“When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.”― Nelson Mandela
The call by Members of Parliament for greater and more stringent controls and regulation of social media has brought out responses from social media commentators. Nearly all the comments were against the move by the MPs as this tit for tat war continues. The following are some edited comments:
1. “You have suppressed mainstream media, disallow peaceful protests and dialogue and now you want to regulate the only means we have to air our voice? A question deserves an answer, and it does not take rocket science to figure out. You are taking parliamentary debates to the streets because you cannot engage and answer all these glaring questions on the floor, and you shut down our request to present you, a petition to alleviate our fears and assure us that all is well. I hope the government media team is working overtime to prepare some answers if there is any at all!”
2. “The problem with legislating what people can and cannot say is that when movements or causes are forced underground they tend to get stronger. If the MPs don't like what people are saying they should fight fire with fire ... launch their own counter campaigns. Ignore the trivial and counter with their own spin/ facts. That would spark national debates ... and everyone should understand that the truth is always much more powerful than lies.”
3. “They are feeling the heat now. As the saying goes; 'Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat'. They should leave like Kevin Rudd did.”
4. “Get those inconsiderate MPs on minimum wage, apply the same tax laws on them, get them to travel only using all our current forms of public transport no special five star treatment/ service, no overseas medical treatment funded by taxpayers money and then the last topic of discussion can be about regulating the social media. Really they are missing the point, the regulating of social media is not of national importance to the people of this country right now!! Get your shit together, shame on them”
5. “Unbelievable how MPs conduct themselves, very short-sighted and they lack vision for this country, they should make policies to enhance and realise the great potentials of this great country instead of attacks on its people, they tend to forget that at the end of their term(s) in parliament, they return as ordinary citizens and suffer the adverse consequences of their decisions just like everyone else..”
6. “So the initial point raised by Hon Marape is on pseudonyms? Then deal with that Mr and Ms Ministers! Don’t go bullshit talk on your people about how we describe you or dig hidden matters concerning you ACCEPT IT and DEAL WITH IT like a true Leader. Fine, if a Member of the Public brings out an issue against you and you want to deal with it in Court FINE! But cut the crap, leave your Voters and People alone and do what you're mandated to do!”
7. “The Education and Finance Minister should be telling parliament what development he is bringing into his Tari-Pori Electorate. Are the roads sealed yet in Tari town? Any proper market in Tari, How is the Tari Hospital for example,. Tell us about developments MP, we are not interesting about your whingeing of the public's opinion. Members of Parliament you open the gate way to public opinion once you become a MP. Grow a backbone start actually doing your jobs, instead of worrying about what people say about you or how you are dressed.”
8. “What???...defaming?, well ok maybe but bullying?, are you kidding me? We the people are being bullied everyday by the poor decision making of some leaders. High income tax, poor road conditions in the major cities and towns, run down health care services, limited higher learning institutes, high airfare travel in domestic flights, the PNG kina falling, and the damn list goes on. After 38 years of independence we at least should be on the road to prosperity and not the other way around...so yes, the leaders need to step up and deliver because the average citizens of this country voted them in to get the job done...but all we hear and see in the media is corruption and allegations of misappropriation, court orders and by elections, of course the public will naturally as humans lash out to their leaders. So please all good leaders don't be discouraged by our verbal attacks but prove us wrong to win back our trust.”
9. “I don't see the point in criticisms of the MP's on social media as a way to prevent the public to air their views. To be a leader means you accept every bit of criticisms against you and there is no point of defending yourself coz you were voted out of the many to represent a portion of the nation’s population or it applies to any leadership qualities one possesses.
If the MP's will pass legislation against it, mark my word, none will comment against them coz the law will prevent them and obviously they will polarize the system. So guys think critically and be realistic for tomorrow not today.”
10. “PNGeans we can see that what these leaders are trying to do is to clearly control the media so they will enjoy doing corruption without criticism from the public. This is true corruption!!”
