believe we are all aware that weaker communities have lesser chances of access and that situation leads to widening even further, the ever - widening gap. therefore, it is timely and appropriate that this forum addresses the need to impress upon the more wealthy nations to increase aid flows, open out greater trading opportunities, and move towards higher investment and resource build - up in the lower income countries. lest i be misunderstood, let me add that, not for a moment am i suggesting that the progressive steps the world and the international community have taken over the past few decades in developing new standards and norms are in any way, inappropriate or unwelcome. those initiatives were certainly necessary and have been beneficial for the overall advancement of society. but, we must, at the same time, collectively address the ever growing constraints arising out of the inflexibilities and restrictions imposed in the transfer of capital, wealth, skills, knowledge and the imposition of new standards, which may consciously or unconsciously act as subtle barriers to poverty alleviation. your excellencies, honorable ministers, distinguished guests, in order for all of us to appreciate the fact that what i am saying is not something new, let me now quote a principle as set out in the singapore declaration, and affirmed in harare. “ our aim is to achieve the freest possible flow of international trade on terms fair and equitable to all, taking into account the special requirements of the developing countries, and to encourage the flow of adequate resources, including governmental and private resources, to the developing countries, bearing in mind the importance of doing this in true spirit of partnership, and of establishing for this purpose in the developing countries, conditions which are conducive to sustained investment and growth ”. while this principle enunciates a very laudable and noble philosophy the unfortunate reality may be that the plethora of what we may call “ worthy restrictions ”, ( albeit they may be for the greater good of mankind ), may be actually but unwittingly assisting to keep the same developing countries in a tighter trap of poverty. the powerful message that emerges from this situation is clear. the present lowincome countries, when they have to struggle in this unsympathetic environment, need more understanding ; greater allocations for funding and investment ; increased direct aid flows ; and tangible support and direct concessions to recognize satisfactory “ compliance ”. at this stage, i would like to acknowledge a step in the right direction that has been followed

what they are paid for when corrosion of character is so pervasive? i come from a profession that has little to do with the practical aspects of human resource management. i am an economist, not a human resource professional. i have my own style of resolving human resource problems that is not necessarily the ideal one. it was 1998. i had just been appointed governor of the bank. the bank ’ s operations were partially computerized. there 1 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches were a few senior employees who, despite having had the benefit of many sessions of training, were still averse to the use of computer. i had seized the opportunity of a meeting with staff to drive home a key point. i vividly recall having said that people hate change. the world hates change. yet it is the only thing that has brought progress. the sophisticated quality of their cars they were driving, the electrical appliances that have greatly enhanced the quality of their lives, the advanced medical facilities that have reduced suffering were some examples of the products of “ change ” that successful organisations have adapted to. i had gone on to quote harold wilson, former british prime minister of the uk, “ he who rejects change is the architect of decay. the only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery. ” my eyeballs rolled, on and on, on those who were aversive to the use of computer at the bank, while i stressed that we had to reinvent ourselves continually. it is not the strongest or the most intelligent that survives ; it is the one that is most adaptable to change. it was compelling for us to tool and re - tool, equip and reequip ourselves and keep on moving ahead if we had to keep earning a salary at the bank. the bad news was that re - engineering in any enterprise requires hard decisions. the hard decision was that those who are against change would have to head towards the exit door. guess what? samuel johnson said it beautifully : “ when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. ” the same day the senior guys unpacked themselves to learn the difference between business ignorance and business tragedy. not long after, the same guys became the champion for change. they are still employed somewhere in the private sector, even after the age of 65. they turned out to be winners. winners are often losers who have evaluated themselves. ceos, heads of departments / divisions and human resource