(DAILY MAIL) Mine tax report rejected
Mine tax report rejectedA PARLIAMENTARY watchdog committee has rejected a Government report on the new mining tax regime on grounds that it lacks clear detail on the legality of the proposed measures. The expanded parliamentary committee on estimates rejected ......
This is from the Daily Mail website. Unfortunately, the rest of the report is unreadable, because the Daily Mail's pages don't load.
What I am thinking, is that a lot of parliamentarians must have been bought and in some ways compromised by all the money that is going to the mining companies.
I am sure that they have more than a few MPs in their pocket. The problem with that, is that MPs are elected to represent the will and interests of their constituents, not the mining companies. Their opinion must be an expression of the voice of the people (vox populi), not an expression of the voice with the deepest pockets.
If the mining companies have bought or bribed MPs, to me that amounts to treason. It is one thing to bribe a traffic cop. It is quite another thing, a matter with ramifications on the very content of Democracy in Zambia, to bribe an MP or any other high ranking politician or functionary.
Therefore, if there is significant opposition to the windfall tax and the general mining regime, we should make great haste with doing awaywith the licenses and rights of those mining companies who have engaged in this highly corrupt practice.
If the ruling party cannot pass legislation in parliament, because, irrespective of ideology, certain MPs have been bought off, that should be cause for removal of the company in question from the country.
Labels: CORRUPTION, DAILY MAIL, MPs, WINDFALL TAX
posted by MrK @ 3:19 PM
9 Comments:
This is where I get lost with the procedural rhetoric or is complexity of the Zambian parliamentary system. It did seem odd for me that Mwanawasa and Magande only had to include this proposed mining tax increase in their respective speeches without introducing a formal bill for debate.
I have argued before that Zambia has no legal basis changes agreed terms with foreign mining firms; it's a bit like closing the ban after the horses have escaped. We may as Zambians claim sovereignty and the first right to these natural resources but we have use a legitimate constitutional process to get ourselves out a hole we knowing got ourselves by signing a legal and binding agreement with these firms.
Lobbying of members of parliament by interest groups to advance their causes is a natural phenomenon in new order of business; this is essentially why Mwanawasa and Magande should have secured the support of MPs before going on with this bold move.
It now appears the mining firms are two steps ahead.
Lobbying of members of parliament by interest groups to advance their causes is a natural phenomenon in new order of business;
No, it is called corruption, and it is illegal.
And if it is proven that their supporters in parliament have been paid, the agreements themselves become invalid, no matter who signed them or what they say.
this is essentially why Mwanawasa and Magande should have secured the support of MPs before going on with this bold move.
It now appears the mining firms are two steps ahead.
If they have bribed MPs, they could easily find themselves in a heap of trouble.
And that goes for the MPs in question as well. I don't think Levy Mwanawasa is going to take that kind of 'independent thinking' very kindly.
Lobbying of members of parliament by interest groups to advance their causes is a natural phenomenon in new order of business;
No, it is called corruption, and it is illegal.
What makes you so sure they got paid ?
What if the mining companies by using arguments, data, projections have convinced them that the mining tax reform is not in the interest of Zambia or their constituency ?
It's not because an idea is obviously good to you that it's obviously good to anybody.
Because they don't give a darn about their constituencies. They only care about getting re-elected.
It's not because an idea is obviously good to you that it's obviously good to anybody.
Actually yes it is. It is obviously good to Ngandu Magande. :)
And a whole host of others I don't need to mention. The government is receiving support from a whole host of organisations on this issue - including the IMF and World Bank.
Because they don't give a darn about their constituencies. They only care about getting re-elected.
Isn't that the same thing to an extend ?
I mean if they're really ready to go against party-lines, with all the consequences that it imply in africna politics, they must have a damn good reason, don't you think ?
And a whole host of others I don't need to mention. The government is receiving support from a whole host of organisations on this issue - including the IMF and World Bank.
Sure but people do have the right to disagree. And furthermore why don't dig into the reasons why they rejected it ? Reading the full article, and adding on Mwini Chalo's comment, it seems to me that they're not rejecting the principle of a tax increase but the way it has been and will be implimented.
Remember transparency, rule of law and democracy are not things one switches on and off depending on what one wants. The same procedurialism and debate that makes us all think democracy prevent leaders from making stupid decisions WILL slow down good ones too. And it is worth it.
Because they don't give a darn about their constituencies. They only care about getting re-elected.
- Isn't that the same thing to an extend ?
No it isn't. It an coincide, but that depends on whether other loyalties take precedent. And after all, it does take money to win elections.
Remember transparency, rule of law and democracy are not things one switches on and off depending on what one wants.
So where does this newfound belief in transparancy come from? What inspired it?
We have even seen MPs stand up and defend BGRIMM, after the appalling disaster there. Did they do so to make themselves more popular with their constituencies? I don't think so.
The same procedurialism and debate that makes us all think democracy prevent leaders from making stupid decisions WILL slow down good ones too. And it is worth it.
You mean generally speaking, or specifically relevant to the case at hand.
We're somehow to believe that the entire process didn't take into account the legalities or parliamentary procedure.
The same procedurialism and debate that makes us all think democracy prevent leaders from making stupid decisions WILL slow down good ones too. And it is worth it.
Only worth it, if the intent is honest. And not corrupted.
Only worth it, if the intent is honest. And not corrupted.
That's exactly the issue. How do you know anything about anybody's intent ? How do you know the intent of the presidency is not just to have more money to steal ? It is scary that you reject even the idea that someone could have any reason to oppose a plan. And in this case, a commission rejected a REPORT and asked for more information. It's not like they did vote against the tax increase !
You mean generally speaking, or specifically relevant to the case at hand.
I mean as a RULE. Yes generaly and yes it includes this specific case. It doesn't matter if your frustration with the speed (or lackthereof) of the process is legitimate and well-meaning. Respecting the process ALL THE TIME for all the decisions is how you stop bad ones from passing. And if the idea of a tax increase is a good one, it will survive parliamentary and public scrutiny.
So where does this newfound belief in transparancy come from? What inspired it?
Could be a lot of things. It could be that they saw an opportunity to make a point. It could be that they genuinely have issues with the report. It could be that they oppose the tax increase for a lot of different reasons. And yes, it could be that they're in the mining companies' pockets.
But it's really not important.
What's important is the outcome: because there are people out there making arguments against this and that clause of the proposal, the plan will fine-tuned and because the idea of a tax increase has large support in the population and even among the civil society and international orgs, it will pass anyway.
(speaking of Nigeria, you know why they had their first peaceful civilian-to-civilian transition of power last year ? Because the MPs rejected a plan to allow the president to run for a 3rd term. They didnt reject it because they were genuine democrats or anything. Most of them simply wanted to preserve their own personnal chances of becoming president. So yeah good things can come out of bad intentions)
We have even seen MPs stand up and defend BGRIMM, after the appalling disaster there. Did they do so to make themselves more popular with their constituencies? I don't think so.
Why not ? All over the world, there have been cases of miners opposing plans for more regulation or attacks on the owners of the mine after catastrophes. And those miners had their reasons. They're more aware of the trade-off between have a job and having well-meaning security regulation or they're more aware of the causes of disasters.
If the constituencies of those MPs are as appalled by their position as you are, well, they should loose their seats. (and if money is the reason they didn't, it means voters think money is more important than the positions. their choice)
By the way, kudos to the Daily Mail for getting back online.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home