11. “That's violation against the rights to freedom of speech and expressions as allowed for in the constitution. Where is PNG heading??...signs of dictatorship creeping into this country, how can this be allowed, we must not be silenced by these so called leaders who are only interested in creating laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the general public. I think we need a revolution...NOW..”
12. “THEY ARE ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF PNG. 90% OF PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THESE PUPPETS WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN THEM. SOCIAL MEDIA IS THE ONLY OUTLET WHERE OUR FRUSTRATIONS CAN BE AIRED 24/7..Yu filim lo bun stret cause you are not representing your people na like pasim..SHAME ON YOU cause you HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.”
13. “Criticisms are healthy for leaders as they use them to make amends on decisions made so that at the end of the day all will be happy but png leaders nogat strongim kona na kamapim kainkain law lo zip up critics em ol yah!”
14. “They regulated the mainstream media by suppressing it and the public had to go to social media to hear our voices being heard; truth must hurt for them to raise this olsem na ol mas pilim lo bun. Marape, you will be one of the first to be arrested once Paraka comes out.”
15. “Normal trend, enacting of laws to make wrong become right. Luckily, Lae MP is still around. Honorable MP, Lae have many issues and need your attn. You are being facebooked because you aren't performing your mandated duties. How can you do self-assessment when you don't take criticisms?”
16. “So what, let us be. Who and why is the government coming up with such agendas, have they no control of the newspapers and emtv news, I think they already have control, and now wanting to silence our opinions and views.”
17. “To James Marape and Loujaya please just do the right thing? Deliver the needed service and you will see Papua New Guineans will applaud you. You are not doing the right thing that is why we are commenting here. Stop being baby sense you’re mature enough to understand that. Criticisms are good. This is our nation and we have all the right to talk about any decisions that the government makes that will and is affecting us. Just shut up and deliver the service. Prove to us that you are leaders and accept criticism coz you are public figures.”
18. “Public office holders are subject to public opinions for the role they take. You were not born with that job, you will only occupy it for a while so do the best you can & don’t bullshit us about your feelings!”
19. “That will be a terrible mistake if our Parliamentarians regulate to control freedom of expression through social network n control media. So what can we name the country under, democracy, guided democracy, totalitarian, dictator? The Government needs to explain that too.
By Patriot PNG
WE, THE PEOPLE, do now establish this sovereign nation and declare ourselves, under the guiding hand of God, to be the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. AND WE ASSERT, by virtue of that authority that all power belongs to the people—acting through their duly elected representatives that respect for the dignity of the individual and community interdependence are basic principles of our society that we guard with our lives our national identity, integrity and self respect that we reject violence and seek consensus as a means of solving our common problems that our national wealth, won by honest, hard work be equitably shared by all..."
A fundamental piece enshrined in our great constitution.
And yet despite the conclusions we may all have, it is common knowledge shared amongst everyone that political decisions made by our leaders whom we the people elected into Parliament abused for personal gain and foreign business partners, over the last 37 years.
For far too long we the people have suffered neglect by successive governments that have come and gone.
In fact, the display of having to swear an oath on the Holy Bible with promise to listen to our cries, carry our pain and deliver us from our struggles is the single most biggest mockery in the Christian faith.
And for far too long, we the people have seen thousands of our own die because of reckless decision making for ego and nothing more.
The respect we have shown to those we elected has never waivered despite minor hiccups seen by small scale civil unrests and peaceful protests because we were taught for decades, even conditioned to be law abiding citizens at home, in school and in church.
For years we the people have waited for those we voted into Parliament to return to us, their people, and help improve our poor standard of living, yet it seems, we sacrificed alot on our own with the dedication and commitment from our parents, teachers, pastors, doctors, nurses and other civil servants who were determined in helping improve our livelihood.
And for the thousands that missed out systematically from our education system; they were determined to succeed we must acknowledge.
It is the stories of millions of mothers and fathers in the rural provinces who worked hard despite experiencing our country's harsh economic periods that led to the creation of a 'dual economy' that exists today.
Today the formal sector represents only a minority in Papua New Guinea, whilst the majority of the country's population participate in the informal sector.
