Banking at your fingertips

BSP’s Mobile Banking 3^rd Party Funds Transfer is the creative, safe, convenient and cheap approach to the often long winded process of cash transfers.

Not so long ago, to transfer funds from one BSP account to another within or another bank, BSP customers had to leave the comforts of their home or office, travel to the branch, stand in line, fill a deposit form to get it done.

It was a hassle, a daunting task that consumed so much time, effort and money.

BSP has harnessed the advances in technology and has transformed traditional banking to innovative mobile banking. Today, BSP’s innovative Mobile Banking service makes transferring funds simple and convenient with minimal hassle to its customers.

How it works

With BSP Mobile Banking funds transfer, you have the option of transferring funds from your BSP account to another account within BSP. BSP customers can also transfer funds to accounts at other banks.

Funds are transferred in real-time and helps reduce the risks and costs of cash handling. Doing an over the counter transfer to a third party is also quite expensive.

If you are a BSP customer, simply call BSP’s Customer Service Centre to register your number for Mobile Banking. You will need a registered Digicel mobile phone number.

If you are registered for BSP Mobile Banking, these are the following steps:

·         STEP 1: Dial *131#

·         STEP 2: Enter your  Mpin,

·         STEP 3: Press 2 – FUNDS TRANSFER

·         STEP 4: Press 2 – 3^rd PARTY TRANSFER

·         STEP 5: Select your Account that you will transfer funds from

·         STEP 6: Enter 3^rd party account number

·         STEP 5: Select bank

·         STEP 6: Enter amount

·         STEP 7: Confirm the transaction.

 

Once this transaction is complete, the customer gets an SMS confirming the transaction has been processed.
 

BSP is the only bank, which offers a 24/7 Customer Service Centre, so customers can contact email: servicebsp@bsp.com.pg or telephone 320 1212 or 7030 1212 if they need more information or require assistance.  

Why it's Helpful

BSP’s Mobile Banking essentially eliminates the need for customers to go to a bank when they want to transfer funds. For instance, if a child is away at university and needs some urgent cash for stationary, the mum and dad can use their mobile phone to transfer the funds.

No more using third party vendors for wires or cash transfers, which saves a lot of time. With only a mobile phone, the transfer is completed immediately. The child can then use his or her BSP Sumatin Card to access the funds at the nearest BSP ATM or EFTPoS merchant.

For “on the go” businessmen or people who frequently travel, the ability to transfer funds via mobile phone cuts down on potentially stressful situations. Just “type, click, and send”.

Traci Saruva, is one of thousands of happy BSP Mobile Banking customers who can attest to this.  

She says “Mobile Banking enables me to do various transactions without coming into a branch, which is time-consuming.  As BSP’s has locations nationwide, and most of my family members have BSP accounts, it’s easier to transact using Mobile Banking”.

Another BSP Mobile Banking customer, Gerard Varily, could not agree more.

Gerard works in a remote Highlands Province, while his family resides in Kokopo, East New Britain Province.

Because of the nature and location of his job, finding time to go to the nearest bank branch to transfer funds to his family is not a luxury he can afford. His nearest BSP branch is four (4) hours away.  

“I have practically used BSP Mobile Banking and can confidently say, as a father working in a remote location, funds transfer via mobile banking is convenient. It saves me the hassle of travelling long distances to the nearest BSP branch and worry of sending money to my children on time,” he says. 

“Sometimes my children just request for K20 which I can easily transfer to their Sumatin Account,” he adds.

Because he has BSP Mobile Banking, he often assists his work mates who are not registered for Mobile Banking.

“They give me cash, so I transfer funds to their family, but I’ve encouraged them to sign up for mobile banking,” he says.

For Gerard, BSP has made his life so much more easier, because apart from utilising the 3^rd Party Funds Transfer option, he also receives Salary Alerts via his mobile phone, so he knows when pay is credited to his bank account.

Many ordinary Papua New Guineans have embraced the mobile phone as a means to communicate conveniently and cheaply. For BSP customers, they can now, use their mobile phone to communicate and also do banking in the virtual world instead of paper.

No need to worry, because banking is now at your fingertips, as they saying goes.

The Controversy of the Asylum Seekers Deal

By Gande James*

THERE are a lot of controversies that surround the recent asylum seekers deal signed between Papua New Guinea Prime Minister – Peter O’Neill and his Australian counterpart - Kevin Rudd.

The PNG government says that the arrangement in itself is beneficial and those who side with it are those who hold similar views. There are, nevertheless, strong sentiments amongst the people, institutions, international organizations, Non-Governmental Organisation, and even other neighboring countries such as Fiji about the signing of the deal. There are many arguments for and against but only few of perceived advantages and disadvantages of the asylum seekers deal will be highlighted and looked at in this commentary. We will start by looking at some of the negativities associated with it.

