom line. Pick up that gift, open it and use it. There are literally thousands of people waiting for you to use and bless them through your gift. Don't pass up this opportunity. This is the time to praise and glorify God through the gift He gave you.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
STOP MAKING EXCUSES
Day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out you keep doing everything except what you need to be doing. You need to write that book, start that business, clean that office, make those phone calls and put things in order. When you first said it, it was ok, then after the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time it started to turn into excuses.
You know you have the power and the ability to get it done. Stop talking yourself out of doing it. Stop saying it's too hard, it will take too long or I don't have enough resources. When you have God on your side, you only need your own desire and determination to add to it and it will get done
You know you have the power and the ability to get it done. Stop talking yourself out of doing it. Stop saying it's too hard, it will take too long or I don't have enough resources. When you have God on your side, you only need your own desire and determination to add to it and it will get done
Monday, February 14, 2011
BE CAREFUL WHO YOU CALL YOUR FRIENDS
They laugh with you in your face but talk about you behind your back. They say they are happy for you but their fake hug tells a different story. You would think they would be glad to see you do what you love to do. That is not always the case. They feel like since they are not fulfilling their dream that you shouldn't fulfill yours.
If you let them, they can destroy your dreams with their negative words and sarcastic remarks. Be careful who you call your friends. You've come too far to let anything and anyone take your dreams away from you.
If you let them, they can destroy your dreams with their negative words and sarcastic remarks. Be careful who you call your friends. You've come too far to let anything and anyone take your dreams away from you.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
STOP BEING POOR
The reason many people are poor is because they do what that word stands for which is: P.O.O.R. - Passing Over Opportunities Repeatedly.
How many opportunities have passed you by that you didn't take advantage of? It's never too late to start doing things differently.
How many opportunities have passed you by that you didn't take advantage of? It's never too late to start doing things differently.
Thanks for treating me bad, thanks for disrespecting me, thanks for cheating on me, thanks for calling me out my name, thanks for lying to me, thanks for talking over me, thanks for not listening to me, thanks for playing me.
Because you did these things to me, I am a much better person today because of those things. No one will ever do those things to me again. If they try, they are out the door immediately. Thanks past relationships. I am the strong person that I am today because of you.
Share
Because you did these things to me, I am a much better person today because of those things. No one will ever do those things to me again. If they try, they are out the door immediately. Thanks past relationships. I am the strong person that I am today because of you.
Share
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU PRAY FOR
You pray to God to send you a partner in your life and when He does, you don't treat them right. You have been so badly damaged by past relationships that it makes you resort back to your old ways of doing things.
You need to know that you are ready to handle what God is sending you. Be prepared for the blessings that is about to come your way because when it does, you need to take care of it. Be careful what you pray for. You might just get it.
You need to know that you are ready to handle what God is sending you. Be prepared for the blessings that is about to come your way because when it does, you need to take care of it. Be careful what you pray for. You might just get it.
CAN PEOPLE TELL THAT YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Colossians 4:6.) - What is your conversation like when you talk to people who don't know God. Are you laughing with them when they tell dirty jokes? Do you cuss right along with them when they get mad at something or someone.
Do you give them advice on how to cheat on their spouse and not get caught. By your conversations with them, would they even know that you are a Christian? Our speech tells a lot about us along with our actions. If neither one of these are pleasing to God, then we need to re-evaluate some things in our life and get on the right track. You can be forgiven and start fresh right now. It's never too late to change.
Do you give them advice on how to cheat on their spouse and not get caught. By your conversations with them, would they even know that you are a Christian? Our speech tells a lot about us along with our actions. If neither one of these are pleasing to God, then we need to re-evaluate some things in our life and get on the right track. You can be forgiven and start fresh right now. It's never too late to change.
IS YOUR OWN WILL POWER ENOUGH?
Will-power versus God-power. It is good to have will-power when it comes to the ability to do things or stay away from temptation, but sometimes will-power is not enough. It can fail you when you need it the most.
God-power on the other hand will NEVER fail you if you have faith and believe. God-power will take over when your own will-power just can't continue on. So let us pray each day that God give us His power when we need it the most.