In fact, the informal sector promotes a cash economy that created a buoyancy effect, preventing us from experiencing any detrimental effect during the global financial meltdown only a few years ago as we witnessed the collapse of other countries' financial systems, plumetting at unprecedented levels.
Even the formal sector contributed, and still do to this day, their hard earned wages through tax.
And despite our tax contribution, it seems that the decisions made by successive governments aimed at building our socio-ecomomic livelihood, continue to be a major revenue earner for foreign owned companies and individuals, politicians and a few of our very own people who continue to leech off the very system that was created to benefit 7 1/2 million people through health, education, agriculture, tourism, SME's and in banking & finance, etc.
It is sad to learn from history that nothing will ever change for our good as opposed to those we have entrusted in representing us, who continue to enjoy the benefits we pay for during their tenure in parliament.
We the people have had potential leaders who looked certain to deliver us from the unbearing pain of uncertainty and gloom we silently keep in thought, despite the prayers from millions throughout our beloved country, slowly sway into becoming part of a strong and vibrant culture of lobbying, ego driven and abuse, and all at the expense of our hard earned tax contribution.
And for years, we the people have always had a choice; whether to take the same power away from those we elected, yet chose to promote their ego by electing them into Parliament.
Lest we forget our constitutional right that is enshrined in the preamble of our constitution; where the power vested in us the people must be reflected through our leaders to help build a better tomorrow where we and our children will enjoy can be taken back, because it seems our rights will always be sabotaged by no one else but the very ones we entrusted to ensure our welfare is catered for.
Surely, we choose not to continually enjoy our pitiful living standards in silence that will slowly create a legacy where our children and their children will end up beggars on their own land.
Therefore, as rightful inheritants to this ancient land, we the people have decided that we will choose to act, not with hate but as our constitutional duty to uphold and not be reserved in thought with silence but speak without fear or favour.
We the people do care for our future and our childrens' future.
We also acknowledge the contributions of those others we elected and what they have done for this country with education and very little health service delivery. Other than these two, it has been all but sheer hard work on our own.
We must admit, nothing looks or feels right with the current status quo today, where those we welcome from outside the ocean and mountain borders seem to benefit, whilst we suffer.
It is this thought we must embark on a journey in propelling us to become a united front; the true sons and daughters of Papua New Guinea in opting for CHANGE that must forge mutual relationships, not between our government and foreign companies and individuals who bludge off our resouces, but between the government and its people in building a better tomorrow for both us and our children.
Therefore, we the people have decided to stop work and sit in protest with a good and caring spirit to show those we elected that we still cherish them as our own, we only ask they listen and adhere to our request.
Our right to elect you must ensure that same right is heard because the power belongs to us the people.
By Martz Abong G
Why is the government spending to much money on HIV AIDS, when everyone is not thinking and using there God given brains. The money could be spent on upgrading PNGs National Orthotic & Prosthetic Services and bringing in more advance artificial limbs for amputees. Most people dont understand that AIDS has a boundry, the desire and pleasure of having sex has made alot of people dumb meaning no one seems to be using there brains when they come
across this, yet millions of kina is spent on
awareness and advocacy but no one borders to consider the fact behind the risk associated, by having more then a single partner. On a different perspective, disability has no boundries and it is everyones problem. No men or women can deny that fact. The current rate is increasing
rapidly yet the government does not seem to
consider that fact by giving 100% support towards creating or upgrading the facilities to cater for the increase. They may have touched it a bit under the current ministry of community affairs or whatever its known for, but thats not good enough. It should be made a ministry of its own or a screteriate. Disability is a very big body that covers different types of categories. Eg.
Blindness, deaf n dumb, handicaps, amputees, you name it and the list goes on. When funding is given it does not address the full needs of all. I never thought i would become an amputee, just like all of you out there. When ever you pass by a disable person everyone starts to draw there own opinion and conclusion on how this
person became what he is right now whether he was born with it or caused through
circumstances, not considering the fact that it
can happen to you just with a flick of a finger. I was a normal person, enjoyed my life and lived so happily till one day, i had a freak accident at my work place which resulted in me loosing my right leg. It was a very painfull experience and a very hard one.
