As a matter of fact, the Botswana government should be encouraged to negotiate similar loans with the Chinese authorities to cater for other sectors of the economy. Our problem, however, lies with conditions attached to the latest P55 million housing loan, and the beneficiary of this Chinese generosity - the Botswana Housing Corporation (BHC).

For a start, we have genuinely high expectations about China as an emerging global economic and political power. Our expectations are not misplaced. China has just graduated from developing country status, and it should be well versed with problems besetting the developing world. Whilst north-south relations had always been skewed in favour of the developed world in which the south is more often the loser, China's pronouncements are premised on the win-win model.

The developed world has rightly been accused of giving with one hand and taking with the other. It is therefore surprising when China gives Botswana a low-interest rate loan, only to attach conditions that basically take away that benefit by insisting that the construction of the BHC houses be awarded to a Chinese company. This condition could have been tenable if Chinese companies had not previously been allowed to compete for construction tenders in Botswana.

But the reality is that they have been winning substantial contracts in Botswana's construction sector for years. It is only fair that local construction companies are also given an opportunity to get a piece of the action in the Chinese-funded projects. It is for this reason that we call upon China to review her loan policy to Botswana in the future. With regard to the BHC, we could not agree more with those parliamentarians who maintained that the corporation has deviated from its mandate of providing Batswana with affordable houses.

BHC has long moved from that original mandate into the realm of commercialism. Having moved into such an arena, logic dictates that the corporation competes with other players on a level playing field. Surprisingly, BHC continues to enjoy certain privileges reserved for a national housing agency, which it is not. For instance, BHC is given preference in terms of land allocation, and government goes out to secure soft loans for it such as in the China development referred to above.

Paradoxically, however, BHC's language is littered with talk of "charging market rates". Clearly, the current role of the BHC is hardly different from that of other housing providers like Time Projects, for instance. Why then should the BHC continue to enjoy preferential treatment by the state?

Today's Thought

It is what a man thinks of himself that really determines his fate.

-Henry David Thoreau