God-power on the other hand will NEVER fail you if you have faith and believe. God-power will take over when your own will-power just can't continue on. So let us pray each day that God give us His power when we need it the most.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
A FRIEND SENT ME THIS MESSAGE AS TO WHY JEHOVAS WITNESSES DO NOT VOTE
read this n knw y we Jehovah witnesses don't take part in worldly things!!!!!Who Really Rules
the World?
Many people would answer the above question with a single word—God. But significantly, nowhere does the Bible say that either Jesus Christ or his Father are the real rulers of this world. On the contrary, Jesus said: "The ruler of this world will be cast out." And he added: "The ruler of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me."—John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11.
So the ruler of this world is in opposition to Jesus. Who could this be?
A Clue From World Conditions
Despite the efforts of well-meaning humans, the world has suffered terribly throughout history. This causes thinking persons to wonder, as did the late editorial writer David Lawrence: "'Peace on earth'—nearly everybody wants it. 'Good will toward men'—almost all the peoples of the world feel it toward one another. Then what's wrong? Why is war threatened despite the innate desires of peoples?"
It seems a paradox, doesn't it? When the natural desire of people is to live at peace, they commonly hate and kill one another—and with such viciousness. Consider the cold-blooded excesses in monstrous cruelty. Humans have used gas chambers, concentration camps, flamethrowers, napalm bombs, and other heinous methods to torture and slaughter one another mercilessly.
Do you believe that humans, who long for peace and happiness, are capable, in themselves, of such gross wickedness against others? What forces drive men to such loathsome deeds or maneuver them into situations where they feel compelled to commit atrocities? Have you ever wondered whether some wicked, invisible power is influencing people to commit such acts of violence?
The Rulers of the World Identified
There is no need to guess at the matter, for the Bible clearly shows that an intelligent, unseen person has been controlling both men and nations. It says: "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." And the Bible identifies him, saying: "The one called Devil and Satan . . . is misleading the entire inhabited earth."—1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9.
On an occasion when Jesus was "tempted by the Devil," Jesus did not question Satan's role as the ruler of this world. The Bible explains what happened: "The Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to him: 'All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.' Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan!'"—Matthew 4:1, 8-10.
Think about this. Satan tempted Jesus by offering him "all the kingdoms of the world." Yet, would Satan's offer have been a real temptation if Satan was not actually the ruler of these kingdoms? No, it would not. And note, Jesus did not deny that all these worldly governments were Satan's, which he would have done if Satan did not have power over them. So, then, Satan the Devil really is the unseen ruler of the world! The Bible, in fact, calls him "the god of this system of things." (2 Corinthians 4:4) Yet, how did such a wicked person ever come into this powerful position?
Could Satan
have offered
Jesus all
these world
governments if
they were not his?
World governments being offered to Jesus by Satan
The one who became Satan had been an angel created by God, but he became envious of God's position. He challenged God's rightful rulership. To this end he used a serpent as a mouthpiece to deceive the first woman, Eve, and was thus able to get her and her husband, Adam, to do his bidding rather than obey God. (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3) He also claimed he could turn all of Adam and Eve's yet unborn offspring away from God. So God allowed time for Satan to try to prove his claim, but Satan has not succeeded.—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-10.
Significantly, Satan is not alone in his rulership of the world. He was successful in persuading some of the other angels to join him in rebellion against God. These became demons, his spirit accomplices. The Bible speaks of them when it urges Christians: "Stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but . . . against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places."—Ephesians 6:11, 12.
Resist Wicked Spirits
These unseen, wicked world rulers are determined to mislead all mankind, turning them away from the worship of God. One way wicked spirits do this is by promoting the idea of survival after death, even though God's Word clearly shows that the dead are not conscious. (Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4; Psalm 146:3, 4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Thus, a wicked spirit, imitating the voice of one who has died, may talk with that one's living relatives or friends, either through a spirit medium or by a "voice" from the invisible realm. The "voice" pretends to be the departed one, yet it is actually a demon!