My life just turned upside down just like that.
After my amputation and then my recovery i had to rehabilitate to use a prostesis limb inorder to walk again. The 1st steps we all took was at home when we all were toddlers, thats the happiest moments of our life esspecially for our parents. To learn how to walk again is just a heart breaking thing. There are a lot of amputees out there in
PNG and they know what i mean and how it feels like. There are two types of prosthesis which you would be issused by the NOPS centre, the 1st
one is a wooden stump for those who could not afford to purchase one and the 2nd one cost around K2300 which is made of plastic. The thing common about each of them is that they both share the same discomforting feeling, and you will hate it, but theres no choice, somehow the body needs to adapt to it which takes along time for that to happen. The more advance and user friendly limbs are overseas, but inorder to get hold of one you would need enough money to travel there and purchase it. Tell me is that our or
my problem, yeah it is my body but were would we get enough money to do so, like wise other amputees. We are just ordinary Papua New Guineans. Most are employees and professionals who contribute and pay taxes to the government at there own rights. This is a government problem. The government should be responsible for making arrangements with our centres and fund the bringing in of this user
friendly limbs. Then the cost would be
subsidiesed making it easier for us to purchase it here. Unfortunatley that is not the case right now. Most palimanterians seem to be growing fat every time we see them, and they are vulnarable in getting diabetees. It is a life style desease that cannot be controlled by the day. So they should start making priorities towards
this instead of wasting all the money to HIV
Prime Minister O’Neill’s ‘Regional Resettlement Agreement’ with Prime Minister Rudd of Australia is highly improper and risky to the long term interest of Papua New Guinea. The Opposition has forewarned Papua New Guineans, and in particular, Parliamentarians of the dangers of Parliament deliberately removing the constitutional checks and balance mechanism on the Prime Minister’s exercise of power. This Agreement was signed unilaterally by the Prime Minister and we hope this is the last and not the first since securing his tenure through constitutional amendments.
FACTS AND ISSUES
Processing and Resettlement
The first Memorandum of Agreement between Papua New Guinea and Australia was for processing only of Asylum Seekers. After processing, genuine refugees were to be sent back to Australia for resettlement or sent elsewhere.
The revised or second Agreement called the ‘Regional Refugee Resettlement Agreement’ is for processing as well as resettlement of refugees in PNG and other places. Not one single sole will be resettled in Australia. PNG Government is making a whole sale take-over of an Australian issue and an Australian problem. The question, is, how in the whole world are we better than Australia, to deal with such a huge and complex international problem.
Forced Entry and Detention
The Asylum Seekers are forcefully brought into PNG by the Government of Australia and detained by the Government of Papua New Guinea. Australia and PNG may have violated international refugee and human rights protocols. The Agreement may also be in violation of our National Constitution. PNG may face a Class Action by the Asylum Seekers for agreeing to detain them on behalf of a third country, when it should have rejected the proposal as being not in keeping with PNG’s Constitution.
Lack of Sanction by NEC and Parliament
The Prime Minister has committed the Nation to an International Agreement, which essentially is a treaty, without any debate by the Parliament and civil society. This is simply disrespectful to the highest authority in the land. If indeed the NEC had made a decision to sign the Memorandum of Agreement in the terms it is, then it should have been brought to Parliament for scrutiny and sanction by Parliament.The Opposition believes the Prime Minister signed a substantially amended Agreement without the prior consideration and approval of the National Executive Council.
Asylum Seeker and Refugee Policy
PNG does not have a policy on Asylum Seekers and Refugees. The implementation of the terms of the Agreement has no policy basis.This is the very reason why our brothers and sisters from West Papua have never been processed and resettled properly in this country.
The earlier Agreement did not contain any financial benefit for PNG. The revised or second Agreement, also, does not contain any financial package, as we are lead to believe. There are no new millions of Dollars from Australia in consideration of the Agreement, apart from the $450 Million Annual Program Aid. It is free of charge.