First, there are no proper institutional mechanisms put in place to regulate the effects of the arrangement. For example, there are no separate laws like the Asylum Seeker Act to deal with any issues of asylum seekers. In the absence of a legal framework, the implementation of the deal will be ad hoc as policies, procedures and processes would not have been put in place as yet.

Bens Saul, a Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, following the signing of the deal, stated that those who will be recognized as refugees and settled in PNG are highly unlikely to enjoy all of the human rights owed to them under the refugee convention. Violence, including sexual violence is endemic in PNG, so refugees will not be physically safe.

Second, basic rights to health care, education, work, social security and an adequate standard of living are also highly unlikely to be sufficiently provided, given the chronic poverty in PNG and the lack of capacity of the PNG government and institutions.

In the same statement, Saul also made it clear that the quality of the status determination processes in PNG is likely to be very poor and not in conformity with international standards. It all points to the fact of having proper mechanisms to regulate the consequences of the deal.

Past governments have been experts in running into signing such deals without having proper regulatory institutions to house and cater for the accruing consequences. A good example, amongst others, in this light is the carbon trade. Papua New Guinea has signed the agreement amongst member countries to help reduce carbon emission. However, without a proper regulatory institution in place, the people don’t know where and how the benefits that are due to them would be handled.

Without a proper mechanism in place, the expected benefits of the asylum seeker deal will, most likely be dealt with in an ad hoc and arbitrary manner.

Third, the deal is against International Law and other supporting legislation. For example, Australia is likely to violate Article 31 of the refugee convention not to penalize an asylum seeker on account of his or her “illegal” mode of entry to Australia. The deal also brings to question Section 42 of PNG Constitution, particularly Subsections 1 (f) and (g).These sections stipulate that for the purpose of preventing the introduction of diseases or suspected diseases, whether by human, animals or plants…or for the purpose of preventing unlawful entry of a person into Papua New Guinea…respectively, a person shall not be deprived of his personal liberty. The dilemma here in that the deal brings into  question these principles of the Constitution as there are no proper systems and laws in place to ensure that. What guarantee is there that the principles of the refugee convention and the PNG constitution will not be violated? Most fundamental of all, it is not clear whether the deal would be administered under PNG or Australian jurisdiction? If it is the latter, then PNG’s sovereignty will most likely be compromised. This is a large part of the reason why sections of the PNG public have been vocal on the deal.

In terms of the benefits, the Government of Papua New Guinea, together with various individuals and business houses, has largely hinged their argument on the spin off benefits that will be enjoyed from the asylum seeker deal.

First, when signing the deal, the understanding between the two Governments – PNG and Australia, was that funds will be chipped in to reform major University sectors and a construction of a major referral hospital in Lae.

Second, as a friend and a neighbor, with relationships going back to World War II, PNG felt it mandatory to reciprocate its regional obligations. Australia has always been good at all fronts-development aid, rescue mission, trade, security etc.

In addition to that, certain individuals and business houses are of the view that the deal will promote business activities and enhance economic growth. Business organizations will contribute to the development of proper processes to be put in place and also supply what it would need to keep the detention center functioning, such as proper water supply, sanitation and infrastructure maintenance.

There are other pros and cons of the deal that need careful attention.

First, Australia has the vast expanse of land to resettle the refugees, knowing that PNG lacks technical capacities to adequately deal with the issues that may transpire afterwards.

Second, Australia is kind of deliberately running away from it regional obligations, pertaining to her commitment when she signed at the refugee convention in 1954, to protect refugees from further prosecution. She probably may have reflected her incapacity to handle sensitive regional issues by signing the deal.

Third, PNG does not need extra money or aid to enhance its economic development.  Definitely not. We have a lot of agricultural and extractive industries, combined with the expected massive revenue from the PNG LNG gas - there would be sufficient financial liquidity to sustain and enhance economic development of the country.

Notwithstanding the economic benefits, the negative repercussions need to be carefully considered. They include potential violation of international laws, sections of the PNG constitution, and other supporting legislation like the Article 31 of the refugee convention. The PNG government could lose its popularity in the aftermath of the deal. There are sovereignty issues as mentioned above.

The deal boils down to a diplomatic power game in which Kevin Rudd can claim victory, in light of the looming federal elections in Australia. For PNG, on balance, the sovereignty and human rights issues are of more fundamental importance than the financial and economic benefits. Did PNG give the game away to Australia?

* Gande James is a Research Cadet under the Governance Research program at the National Research Institute. 

Rigo farmers are eager to save

Christine Iauve is a vegetable farmer from Magautou Village, who was among 90 subsistence farmers from the Oman Area of Rigo District in Central Province to open new bank accounts with BSP recently.
Christine and her husband grow capsicum, corn, peanut and recently zucchini as their cash crops, which they transport to Port Moresby and supply to hotels and shops. The hard earned cash is usually kept by Christine in her safe corner back in the village.