So if you ever hear such a "voice," do not be deceived. Reject whatever it says, and echo Jesus' words: "Go away, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10; James 4:7) Do not allow curiosity about the spirit realm to cause you to become involved with wicked spirits. Such involvement is called spiritism, and God warns his worshipers against it in all its forms. The Bible condemns "anyone who employs divination . . . or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead."—Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Galatians 5:19-21; Revelation 21:8.
Since spiritism brings a person under the influence of the demons, resist all its practices regardless of how much fun, or how exciting, they may seem to be. These practices include crystal-ball gazing, use of Ouija boards, ESP, examining the lines of one's hand (palmistry), and astrology. Demons have also caused noises and other physical phenomena in houses that they make their territory.
In addition, wicked spirits capitalize on the sinful bent of humans by promoting literature, movies, and television programs that feature immoral and unnatural sexual behavior. The demons know that wrong thoughts if not expelled from the mind will cause indelible impressions and lead humans to behave immorally—like the demons themselves.—Genesis 6:1, 2; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; Jude 6.
True, many may scoff at the idea that this world is ruled by wicked spirits. But their disbelief is not surprising, since the Bible says: "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14) His most clever deception has been in blinding many to the fact that he and his demons really exist. But do not be deceived! The Devil and his demons are real, and you need to resist them continually.—1 Peter 5:8, 9.
Happily, the time is now near when Satan and his cohorts will be no more! "The world [including its demon rulers] is passing away," the Bible assures, "but he that does the will of God remains forever." (1 John 2:17) What a relief it will be to have that evil influence removed! May we, therefore, be among those who do God's will and enjoy life forever in God's righteous new world.—Psalm 37:9-11, 29; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:3, 4.
read all the scriptures!
the World?
Many people would answer the above question with a single word—God. But significantly, nowhere does the Bible say that either Jesus Christ or his Father are the real rulers of this world. On the contrary, Jesus said: "The ruler of this world will be cast out." And he added: "The ruler of the world is coming. And he has no hold on me."—John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11.
So the ruler of this world is in opposition to Jesus. Who could this be?
A Clue From World Conditions
Despite the efforts of well-meaning humans, the world has suffered terribly throughout history. This causes thinking persons to wonder, as did the late editorial writer David Lawrence: "'Peace on earth'—nearly everybody wants it. 'Good will toward men'—almost all the peoples of the world feel it toward one another. Then what's wrong? Why is war threatened despite the innate desires of peoples?"
It seems a paradox, doesn't it? When the natural desire of people is to live at peace, they commonly hate and kill one another—and with such viciousness. Consider the cold-blooded excesses in monstrous cruelty. Humans have used gas chambers, concentration camps, flamethrowers, napalm bombs, and other heinous methods to torture and slaughter one another mercilessly.
Do you believe that humans, who long for peace and happiness, are capable, in themselves, of such gross wickedness against others? What forces drive men to such loathsome deeds or maneuver them into situations where they feel compelled to commit atrocities? Have you ever wondered whether some wicked, invisible power is influencing people to commit such acts of violence?
The Rulers of the World Identified
There is no need to guess at the matter, for the Bible clearly shows that an intelligent, unseen person has been controlling both men and nations. It says: "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." And the Bible identifies him, saying: "The one called Devil and Satan . . . is misleading the entire inhabited earth."—1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9.
On an occasion when Jesus was "tempted by the Devil," Jesus did not question Satan's role as the ruler of this world. The Bible explains what happened: "The Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to him: 'All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.' Then Jesus said to him: 'Go away, Satan!'"—Matthew 4:1, 8-10.
Think about this. Satan tempted Jesus by offering him "all the kingdoms of the world." Yet, would Satan's offer have been a real temptation if Satan was not actually the ruler of these kingdoms? No, it would not. And note, Jesus did not deny that all these worldly governments were Satan's, which he would have done if Satan did not have power over them. So, then, Satan the Devil really is the unseen ruler of the world! The Bible, in fact, calls him "the god of this system of things." (2 Corinthians 4:4) Yet, how did such a wicked person ever come into this powerful position?