The funding of Universities infrastructure, Lae Hospital re development and the two other named projects that the PM keeps mentioning to smooth out students, are to be funded partly from the annual Australian Aid of $450 Million and the PNG Government’s own funds over a five year period.
The truth is that it is a friendly gesture. O’Neill is doing a favour to Australia and the immediate beneficiary is the Australian Labour Party.
Regional and International Duty.
1. The PM has tried very hard to justify his rushed and hasty decision and has given the following reasons as justifications;
2. Australia gives annually to PNG the $450 Million Aid Money and other assistance during disasters.
3. PNG is a regional leader in the Pacific
4. PNG has plenty of land
5. PNG has signed various international treaties and conventions
PNG must be seen to be an important player in international affairs
These are not unimportant considerations. They are pertinent and indeed PNG must play an active role in regional and international affairs. But it must do so within the confines of domestic and international law, international conventions and protocol. PNG must also have the administrative and financial capacity to take on regional and international responsibilities. Failure to meet these requirements and expectations may be costly and damaging for PNG. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees which is a party central to the matter and issues at hand, has not been consulted and left out by the two governments, raising further doubts about the credibility of the Agreement.
Administrative and Financial Responsibility
It is not yet clear whether Australia or PNG will have administrative responsibility over the Asylum seekers and the processing centre. It is also not clear what the annual financial cost will be to run the facility and who will be responsible for funding it. In all probability, the PNG Government will foot the bill for as long as it keeps the asylum seekers processing program.
Resettlement of refugees is a huge administrative and financial responsibility. No doubt, it will further stretch our administrative and financial capacity. Land, employment and housing will have to be provided by the PNG Government.
The West Papuans have never been resettled on any land, let alone housing and other welfare needs. Our people from the atolls are yet to be resettled. Our people from Manam Island are yet to be properly resettled with housing and other basic needs. A huge chunk of our work force are living in squatter settlements, and are yet to be resettled and housed and provided electricity and clean water.
The fact remains that we are in a major crisis ourselves and our people are suffering and we can barely afford to care for others.
When talking about land, Australia is a vast continent while PNG is just a tiny island. Land in Australia is owned by the State, hence there is more land available to the government than here in PNG, where the state owns only less than 10 % of land. As state owned land is in short supply, the state has to buy land to resettle refugees. Additional land in Manus might be required to cater for increased number of asylum seekers. Should the government purchase additional land for asylum seeker and refugee purposes, so must it, purchase for all our landless people including the West Papuans. The people will be watching.
The Prime Minister unilaterally signed an Agreement which was substantially altered from the initial Agreement without Cabinet approval and Parliament’s scrutiny and sanction.
The program is likely to be disastrous as PNG does not have a policy on Asylum Seekers and Refugees.
The program is a huge financial and administrative burden to the people of Papua New Guinea for many years to come.
There is no direct financial benefit. The economic benefit to Manus and Papua New Guinea is negligible. Even the contracts seem to have been awarded to Australians as supplies are now being flown direct from Australia to Manus.
There are numerous social, cultural, religious and security concerns associated with such a grand international scheme, the full extent and impact of which is not obvious or visible as yet but will slowly unfold. It is any one’s guess as no impact study has been undertaken.
As the forceful detention of the Asylum Seekers may be unconstitutional, the Independent State of Papua New Guinea could face a multimillion Kina Class Action by the Asylum Seekers.
The Opposition commends the contributions to the debate by two Founding Fathers of our Nation in Grand Chief Rt. Honourable Sir Michael Somare and Sir John Kaputin and by Hon. Garry Juffa, Governor for Oro. We encourage other leaders to stand up for your Country on a very significant issue that will affect the socio-economic life and security of Papua New Guinea in the long run.
The Opposition recommends that the Government immediately rescind the revised or second Agreement which allows for resettlement and revert back to the original Agreement which is for processing only.
The Government will still need to amend section 42 of the Constitution to allow detention of Asylum Seekers on behalf of a third Country.
