The budget speech that never was – until now
24 November 2010
BY SIR MEKERE MORAUTA
THIS IS THE BUDGET speech by PNG Opposition Leader the Rt Hon Sir Mekere Morauta that was not allowed to be delivered in Parliament yesterday. Speaker Jeffrey Nape did not give reasons. Sir Mekere asks questions that the PNG Government should address and the Australian Government should contemplate.
Mr Speaker, the 2011 Budget may set a record in terms of revenue raised and money to be spent, but it may also set a record of money wasted.
The public sector lacks capacity, capacity to convert the billions of kina appropriated every year into public goods and services for our people and for the nation’s future. We all know that the public sector is beset with problems: problems of inefficiency, of abuse, theft, wastage and lack of accountability – lack of accountability of resources that belong to the public.
What does this record budget do to address these problems, the very problems that negate the Government’s ability to deliver decent affordable services to people? Not one thing Mr Speaker; not one thing. Throwing billions of kina at Departments and Statutory Authorities will not solve the host of problems the public sector increasingly faces.
These problems are eating away the heart of state institutions, and the Government is doing nothing to solve them. The 2011 Budget fails to address the capacity problem. It fails to address the overarching problem of waste and corruption. Control of corruption has deteriorated sharply over the last eight years of Somare National Alliance governments. According to one international measure of corruption tracked by Transparency International, PNG is now in the bottom 10% of countries in the world.
Mr Speaker we may have billions of kina to spend, but given our very poor development indicators, especially in health and education, given the huge gaps we need to fill to meet the basic needs and rights of people, and given the real cost of delivering decent services, there is no room for waste or leakage.
Misuse of funds means less money for services. As one budget commentator noted: “If only 10 toea in each kina went missing over the next five years, that would still be a massive K3.6 billion – enough to rehabilitate and maintain the priority national roads. And every toea is enough to education 30,000 children per year.”
That is the cost of corruption and waste Mr Speaker. A cost met by every man, woman and child. It is the people who are the victims of corruption and who suffer its effects in lack of decent health services, lack of decent schools or well-trained teachers, and roads full of pot-holes. Corruption is a parasite: it is truly feasting on the blood and flesh of its host, the people of Papua New Guinea.
What safeguards are being put in place to reduce corruption and to make sure money does not go missing? Not one, Mr Speaker; not one. With our experience of successive so-called “record budgets” over the last few years, Mr Speaker, we should all know by now that money alone will not provide the answers. In the last eight years this National Alliance-led government has appropriated well over K50 billion kina. What have those budgets produced?
Almost nothing that we can be proud of, or satisfied with: a doubling of maternal mortality, an increase in infant mortality and closure of half the country’s health facilities; a sharp reduction in the quality of education, as detailed in the recent report on universities commissioned by Prime Ministers Somare and Rudd; deteriorating roads – national, inter and intra–provincial roads. The level of deterioration is reaching the stage where many of these roads now require not just repair and resealing, but rebuilding.
In the last eight years we have had one government, led by the National Alliance. We can no longer blame political instability or frequent changes of government for the failure in performance. During the same period we have also experienced and benefited from the record prices of mineral resources. This “record” budget mirrors that fact and is built on it.
Mr Speaker, record appropriations totaling over 50 billion kina in eight years under one government. What do the nation and people have to show for such a large sum of money? Not much. And until and unless corruption is addressed; until and unless the capacity, management and accountability issues of the public sector are addressed; until and unless the waste and leakage of public monies are stopped, the “record” expenditure of the government will continue to have little positive benefit for the nation and for people.
Record appropriations, one Government in eight years, poor services, the majority of people living in poverty. Why? What is it we are lacking? The answer to that question, Mr Speaker is good government, led by a good leader.
Mr Speaker, before I offer a few comments on particular aspects of the Budget, I wish to make a few general comments concerning the 2010 and 2011 Budgets.
First, there is very little analysis of the 2010 budget outcome or outturn, that is, how actual spending or performance in 2010 compared to what was planned. Without this analysis, it is difficult to judge how the Government might perform in 2011. It seems, Mr Speaker, we are travelling blindfolded.