When opening her new BSP Kundu Account, an elated Christine said she is very thankful and applauded BSP for taking banking services right to the people in remote areas, in the heart of their communities.

Christine opened a Kundu Standard Account which suits those in rural areas.  BSP has two Kundu Accounts available for its customers, the Kundu Standard is a cheaper option for those who do not use their accounts frequently. The Kundu Standard has no monthly maintenance fee, there is no requirement for a minimum balance and its pay as you go.

The Kundu Standard also gives access to Mobile Banking, so Christine can check her account balance or transfer funds at the comfort of her home, while in the garden farming, or while on the road travelling into Port Moresby.

With her new Kundu Card, Christine and the other farmers now have access to BSP’s ATMs and EFTPoS to withdraw money or obtain goods and services.  

“We are very thankful for signing up with BSP and for receiving our Kundu Cards instantly, and not having to wait weeks,” she said.

The advantage of having an bank account, is that Christine and all the other farmers can now save their money. For Christine, the money she saves, she plans to buy a PMV truck to service the Maggi Highway, a dream she and her family has had for many years.

Another happy farmer, Martin Emilio, opened his account with K40 worth of coins (K1, 50t, 20t & 10t), he had collected from selling sweets, like lollies and biscuits in front of his house. Like Christine, Martin plans to save his money.

Martin say his fellow farmers and him have had discussions with a major retailer in Port Moresby on selling their produce, however, one of the requirements was for farmers to have bank accounts so the retailer can make electronic payments, reducing the risk and costs of cash handling.  

“Opening bank accounts is a milestone for us if we are going to sell our produce to retailers in Port Moresby, because they want us to have bank accounts, so deposits can be made electronically, without too much cash, its good for us too, because we don’t just spend all the money, as we now do, when we have cash on hand,” he said. 

The trip to Rigo by BSP was made possible with assistance from ChildFund PNG, an international NGO that has been delivering projects in Food Security, Water and Sanitation, Education, Health and Child Rights in the area for many years.

ChildFund’s Senior Programme Officer, Sharon B Pondros, says their Food Security and Livelihood projects introduced backyard farming to farmers in the rural communities, with the objective to improve livelihoods, by way of improved diets, and ways to earn an income.

She says there is also huge potential for the farmers to grow on a larger scale for cash income.

To encourage farmers to tap into these opportunities, ChildFund through its partner Fresh Produce Development Agency carry out regular financial literacy trainings to equip farmers with the fundamentals of managing and saving their money.

Childfund PNG also encourages farmers to have bank accounts so they save their money, and become self-reliant by investing in areas that will further help sustain their livelihoods.

“We value our partnership with BSP, because through the bank’s rural outreach initiative they willingly offer to support our cause for the benefit of the rural people. And in doing so our farmers are now one step ahead, so when we link them with buyers they get their payments straight into their accounts and they can access it using their Kundu cards,” Sharon says.

“The good thing about having an account, is they don’t spend all their hard earned cash immediately, like previously when they held hard cash in their hands. They are now able to budget and spend wisely, and with the savings they have over time, they can invest in other areas that can further improve their lives,” she adds.

Ends

Control middle and backbenchers

By Andrew Anton Mako*

PNG politics was labeled unstable for many years, for some it’s analogous to the well-known political impasse in 2011.

Today we’re still experiencing these problems.

The notion of political “stability” in PNG has often been used by many governments to increase their political longevity in Parliament, and to quash any attempts of change in government. This is a narrow definition of political stability, which was described as elusive at best and been “achieved” in many ways, that undermined parliamentary democracy, and lessened the power of the Parliament or the Legislature over the years.

Constant change in government is disruptive to socio-economic development and should not be encouraged. However, in PNG the Executive Government’s practice of amassing power, particularly in the last decade, at the expense of the Legislature, the second arm of government, is in itself undemocratic, and impedes the separation of power between these two arms of government.

Since 1977, PNG has had only coalition governments – small parties coming together to join a party which had won many more seats (although on average less than 30 percent of total seats contested across PNG) than the other parties. Successive coalition governments have been fragile and, until the last decade, haven’t lived out their full terms of five years in Parliament. In the PNG Parliament, the balance of power that ultimately determines the lifespan of a government lies with the middle and backbenches of the Parliament. This is where “unattached” Members of Parliament (MPs) are seated. By “unattached” I mean those MPs who either aren’t in government, or at least not occupying portfolios in the government. They aren’t important powerbrokers in the coalition.

History shows that ensuring the support of the middle and backbenchers has been an important goal of any government. If a coalition government can successfully “shut out” the middle and backbenchers of the Parliament, it can ably last a full term of five years. This was brought to the fore in the last decade under Prime Minister (PM) Somare’s two terms of government.