Could Satan
have offered
Jesus all
these world
governments if
they were not his?
World governments being offered to Jesus by Satan
The one who became Satan had been an angel created by God, but he became envious of God's position. He challenged God's rightful rulership. To this end he used a serpent as a mouthpiece to deceive the first woman, Eve, and was thus able to get her and her husband, Adam, to do his bidding rather than obey God. (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3) He also claimed he could turn all of Adam and Eve's yet unborn offspring away from God. So God allowed time for Satan to try to prove his claim, but Satan has not succeeded.—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-10.
Significantly, Satan is not alone in his rulership of the world. He was successful in persuading some of the other angels to join him in rebellion against God. These became demons, his spirit accomplices. The Bible speaks of them when it urges Christians: "Stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but . . . against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places."—Ephesians 6:11, 12.
Resist Wicked Spirits
These unseen, wicked world rulers are determined to mislead all mankind, turning them away from the worship of God. One way wicked spirits do this is by promoting the idea of survival after death, even though God's Word clearly shows that the dead are not conscious. (Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4; Psalm 146:3, 4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Thus, a wicked spirit, imitating the voice of one who has died, may talk with that one's living relatives or friends, either through a spirit medium or by a "voice" from the invisible realm. The "voice" pretends to be the departed one, yet it is actually a demon!
So if you ever hear such a "voice," do not be deceived. Reject whatever it says, and echo Jesus' words: "Go away, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10; James 4:7) Do not allow curiosity about the spirit realm to cause you to become involved with wicked spirits. Such involvement is called spiritism, and God warns his worshipers against it in all its forms. The Bible condemns "anyone who employs divination . . . or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead."—Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Galatians 5:19-21; Revelation 21:8.
Since spiritism brings a person under the influence of the demons, resist all its practices regardless of how much fun, or how exciting, they may seem to be. These practices include crystal-ball gazing, use of Ouija boards, ESP, examining the lines of one's hand (palmistry), and astrology. Demons have also caused noises and other physical phenomena in houses that they make their territory.
In addition, wicked spirits capitalize on the sinful bent of humans by promoting literature, movies, and television programs that feature immoral and unnatural sexual behavior. The demons know that wrong thoughts if not expelled from the mind will cause indelible impressions and lead humans to behave immorally—like the demons themselves.—Genesis 6:1, 2; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; Jude 6.
True, many may scoff at the idea that this world is ruled by wicked spirits. But their disbelief is not surprising, since the Bible says: "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14) His most clever deception has been in blinding many to the fact that he and his demons really exist. But do not be deceived! The Devil and his demons are real, and you need to resist them continually.—1 Peter 5:8, 9.
Happily, the time is now near when Satan and his cohorts will be no more! "The world [including its demon rulers] is passing away," the Bible assures, "but he that does the will of God remains forever." (1 John 2:17) What a relief it will be to have that evil influence removed! May we, therefore, be among those who do God's will and enjoy life forever in God's righteous new world.—Psalm 37:9-11, 29; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:3, 4.
read all the scriptures!
Embrace Your Season
God has ordained seasons and cycles in our lives. Sometimes, when our dreams aren’t coming to pass on our timetable, we can be tempted to get frustrated. But we have to be careful not to allow our attitude to keep us from moving forward.
Understand that in God’s kingdom, every season is not harvest. There are plowing seasons, planting seasons and watering seasons. Sure, we would love for every season to be a time of increase; but without the other seasons, we wouldn’t be prepared. It’s during the plowing seasons when God’s bringing issues to light that we need to deal with. He’s getting us prepared for promotion. If you’re not making as much progress as you would like, the key is not to lose any ground. Don’t go backwards. Hold your position by keeping an attitude of faith and expectancy, even when it’s hard. Keep plowing by speaking the Word daily. As you do, you’ll pass the test, and God promises your due season is coming!
Saturday, January 29, 2011
what goals have you set this year
A big reason people lose their motivation
is because they set such a high goal for
themselves that has to be completed
within a certain time. When it starts to
seem like they are not going to be able
to make that deadline, they get
discouraged and in turn lose their
motivation. Now even though there is
nothing wrong with setting big goals, you
still have to be realistic and still set
small attainable goals.