Secondly, there is very little medium-term analysis. A lot is said about the spending plans for 2011, but very little about the forward context of these plans. We know that service delivery is a multi-year undertaking. Investments take time to be delivered, whether they are capital works programs, text books or essential drugs; recruiting new staff is an ongoing commitment that also often requires new training.
For example, the budget provides for 1,333 new positions in hospitals. No-one would contest that those positions are not needed. The question is: where is the trained staff to fill them? To be effective the budget must guarantee a commitment of resources year-after-year, over say a five year period. A one year commitment, year to year, is not likely to lead to the outcomes planned to be achieved.
Thirdly, the budget is scarce in details. The budget tables show headline budget numbers for planned 2011 spending, but there is scarce information on how this funding will be managed effectively, how it will reach service delivery units, and how it will be translated into goods and services.
Take the increased budget for drugs as an example. Yes, the government does need to spend more on drugs and essential medical supplies. But those that are currently procured are not reaching hospitals or health facilities. Theft is common.
There seems to be a merry-go-round of the very same drugs being purchased not once, but two, three times or more from the same suppliers, after “going missing” from medical stores or dispensaries. This results not only in the cost of drugs per unit becoming extortionately high, but also renders many of the drugs to be out of date by the time they ever reach the intended destination.
What will the Government do Mr Speaker to ensure that the money allocated for drugs is spent efficiently and honestly, and that the people who need that medicine actually receive it?
The only conclusion that any informed or aware observer might reach is that it is not possible to form an accurate assessment of the likelihood that the record spending under this budget will translate into services and into better outcomes for people. But if we go on past performance of the Somare Government, we have good reason to be doubtful.
I will now turn to the revenue side of the Budget.
Total Domestic Revenue is projected to yield 7.7 billion kina in 2011, compared to 6.9 billion and 5.7 billion kina in 2010 and 2009 respectively. Fine, no problems. However, when the Total Revenue is broken down into Tax and Non-tax revenue, a disturbing trend emerges. In 2009, non-tax revenue totalled 766 million kina (actual). The revised estimate for 2010 is 410 million kina, 356 million kina less than the previous year. A similar result is expected for 2011, with 411 million kina budgeted.
Mr Speaker, these figures represent a 46% reduction for both 2010 and 2011 over actual revenue received in 2009. Total domestic revenue in 2011 is expected to be 35% higher than in 2009, in line with growth in the economy, so why at the same time is there a reduction in non-tax revenue? It makes no logical sense.
When one examines the components of non-tax revenue in 2011, one sees two glaring facts: a significant reduction in revenue collected by government departments and agencies, and no contribution to the budget from commercial statutory authorities. Why? Can the Treasurer explain this?
Are we all so besotted with the prospect of LNG revenue that we no longer both to collect other legitimate charges for goods and services? Take as an example land lease rental revenue to be collected by the Department of Lands and Physical Planning. In 2009, K38.3 million was collected in land rent. In 2010, K22.1 million was collected, a reduction of K16.2 million or 42%. In 2011, only K24.8 million is budgeted. Why is it that we are not collecting at least the same as the amount collected in 2009?
Is PNG’s land mass shrinking? Or is it a reflection of the incapacity of the Department to collect? Treasurer, please explain.
It is not just the Department of Lands that is asked to collect less in 2010 and 2011 than it did in 2009. Another example is the Department of Foreign Affairs and revenue from passport and migration service fees. In 2009, K37.1 million was collected. In 2010, only K11 million. In 2011, a meagre K2.5 million is budgetted. Why the massive reduction?
Are there less people coming to work in PNG? I thought that with Ramu Nickel and LNG many more foreigners were coming to our shores to work. Are they paying no visa fees? Or is this revenue just being spent, perhaps by overseas missions on visiting politicians, and never recorded or accounted for?
Mr Speaker, the other area of potential revenue which is of great concern is dividend income, dividends payable by government-owned commercial statutory bodies and from State shares in businesses like banks and oil companies.
In 2009, no dividends were paid. In 2010, K55 million was budgeted, but only K38.5 million was received. K36.5 million of this was paid by Bank South Pacific, with K2million coming from Petromin. Where are other monies received by IPBC? Why are they not being paid to consolidated revenue?
