Govt abdicates role in a lawless PNG
20 November 2010
BY PAUL OATES
THE ARTICLE WAS entitled A sad day for PNG tourism. It was about local indignation felt over this week’s gunpoint abduction and robbery of Australian volunteer workers, together with the rape of one of their number.
In addition to the terrible trauma for those subject to this criminal action, there was concern about how the attack would affect tourism to PNG.
Yet the issue has even wider implications. Law and order problems have been escalating in PNG for decades and no one seems to be able to do anything about them.
The PNG police are under strength, under-resourced and out-gunned. (Members of Parliament now carry weapons to protect themselves.) Yet it seems the answers elude those who have the power to act.
The issue is two-headed:
1 - Insufficient resources allocated to PNG law enforcement and justice organisations, and
2 - Apparent community acceptance of the perpetrators’ actions.
The first issue is the result of simply ignoring the problem while it continued to grow in intensity: denying resurces where they are required.
The second is a worrying trend that seems to be on the rise. Criminals can be found everywhere, their activities mainly limited by opportunity. Yet frustrated Papua New Guineans see there is little justice and protection, so why bother reporting the criminal activity one sees every day?
The Robin Hood syndrome has also been espoused as a reason why criminals prey on those who can't defend themselves.
So has the situation finally come to a point where everyone accepts the calamitous situation that has developed and merely laments how it will affect tourism?
Why is it that the PNG government has apparently been able to turn a blind eye to the increasing lawlessness that has overtaken its country?
That is the question everyone in PNG should be asking.
It is frustrating for PNG but certainly not unique.
Australian State crime statistics are also compiled on the basis of reported incidents.
Therein lies the limited perspective of politicians as they defend or prosecute their arguments.
They argue from statistical data which is skewed and unreal, not depicting the facts that are mostly unknown due to non-reporting.
The citizens are reduced to restricted mainstream media comment which hides the ugly realities from view. Symptomatic relevance is debated but root causes ignored.
It probably takes, for instance, one sober policeman to deal with 100 sober citizens. Bring homebrew, marijuana and store-bought alcohol into the equation, and it may take one policeman for every drunk to effect order.
In today's PNG, just as in Australia, police and security personnel are tasked to perform duties according to the impositions of budgetary constraints. If situations arise, they may be observed by authourity but not dealt with because there is not sufficient resources to meet the crisis.
As the indebtedness of nations has increased the stripping away of vital social services, and greater numbers of people depend on welfare, governments are progressively becoming dependent upon business generated revenues to provide basic services.
Increasingly, big business is making servants of the State.
Governments are primarily doing the bidding of Industry before attending to civic responsibilities.
Posted by: Robin Lillicrapp | 20 November 2010 at 01:47 PM
Gary Baki (suspended Chief Police Commissioner) was interviewed by the ABC's Radio Australia yesterday.
He was suspended apparently merely for asking the government for extra funding to police the LNG project areas, which are currently dependent on funding from Exxon-Mobil.
He rightly says that the police, if they are to remain independent of undue influence, should be funded by the government, not the private sector.
He comes across as remarkably genuine with rightful concern for the independence of PNG and the rule of law.
"If we allow LNG to be funded continuously by ExxonMobil, there is no independence of the constabulary. We will lost our constitution of independence and basically another perception and notion is that it is just another private and security company for the LNG and that's what I made representation to government, telling them that is the ... position I am in and I want government to assist me in terms of the funding."
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201011/s3071662.htm
I wonder what the real story is that lies behind his suspension?
Posted by: Peter Kranz | 20 November 2010 at 09:41 AM