Hon Belden Norman Namah, MP
Leader of Opposition
There is ongoing debate about whether or not the Constitutional amended that granted to a government elected into office 30 months grace period from motions of no confidence is constitutional. The constitutional amendment is a direct response to frequent use and abuse of the motion of no confidence provision in the Constitution. It was and has been argued that the amendment is necessary to prevent such abuse and thereby achieve political stability and stability in government. But is the Constitutional amendment Constitutional? What are the practical implications of this law? This author expresses his independent personal viewson these questions for the public benefit.
In early 2013 the Parliament passed an amendment to the Constitution effectively giving a government extended 30 months grace period from motions of no confidence being moved against it. What are the practical implications of the Constitutional amendment granting extended grace period of 30 months to any government under our Constitution? Firstly, the practical effect of the extended grace period is that the law favours one person to be the Prime Minister for 30 months and an additional 12 months if the last 12 months grace period prior to the general election is included. That is a total of 42 months. The constitutional amendment favours one MP and discriminates against the other 110 MPs. This is arguably contrary to Section 55 of the Constitution which says that every citizen (in this case, MPs) has equal rights under the Constitution to be elected Prime Minister. That is not to say that the nation should have more than one Prime Minister in every five-year Parliamentary term. The question should be left open as is the case in other democracies so that where a Prime Minister is weak, corrupt, unfit for the office or is tyrannical he should be held accountable in a timely manner rather than allow the law to insulate him from accountability and the principles of responsible government. Any one of the other 110 MPs who has the equal Constitutional right and is qualified and is fit should be able to seek to hold the office of the Prime Minister and he should not be prohibited by the same Constitution from exercising such right.
Secondly, the law in favoring one MP (i.e. the Prime Minister), itrestricts the other 110 MPs’ Constitutional right to be a Prime Minister and exercise public duties relating to that office in accordance with Section 50(1)(e) of the Constitution. This provision says that every citizen has a right “… to hold public office and to exercise public functions’. Lets face it, who seeks to be elected to Parliament not to be a Prime Minister? Once elected into Parliament, an MP has a Constitutional right and is entitled to be elected Prime Minister provided one plays his or her political cards right. It is unimaginable that the Constitution insulates only one MP’spolitical interest whilst the very same Constitution grants all other 110 MPs’ equal right to be the Prime Minister and exercise public duties associated with that office.
Thirdly, speaking of ‘restricting’ a Constitutional right, the law is settled in our jurisdiction. Some constitutional rights can be regulated but not restricted. That is, Parliament may pass laws to limit certain Constitutional rights and freedoms but not completely prohibit or remove it. The right to vote and to stand for public office and the right to occupy public office and exercise public duties associated with that public office under Section 50 of the Constitution are rights that cannot and must not be restricted. Constitution at Section 50(2) says so. As if that is inadequate, Schedule 1.20 of the Constitution reiterates the same thing. The Supreme Court has interpreted and applied these provisions in numerous instances and has pronounced clearly that a right to vote and to stand for public office and the right to occupy public office and exercise public duties associated with that public office under Section 50 of the Constitution cannot and must not be restricted. On 7 July 2012 the Supreme Court nullified certain provisions of the Integrity Law because those provisions restricted MPs right to conduct public office under Section 50(1)(e) of the Constitution. The principles of law pronounced in that case no doubt applies in this case. The Constitutional amendment granting 42 months insulation to one individual MP restricts all other 110 MPs Constitutional right to be elected a Prime Minister and occupy that office and conduct public duties relating to that office. It also restricts, for an extended period, an individual MP from keeping the Prime Minister accountable through a motion of no confidence should they find it necessary to do so. Bringing a motion of no confidence against a Prime Minister or his government is in essence “conduct of public affairs” by persons (i.e. MPs) “occupying public office” within the meaning of Section 50(1)(e) of the Constitution. No law can restrict a Section 50 right.