The Minister constantly reminds us that all the commercial statutory authorities, Telikom, Air Niugini, PNG Power, PNG Ports, etc, are making heaps of profit. Where is it?
Apart from not tabling the accounts of these entities for Parliament and the people to see the true picture, Minister Somare is returning none of the profit to the people. This year, 2010, Bank South Pacific paid 42.8 million kina to IPBC in July and 11.55 million kina in November, a total of 54.4 million kina. Why was only 36.5 million of this paid to Treasury? What happened to the other 17.9 million kina?
What is happening to the revenue from the state’s shares in Oil Search? In 2009 Oil Search paid AUD15.4 million dividend to IPBC, but not one toea of this money (approximately K40 million) found its way to Treasury. In 2010 Oil Search paid AUD8.5 million, around K22 million to IPBC. Where is this money? What has it been spent on? Why is none of it being paid to the legal custodian of monies of the people of Papua New Guinea?
Mr Speaker, the amounts of money that have been paid to IPBC in recent years are very large, with zero reporting, zero public scrutiny, and zero accountability. But these amounts pale in comparison with the gigantic sums of money IPBC will receive in the future. How many of us are aware of the fact that IPBC, under the stewardship of Minister Somare, will receive all the dividends payable by PNG LNG from 2015.
In the first five years that the project is expected to return dividend, IPBC will receive K1.3 billion kina. Between 2015 and 2049, a period of 34 years, IPBC will receive from PNG LNG dividend income totaling K12.5 billion at an average rate of K366 million per year. Why IPBC? Revenue to do what?
Apart from the money being available to satisfy the whims of IPBC’s political leaders, perhaps Mr Speaker there is a hint of things to come in the 2011 Budget. On top of the dividend income directly received by IPBC, the Government is allocating large amounts of money to its bureaucratic brother, also headed by Arthur Somare.
The Budget papers note that K30 million of the additional money allocated to the Police will be for “LNG support, to be paid through the Department of Public Enterprises”. Since when did democratic governments channel funding for police forces through companies and through totally unrelated government departments? Mr Speaker, why is IPBC allowed to control such large dividend monies? Should not the monies be paid directly to the Treasury? Should not IPBC be allocated an amount for its operational expenditure through the Budget, just like every other Government institution?
Mr Speaker, my conclusion is that we, Papua New Guinea have one Government but two Prime Ministers: one elected, the other appointed by the elected. Not only do we have two Prime Ministers, we also now have two Treasurers, two collectors of revenue and two overseers of expenditure: one treasury headed by Hon Peter O’Neill and the other by Arthur Somare. Why is this being tolerated? It is not just totally unacceptable; it is frightening.
I repeat Mr Speaker: in 2011, IPBC will pay no dividend at all to the State. Why? Why is IPBC allowed to retain all it will receive from Bank South Pacific, from Oil Search, PNG Ports, Air Niugini and Telikom? I ask again, what is IPBC going to do with all the dividend income that it will retain?
Mr Speaker, answers to these questions are just as important to the public as the intoxicated boasting by the Government of its record budget. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the ingredients.
Source: PNG Exposed Blog
I'd rather we look at substance than blind loyalty.
Throwing billions around without having no mechanism for accountability, monitoring and sense of responsibility is what characterizes Somare's government. Is this not obvious?
The plunge in non-tax revenue by the Treasury Department is serious.
Equally startling is the disappearance of money from commercial statutory authorities given to IPBC.
These are obvious questions that require probing for answers.
Only fools would be satisfied with lies and think all is fine without reading and understanding for oneself why people ask questions.
And finally, I wonder what took the grand chief so long to deny allegations of the Anjo kidnapping. And mind you, Noel would be completely out of his mind to be making an allegation of being kidnapped and pounced by our revered chief and "mother of the nation".
There is seriously something wrong with this old couples' thinking and reasoning.
They need to vacate that respectable house before they bankrupt any sense of respect that is due to the office of the prime minister.
At least Mekere knew what was seriously going wrong and put in smart economic policies and reforms - the results of which this clueless regime is squandering.