When you do this, you are guaranteed to
reach those small goals that will not only
build your confidence but keep you
motivated at the same time and this of
course will eventually allow you to reach
that big goal but with smaller steps.
is because they set such a high goal for
themselves that has to be completed
within a certain time. When it starts to
seem like they are not going to be able
to make that deadline, they get
discouraged and in turn lose their
motivation. Now even though there is
nothing wrong with setting big goals, you
still have to be realistic and still set
small attainable goals.
When you do this, you are guaranteed to
reach those small goals that will not only
build your confidence but keep you
motivated at the same time and this of
course will eventually allow you to reach
that big goal but with smaller steps.
THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT 1964
This Agreement is made this eighteenth day of May, 1964 between KENNETH DAVID KAUNDA, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia of the one part and SIR MWANAWINA LEWANIKA THE THIRD ,K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland, acting on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his council, and the chiefs and people of Barotseland of the other party is signed by the Right Honorable Duncan Sandys, M.P Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for common wealth relations and for the colonies, to signify the approval of her majesty's government in the united kingdom of the arrangements entered into between the parties to this agreement and recorded therein.
Whereas it was proposed that the northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign state to be known as the republic of Zambia.
And where as it is the wish of the government of northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland, his council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation:
And where as having regard to the fact that all treaties and other agreements subsisting between her majesty the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Litunga of
Barotseland will terminate when Northern Rhodesia becomes an independent sovereign republic and her majesty's government in the United Kingdom will there upon cease to have any responsibility for the government of Rhodesia including Barotseland. It is the wish of the government of northern Rhodesia and of The Litunga of Barotseland to enter into arrangements concerning the position of Barotseland as part of the republic of Zambia to the place of the treaties and other agreements hitherto subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen and The Litunga of Barotseland:
And whereas on the sixteenth day of April, 1964 a provisional agreement was concluded at Lusaka with purpose and it is the desire of the government of northern Rhodesia and The Litunga, acting after consultation with his council to conclude a permanent agreement with this purpose:
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH and it is hereby agreed between the said Kenneth David Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the government of Northern Rhodesia and the said Sir Mwanawina Lewanika the Third, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council and the chiefs and the people of Barotseland as follows:-
1. CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT
This agreement may be cited as the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and shall come into force on the day on which Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, becomes the independent sovereign Republic of Zambia.
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA
The constitution of the republic of Zambia shall include the provisions agreed upon for the inclusion herein at the constitutional conference held in London in May, 1964 relating to:-
(a) The protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual;
(b) The judiciary; and
(c) The public service and those provisions shall have full force and effect in Barotseland.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of access to the high court of the republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic and a judge or judges of the high court selected from among the judges who normally sit in Lusaka shall regularly proceed on circuit in Barotseland at each intervals as the due administration of justice may require.
(2) The people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of appeal from the decisions of the courts of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic.
4. THE LITUNGA AND HIS COUNCIL
(1) The government of the republic of Zambia will accord recognition as such to the person who is for the time The Litunga of Barotseland under the customary law of Barotseland.
(2) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council as constituted for the time being under the customary law of Barotseland shall be the principal local authority for the government and administration of Barotseland.
(3) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council, shall be authorized and empowered to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the following matters, that is to say-
(a) The Litungaship;
(b) The authority at present known as the Barotse Native Government (which shall hereafter be known as the Barotse Government);
(c) The authorities at present known as Barotse Native Authorities;
(d) The courts at present known as Barotse Native Courts;
(e) The status of the members of the Litunga's Council;
(f) Matters relating to local government;
(g) Land;
(h) Forests;
(i) Traditional and customary matters relating to Barotseland alone;
(j) Fishing;
(k) Control of hunting;
(l) Game preservation;
(m) Control of bush fires;
(n) The institution at present known as the Barotse native treasury;
(o) The supply of beer;
(p) Reservation of trees for canoes;
(q) Local taxation and matters relating thereto; and
(r) Barotse local festivals.