Fourthly, the same restriction placed by the extended grace period applies to the Parliament as the highest accountability mechanism under our Constitution. If within weeks or months after taking office, a Prime Minister proves to be weak and corrupt or his government mismanages public funds so much so that PNG is fast heading to bankruptcyhe cannot be held accountable immediately. The Parliament simply has to wait for 30 months before attempting to keep him accountable. He is insulated from the principle of accountability and the principle of ‘responsible government’. Timely accountability is the bedrock of PNG’s Constitution. It is one of the basic tenets of democracy. It is the Peoples’ best insurance policy for weak and tyrannical government. How can one provision in the Constitution stand contrary to the fundamental principle that underscores the whole Constitution? Restricting or prohibiting accountability for an extended period is inconsistent with the constitutional principles of responsible government and accountability.
The Constitution was drafted by the Constitutional Planning Committee (CPC) following comprehensive public consultations. The letter, intent and the spirit and the fundamental values and principles of the Constitution reflects the Peoples’ wishes and aspirations. This Constitution has never been under serious threat than in the last 18 months starting from August 2011 and appears to be continuing. With respect, the members of the CPC were less educated than the leaders of today. Yet the world marvels at our Constitution. The timeless fundamental values and principles that permeate our Constitution which reflects their wisdom castsinto doubt today’s intelligence. Whatever justifications offered, fiddling with or chipping away at the very bedrock principles and values that define our autochonous Constitution is a risk not worth taking. The government should make it its business to conduct wider and comprehensive consultations with the People first if it intends to enact or amend the Constitution or any other Constitutional Laws. After all that is how our Constitution was initially framed. If we opt for a conduct of nation-wide referendum on every proposed Constitutional amendment as it happens in Australia and other countries it may be costly exercise. No doubt, times have changed since1975 when the Constitution was first enacted. It needs to be revisited occasionally to make it suit the times. It seems it is difficult to legislate MPs’ behavior and attitude. Let us not attempt to fix our leadership attitudeby law and weaken the Constitution in the process. As the Supreme Court advised on 7 July 2010 in its ruling in relation to the Integrity Law what the MPs need is education and reorientation of their attitude and understanding of their roles and the purpose of political party system. Perhaps it is timely for the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the “grace period”.Could the Ombudsman Commission or the Law Reform Commission take up the challenge?
Comments can be directed to email@example.com or call 76228467 or 71569235.
By Jacob Marcos via Facebook
I am fascinated about the hunt for William Kapris.
William Kapris was facilitated by members of the Parliament and their close and accessed allies.
He conducted the robberies where he felt free and he would get off with millions (some inside deals in banks).
He bailed millions out with hundreds of thousands…He robbed the banks and did not kill or rape though he had the chance.
Unfortunately, he was later caught by some diligent law enforcers.
He was locked behind bars but he escaped with the aid of insiders and supports given by the so-called leaders and foreigners.
He was apprehended and locked up again. Thanks to the commitment by former Met Supt, Mr Fred Kyakas and his team.
Kapris saw that his allies or the MPs whom he dealt with did not live up to their promise of getting him out of the custody or prison and further to clear off his name using their power or in a form of a corrupt deal. So, out of frustration, Kapris mentioned some of the names of the MPs (some of them are still MPs now).
When, these MPs names have been tarnished. They tried their best to use the media to clear their names.
(I wonder whether that investigation is pending or it cleared off as time went by)
Kapris said he would help the police to identify the crime syndicates including the Asians that they involved with but his plea has never been considered (or was it considered?)
Kapris was in the Bomana Prison for the crime he committed.
However, there were some cases that associated with his robbery: rape and murder of a fellow prisoner while he was serving his term.
Did Kapris actually commit them? In fact, it had happened in the prison but did Kapris commit those crimes?
Kapris has been hunted by his own man. If he comes out of the prison, he might ask for his
1. Money the he gave to the big sorts
2. He might identify/reveal the ring leaders and high profile crimes, some concerns with human trafficking, transitional crimes, etc and
3. Kapris will be a threat to business operating by false pretence and money laundering.
These big sorts, ensured Kapris does not get out of the prison and they wanted and forced him to spend the entire life in the prison by creating means and ways for him that will hold him in the prison for long.
But he escaped, this time probably using his immediate family members and funding from his loot.