Posted by: Ipamange Nenge | 29 November 2010 at 10:50 PM
I don't think I mentioned the Constitution in my comment. In any event it seems to be a good Constitution for a two or three party system of government (like Australia).
It doesn't seem to work very well when you have amorphous parties that change shape as opportunity presents itself and move votes of no confidence for the slightest reasons, mostly to do with personal gain.
I don't think Percy had that in mind when he wrote it. Maybe the constitution needs to be more prescriptive about the membership of the parties. I think this was what Sir Mekere tried to do before.
As for the other provisions of the constitution that apply outside Parliament it seems eminently suitable.
I still maintain that the pay rise is reasonable. I reckon people like Sam Basil deserve a pay increase (even if just for enduring Somare's death threats).
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 29 November 2010 at 12:53 PM
In response to the points you raise, Gerald, it was my understanding that Sir Mekere's government brought in the exclusion period for no confidence motions so as to create some stability in PNG politics. He now seems to have been hoisted on his own petard, doesn't he?
To change a government without having a viable alternative could be seen as jumping from the frying pan into the fire. PNG politics seems to be in a very fluid situation and until some group with a true leader emerges that can and will challenge the current ruling cartel, what's the point you might say? Better the devil you know, etc.
But has this led to a situation whereby no one can actually change the direction of the government? It seems like the group which controls the government now seems to have an unassailable position of power.
When a situation like that happens, anyone who wants to use their authority for their own gain is able to do so. Are you therefore suggesting that the current government can't do better than it is, or that the corruption reported by independent bodies like Transparency International is actually not happening?
If things can be improved, then its behoves those like yourself, who have an opportunity, to try and do something if you can. After all, your country has given you the opportunity. Why waste it?
The point Phil wants to make is that there has to be some change in the basic fabric of PNG politics in order for there to be some change at the top.
The whole political process is so fractured along regional and tribal lines as to be unworkable unless there is some opportunity for cohesion that can be brought about through leadership and authority.
Perhaps someone like yourself with education and initiative will ultimately lead PNG out of her current political impasse?
While I agree that a few areas in PNG at Independence were still being brought into the so called modern world, most areas had a similar level of basic services provided at the outstation level.
Law and order, justice, communications, banking, business, health, education, etc. From what we see reported and what we hear from those currently living in PNG, these services are not at a reasonable level in the cities and towns and appear in many regions to be almost non existent.
To justify the closure of Parliament due to it being a waste of time is an argument that clearly may appeal to some. That excuse however is in the eye of the beholder. PNG has a Constitution and there are any number of reports that have been written that explain why dismissing Parliament is unconstitutional.
If PNG's Constitution is unworkable, then according to that logic, other formal institutions that derive their existence to that same Constitution are therefore based on a nonsense and are therefore nonsensical. Is that your conjecture Phil?
If so, it seems like that could be a very convenient argument for someone who wished to dispense with any government institution they wanted to get rid of and blame it on a previously imposed Constitution.
In the matter of pay for politicians, or for that matter, public servants, the benchmark for any remuneration should be based on the achievement of what people are being paid to do.
Are PNG politicians able to be held responsible by their voters for their actions (e.g. public demonstrations against the Maladina Amendment), or public servants being held accountable for the management of government funds?
If the answers to these two questions, provided by the recent report by the Commission of Inquiry in government finances, are 'No Way!', then it seems difficult to support Phil's argument that the pay rises are justified.
Posted by: Paul Oates | 29 November 2010 at 10:54 AM
I'm not sure that, pre-independence, we were actually delivering basic government services to "every Papua New Guinean". I was in the Western District which was even then depressed and short of funds. As I recall there were many bush people who got no services at all.
I suspect that a successful "vote of no confidence" will not solve any problems. After the wheeling and dealing you invariably end up with the same or similar mix of pollies. Out of the frying pan into the fire so to speak.
There needs to be a quantum change in the way Parliament operates. Don't ask me how or what the change should be.
If I was a party in power subject to a vote of no confidence by my fellow bandits, I would adjourn Parliament as much as possible too.