5. LAND
(1) In relation to land in Barotseland the arrangements set out in the annex hereto shall have effect.
(2) In particular, the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council shall continue to have the powers hitherto enjoyed by them in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(3) The courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts shall have original jurisdiction(to the exclusion of any other court in the republic of Zambia)in respect of matters concerning rights over or interests in land in Barotseland to the extent that those matters are governed by the customary law of Barotseland: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court of the Republic of Zambia in relation to writs or orders of the kind at present known as prerogative of writs or orders.
(4) Save with the leave of the court at present known as the Saa- Sikalo Kuta, no appeal shall lie from any decision of the courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts given in exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in paragraph (3) of this article to the High Court of the Republic of Zambia.
6. CIVIL SERVANTS
All public officers of the Government the Republic of Zambia who may from time to time be situated in Barotseland shall be officers serving on permanent and pensionable terms.
7. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall have the same general responsibility for providing financial support for the administration and economic development of Barotseland as it has for other parts of the Republic and shall ensure that, in discharge of this responsibility, Barotseland is treated fairly and equitably in relation to other parts of the Republic.
8. IMPLEMENTATION
The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the laws for the time being in force in the Republic are not inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement.
9. INTERPRETATION
Any question concerning the interpretation of this Agreement may be referred by the Government of the Republic of Zambia to the High Court of the Republic for consideration (in which case the opinion thereon of the Court shall be communicated to that Government and to the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council) and any such question shall be so referred if the Litunga, acting after consultation with his Council, so requests.
10. REVOCATION
The herein before recited Agreement of the sixteenth day of April, 1964 is hereby revoked.
In witness whereof the parties hereto Have hereunto set their hands in the
Presence of: - K.D.KAUNDA Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia (Signed)
E.D. HONE Governor of Northern Rhodesia (Signed)
(Signed) IMENDA SIBANDI Ngambela of Barotseland
MWANAWINA LEWANIKA III Litunga of Barotseland
Signed by the Right Honorable Duncan Sandys in the presence of :- (Signed)
(Signed) RICHARD HORNBY DUNCAN SANDYS
Parliamentary Under Secretary of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary
State for Commonwealth Relations of State for Common wealth Relations And for the
Colonies and for the Colonies
ANNEX TO THIS AGREEMENT
1. The Litunga and National Council of Barotseland have always worked in close cooperation with the Central Government over land matters in the past have agreed that the Central government should use land required for public purposes, and have adopted the same procedures as apply to leases and rights of occupancy in the Reserves and Trust Land areas, where applicable. At the same time, the administration of land rights in Barotseland under customary law and practice has been under the control of the Litunga
And National Council in much the same way as customary land rights are dealt with in the Reserves and Trust Land areas.
2. In these circumstances it is agreed that the Litunga should continue to have the greatest measure of responsibility for administering land matters in Barotseland. It is however, necessary to examine the position of land matters in Barotseland against the background of the Northern Rhodesia Government's overall responsibility for the territory.
3. The Barotse memorandum has indicated that Barotseland should become an integral part of Northern Rhodesia. In these circumstances the Northern Rhodesia Government will assume certain responsibilities and to carry these out they will have to have certain powers. so far as land is concerned, apart from confirmation of wide powers the Litunga over customary matters ,the position is as follows:-
(1) The Northern Rhodesia Government does not wish to derogate from any of the powers exercised by the Litunga and Council in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(2) The Northern Rhodesia Government would like to ensure that the provision of public services and the responsibility of economic development in Barotseland are not hampered by special formalities.
(3) The Northern Rhodesia Government recognizes and agrees that full consultation should take place with the Litunga and Council before any land in Barotseland is used for public purposes or in the general interests of economic development.
(4) The position regarding land in Barotseland in an independent Northern Rhodesia should, therefore, be as follows:-
(a) There should be the same system for land administration for the whole of Northern Rhodesia including Barotseland, that is, the Government Lands Department should be responsible for professional advice and services with regard to land alienation in all parts of Northern Rhodesia and that the same form of document should be used for grants of land
(i) for Government purposes and
(ii) For non-Government and non-customary purposes. The necessary preparation of the title documents should be done by the Government Lands Department.