Now there is high blood pressure for these BIG crime syndicates….
Over to the O’Neill Government, do not waste millions of money on the hunt, though you will be pressured and forced to do so but, don’t. They will only want you to satisfy their stressing tensions.
O’Neill should get some idea from "yesterday morning between 8 - 10am. Sergeant Joe Yamason Commander and Intelligence Officer of CS Operation Panim Kapris and CEO of Commissioners Office wrote off a hired white Toyota ten seater @ Gordon freeway”.
Nobody seems to be helping….
I suggest the O’Neill government should free Kapris and use him to help get rid of crime syndicates in the country.
O'NEILL-DION GOVERNMENT LACKS OF TRANSPARENCY
WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE O’NEILL- DION GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE EQUALLY CONCERNED WITH THIS GOVT’S MISMANAGEMENT OF THIS COUNTRY, THROUGH ACTIONS AND INACTIONS THAT ARE OF GRAVE CONCERN
THE STORIES OF ALL THOSE INVOLED DO NOT ADD UP, SO IS BLACK MONEY OR SOMETHING VALUABLE INVOLVED?
THE OPPOSITION IS CONVINCED THAT THERE IS MORE TO IT, HENCE THE OPPOSITION WILL NOT REST UNTILL IT GET’S TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SAGA
-ALL RELEVANT AIRPORT SERVICES AT JACKSONS AIRPORT; CUSTOMS,IMMIGRATION, CAA (ESPECIALLY THE CONTROL TOWER) HAD NO IDEA THE PLANE WAS ON HIS WAY TO PNG
-PLANE’S ROUTE AND STOP OVER AT TROUBLE HOT SPOTS AND TAX HAVENS IS OF CONCERN
(Post Courier 7th Nov 2012)
By SUSAN MERRELL
THERE are 65 Papua New Guinean entities and/or individuals who own the 92 properties in Cairns, according to a report obtained from the Queensland Registrar of Titles.
Our investigations have uncovered their names, addresses of properties in Cairns and date of purchase between September 29, 2005 and October 16, 2012.
The report does not provide any details about the sources of financing for these properties and most of them have no doubt been acquired by honest means.
One owner of a property in the prestigious suburb of Trinity Park is a high-ranking public servant in the Department of Finance who has recently been arrested for fraud.
Businessman Eremas Wartoto who was committed for trial in absentia on October 2 in the PNG National Courts on allegations of the misappropriation of K7 million, is the owner of three properties - one with a swimming pool abutting the house. He is currently in Cairns.
It falls to me as a concerned Papua New Guinean to rewrite on one of the most pointed subjects in most of the PNG social media, the PNG LNG gospel.
The Hela men regard it as the fulfilment of a prophesy, every other Papua New Guinean hope for a better living standard through its proceeds, foreigners exploiting our weakness to milk,
it is the PNG LNG Project, the biggest PNG ever had.
It starts with the vesting of mineral resources in the State. The indigenous landowners are deemed to own the surface of the land and are entitled to royalties only. That is against our customary laws that recognise the ownership of a land as including subsoil resources. We have had experts like our very own Peter Donigi and Sydney based Robert Pritchard who’ve time and again reminded us that that notion is out-dated, yet we do not bother to review. As a result, the landowners have and are continuing to loose big time.
SIX people including three government officials are behind bars for their alleged involvement in a foreign organised crime syndicate and official corruption.
The three officers include an officer from the Immigration Department, a Labour Department officer and an officer from the PNG Defence Force.
The other three are not government workers and include the ring leader and two of his accomplices who are said to be members a crime syndicate who had gone around impersonating Taskforce Sweep members and extorting money from foreigners and business houses in Port Moresby.
Taskforce boss John Bria told the Post Courier last night that the law is too big for any individual and these arrests must serve as a warning to all citizens, especially public servants who want to find a way to make easy money by stealing from the public.
MR BRIA said people in positions of authority and members of law enforcement agencies should not abuse their positions and betray the trust and confidence bestowed upon them by the State to serve the people of Papua New Guinea.