How did the previous governments control the middle and backbenchers?

Formal attempts were made by the Executive Government during the early 2000 to bring stability into Parliament – in the context of this article - to “control” the middle and backbenchers. The government headed by then PM Sir Mekere Morauta enacted the Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties & Candidates (OLIGPAC) in 2000 which required that all MPs voted along party lines, including in an event of a change in government. For a decade, the OLIGPAC successfully “controlled” the power shifting forces of the Parliament until 2010, when Supreme Court ruled that the particular provision (of compelling voting along party lines) of OLIGPAC was unconstitutional. This high court ruling rendered OLIGPAC ineffective as far as “controlling” the middle and backbenchers was concerned. The middle and backbenchers of the Parliament have since become the key power brokering/shifting force of the political landscape of PNG.

Before the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, from 2002 to 2010, the coalition government headed by then PM Sir Michael enjoyed nearly a decade of political “stability” in the history of this nation. This is largely due to OLIGPAC, as well as by employing other control mechanisms to evade any opposition. This included gagging of debate in Parliament, and “appeasement” of the middle and backbenchers by promises of privileges like easy access and timely release of District Services Improvement Program (DSIP) funds, and other funding streams like the Provincial Services Improvement Program (PSIP). However, during this period, a dangerous precedent was set as far as the balance of power between the Executive Government and the Legislature is concerned, i.e. the former amassed powers by eating into the latter’s powers in its quest to successfully control the middle and backbenchers.

Yet, there would always be disgruntled middle and backbenchers that made this group a “powder keg”, ready to explode any time when ignited. This became apparent at the end of the last decade, and apparently after the OLIGPAC was quashed by the Supreme Court in 2010. In 2011, when the opposition finally had a breakthrough in having its voice heard in Parliament, it moved for a change in government when the incumbent PM was in hospital overseas. Almost the entire middle and backbenchers crossed floor to join the opposition to form a new government. 

How is the government currently dealing with power shifting forces of Parliament?

The above is the unfortunate situation of PNG Parliament the current coalition government inherited after the 2012 National Elections. Given the legislative void, the Executive Government faces a mammoth challenge in ensuring the middle and backbenchers are appeased and supportive. The current coalition government couldn’t use the same tactics as its predecessor mainly because: (i) the Parliament now has a Speaker who is “resilient”, and  has proven that he cannot be easily influenced to gag Parliamentary debate; (ii) promises of privileges to “appease” the middle & backbenchers can be ineffective mechanism to contain them because, like in 2011, they can easily cross floor to form a new government; and (iii) the coalition government has publicly announced that it will be a transparent and responsible government.  So to ensure political “stability” or for the coalition government to live out the full five years term in Parliament, the Executive Government had to further lessen the powers of the Legislature by amending key legislations including specific sections of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. An example of such legislative change enacted in recent months was to extend the grace period to 30 months (from 18 months).

Recently, the government has announced that further legislative changes will be made to ensure political “stability”. The proposed Constitutional amendments will: (i) require a mover of motion of no-confidence against an incumbent PM/Government give three advance months (an increase from one week), and ensure signatures of 1/3 (an increase from 1/10) of total MPs nominating an alternative PM; and (ii) reduce the minimum sitting days of Parliament from 63 to 40 days.  The nature of the proposed legislative changes is such that the demarcation of powers will again be negatively impacted – more powers will be amassed by the Executive Government at the expense of the Legislature. Essentially, this will lessen the noise (if any) the middle and backbenchers could make against the government.

The opposition has strongly opposed these proposed legislative changes. However, it is powerless to effect change given it now has less than eight MPs as the majority of its initial MPs (some of whom were very vocal and critical of the Executive Government) have left. They have either joined the government (and become backbenchers) or are in the middle-benches. All these former opposition MPs claimed on their dates of departure that being in the opposition would be to miss out on bringing development to their electorates/provinces. This is a diplomatic way of saying they’d miss out on privileges enjoyed by those MPs in government or middle-benches, e.g. the timely and easier access of DSIP and PSIP funds. And those still in opposition claim their development funds have been withheld.

What has been happening in the parliament and the actions successive Executive Governments had taken since the last decade (and proposes to take) are due to the “fear” the incumbent governments have of being ousted by the (minority) opposition when the (majority) middle and backbenchers rise against them. How can this dilemma be addressed? This calls for a bi-partisan approach that could introduce radical political reforms to be passed by Parliament which would bring meaningful solution(s). Reforms that would turn political “stability” in PNG on its head are needed. Such reforms for example, should include the reduction of the number of political parties. This could be done without restricting democracy, for example, by lifting the bar on the registration of political parties, and/or, requiring that they contest a larger minimum number of seats 

*Andrew Anton Mako is a Research Fellow under the Economic Policy Research program at the National Research Institute. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of NRI or any political party.