(b) The Litunga and National Council of Barotseland will be charged with the responsibility for administering Barotse customary land law within Barotseland.
Whereas it was proposed that the northern Rhodesia shall become an independent sovereign state to be known as the republic of Zambia.
And where as it is the wish of the government of northern Rhodesia and of the Litunga of Barotseland, his council and the chiefs and people of Barotseland that northern Rhodesia should proceed to independence as one country and that all its peoples should be one nation:
And where as having regard to the fact that all treaties and other agreements subsisting between her majesty the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Litunga of
Barotseland will terminate when Northern Rhodesia becomes an independent sovereign republic and her majesty's government in the United Kingdom will there upon cease to have any responsibility for the government of Rhodesia including Barotseland. It is the wish of the government of northern Rhodesia and of The Litunga of Barotseland to enter into arrangements concerning the position of Barotseland as part of the republic of Zambia to the place of the treaties and other agreements hitherto subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen and The Litunga of Barotseland:
And whereas on the sixteenth day of April, 1964 a provisional agreement was concluded at Lusaka with purpose and it is the desire of the government of northern Rhodesia and The Litunga, acting after consultation with his council to conclude a permanent agreement with this purpose:
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH and it is hereby agreed between the said Kenneth David Kaunda, Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, on behalf of the government of Northern Rhodesia and the said Sir Mwanawina Lewanika the Third, K.B.E., Litunga of Barotseland on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors, his Council and the chiefs and the people of Barotseland as follows:-
1. CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT
This agreement may be cited as the Barotseland Agreement 1964 and shall come into force on the day on which Northern Rhodesia, including Barotseland, becomes the independent sovereign Republic of Zambia.
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA
The constitution of the republic of Zambia shall include the provisions agreed upon for the inclusion herein at the constitutional conference held in London in May, 1964 relating to:-
(a) The protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual;
(b) The judiciary; and
(c) The public service and those provisions shall have full force and effect in Barotseland.
3. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of access to the high court of the republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic and a judge or judges of the high court selected from among the judges who normally sit in Lusaka shall regularly proceed on circuit in Barotseland at each intervals as the due administration of justice may require.
(2) The people of Barotseland shall be accorded the same rights of appeal from the decisions of the courts of the Republic of Zambia as are accorded to other citizens of the Republic under the laws for the time being in force in the Republic.
4. THE LITUNGA AND HIS COUNCIL
(1) The government of the republic of Zambia will accord recognition as such to the person who is for the time The Litunga of Barotseland under the customary law of Barotseland.
(2) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council as constituted for the time being under the customary law of Barotseland shall be the principal local authority for the government and administration of Barotseland.
(3) The Litunga of Barotseland, acting after consultation with his Council, shall be authorized and empowered to make laws for Barotseland in relation to the following matters, that is to say-
(a) The Litungaship;
(b) The authority at present known as the Barotse Native Government (which shall hereafter be known as the Barotse Government);
(c) The authorities at present known as Barotse Native Authorities;
(d) The courts at present known as Barotse Native Courts;
(e) The status of the members of the Litunga's Council;
(f) Matters relating to local government;
(g) Land;
(h) Forests;
(i) Traditional and customary matters relating to Barotseland alone;
(j) Fishing;
(k) Control of hunting;
(l) Game preservation;
(m) Control of bush fires;
(n) The institution at present known as the Barotse native treasury;
(o) The supply of beer;
(p) Reservation of trees for canoes;
(q) Local taxation and matters relating thereto; and
(r) Barotse local festivals.
5. LAND
(1) In relation to land in Barotseland the arrangements set out in the annex hereto shall have effect.
(2) In particular, the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council shall continue to have the powers hitherto enjoyed by them in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(3) The courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts shall have original jurisdiction(to the exclusion of any other court in the republic of Zambia)in respect of matters concerning rights over or interests in land in Barotseland to the extent that those matters are governed by the customary law of Barotseland: Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court of the Republic of Zambia in relation to writs or orders of the kind at present known as prerogative of writs or orders.
(4) Save with the leave of the court at present known as the Saa- Sikalo Kuta, no appeal shall lie from any decision of the courts at present known as the Barotse Native Courts given in exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in paragraph (3) of this article to the High Court of the Republic of Zambia.
6. CIVIL SERVANTS
All public officers of the Government the Republic of Zambia who may from time to time be situated in Barotseland shall be officers serving on permanent and pensionable terms.
7. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall have the same general responsibility for providing financial support for the administration and economic development of Barotseland as it has for other parts of the Republic and shall ensure that, in discharge of this responsibility, Barotseland is treated fairly and equitably in relation to other parts of the Republic.
8. IMPLEMENTATION
The Government of the Republic of Zambia shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the laws for the time being in force in the Republic are not inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement.
9. INTERPRETATION
Any question concerning the interpretation of this Agreement may be referred by the Government of the Republic of Zambia to the High Court of the Republic for consideration (in which case the opinion thereon of the Court shall be communicated to that Government and to the Litunga of Barotseland and his Council) and any such question shall be so referred if the Litunga, acting after consultation with his Council, so requests.
10. REVOCATION
The herein before recited Agreement of the sixteenth day of April, 1964 is hereby revoked.
In witness whereof the parties hereto Have hereunto set their hands in the
Presence of: - K.D.KAUNDA Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia (Signed)
E.D. HONE Governor of Northern Rhodesia (Signed)
(Signed) IMENDA SIBANDI Ngambela of Barotseland
MWANAWINA LEWANIKA III Litunga of Barotseland
Signed by the Right Honorable Duncan Sandys in the presence of :- (Signed)
(Signed) RICHARD HORNBY DUNCAN SANDYS
Parliamentary Under Secretary of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary
State for Commonwealth Relations of State for Common wealth Relations And for the
Colonies and for the Colonies
ANNEX TO THIS AGREEMENT
1. The Litunga and National Council of Barotseland have always worked in close cooperation with the Central Government over land matters in the past have agreed that the Central government should use land required for public purposes, and have adopted the same procedures as apply to leases and rights of occupancy in the Reserves and Trust Land areas, where applicable. At the same time, the administration of land rights in Barotseland under customary law and practice has been under the control of the Litunga
And National Council in much the same way as customary land rights are dealt with in the Reserves and Trust Land areas.
2. In these circumstances it is agreed that the Litunga should continue to have the greatest measure of responsibility for administering land matters in Barotseland. It is however, necessary to examine the position of land matters in Barotseland against the background of the Northern Rhodesia Government's overall responsibility for the territory.
3. The Barotse memorandum has indicated that Barotseland should become an integral part of Northern Rhodesia. In these circumstances the Northern Rhodesia Government will assume certain responsibilities and to carry these out they will have to have certain powers. so far as land is concerned, apart from confirmation of wide powers the Litunga over customary matters ,the position is as follows:-
(1) The Northern Rhodesia Government does not wish to derogate from any of the powers exercised by the Litunga and Council in respect of land matters under customary law and practice.
(2) The Northern Rhodesia Government would like to ensure that the provision of public services and the responsibility of economic development in Barotseland are not hampered by special formalities.
(3) The Northern Rhodesia Government recognizes and agrees that full consultation should take place with the Litunga and Council before any land in Barotseland is used for public purposes or in the general interests of economic development.
(4) The position regarding land in Barotseland in an independent Northern Rhodesia should, therefore, be as follows:-
(a) There should be the same system for land administration for the whole of Northern Rhodesia including Barotseland, that is, the Government Lands Department should be responsible for professional advice and services with regard to land alienation in all parts of Northern Rhodesia and that the same form of document should be used for grants of land
(i) for Government purposes and
(ii) For non-Government and non-customary purposes. The necessary preparation of the title documents should be done by the Government Lands Department.
(b) The Litunga and National Council of Barotseland will be charged with the responsibility for administering Barotse customary land law within Barotseland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)