If you look at the details of Maladina's salary hike, it is quite reasonable. The pollies haven't had a rise in years, their pay is relatively low (pay peanuts and get monkeys) and the 52% over three years just brings them up to parity with the public service.
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 29 November 2010 at 09:36 AM
Hi Mr. Nenge, I m not sure whether you did know Mr. Anjo personally well; have you live with me, eat and share jokes with him. Have you involved in some of his political campaign activities. I know you are Sir Mekere favourite political follower and thus whatever Mr. Anjo is fabricating whether it is morally right or wrong, it does count on your part.
Let me remind you Sir Mekere political career is nearing likewise Mr. Bart Philemon. 2012 election will determine their political life in parliament so please if you are a supporter of these two and if you want these to be voted in again for another five years then get out of your comfort office and campaign strongly for these twos. Otherwise you might wish them good bye.......
Posted by: Gerald Tananu | 29 November 2010 at 09:32 AM
Paul - There are two things that led me to raise my views in this column. Firstly I actually am not in favour of the Parliament carrying a vote of no confidence at this time because the consequences have more detrimental effect than good to achieve from this move.
Secondly, I for one am totally against people who use the media to fabricate lies to discredit one another just for the sake of politics.
The point you raise about the government breaking the Parliamentary democratic rule is your view which I will either support or go against. But if you are using this as a reason or basis for supporting the move for a vote of no confidence in the government then this is not a good idea for me.
Yes, the pay rise for PNG politicians is an issue that many of us in this country are not happy about and Im totally against the government for this selfish move.
Posted by: Gerald Tananu | 29 November 2010 at 09:11 AM
Hi Gerald. Thank you again for raising some very important questions and apologies to Keith and other readers for this lengthy response.
Like many others who read this blog I am someone who used to live and work in PNG. In what now seems like those halcyon days, I can remember when, with extremely limited resources except the goodwill of the people, basic government services were delivered to every Papuan New Guinean.
You have enunciated a very important point. What actually is a government? We used to be referred to in Tokpisin as 'gavaman'. Yet we Kiaps only represented the government.
Initially, we represented the Australian government until PNG self-government when we happily (those of us who were left) represented the PNG government led by Michael Somare.
But representing a government is not 'representative government'. Representative government refers to a government that actually is answerable to the people who elected it.
Representative government means that it should be 'responsible' to the people who elected it. I refer to a government's raison d'être, a French phrase meaning "reason for existence."
The so-called 'western' concept of a government is one where the majority of the members of an elected parliament agree to act as a single body and so pass legislation or laws which their country then follows.
It isn't actually meant to 'govern' as such. The actual 'governing' or work of the government should be carried done by the non elected yet accountable members of the country's public services.
These public servants, who should only be appointed on merit selection principles to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, and no nepotism or improper bias, are accountable to the elected government (and therefore the country's people), for what they do with the resources (PNG tax monies) and how they use these resources to enact what the responsible government has been elected by the people to do.
Under western government principles, government members are not supposed to act as traditional 'bigmen' and take over the nuts and bolts of day to day management of government business. Mostly they aren't qualified to do so as they have very little experience in administration.
That this is evident is clearly seen with the hundreds of millions of kina that have gone missing from Trust Funds that cleary aren't being properly managed and audited.
Can anyone see a marked difference that emerged between the concept of a western government system and the present PNG government?
The expression 'bringing down the government', which you have used, refers to circumstances when the previous majority of members of parliament actually lose their majority and cannot then pass legislation by a majority vote in Parliament.
It doesn't mean the end of government per se. The business of government will still be conducted by the country's public
services. They will just be directed by whoever the elected leader is of the new majority of members with (hopefully) different policies.
Could it be that a new government might be better than the old one? That is a question only time will tell.
Another concept of western government is that issues discussed on the floor of parliament are considered so important that they are not subject to the laws of libel.
That means that a member can normally bring up issues that could be subject to court action were they to be spoken of outside the Parliament.
If there is no Parliament however, then there is no opportunity to discuss any issue without the possibility that it might lead to an expensive and time consuming legal contest.
With the PNG Parliament again having gone into recess (for six months), no debate or discussion can take place without the possibility of who raised the matter being taken to court and have the issue bogged down in legal process if the person involved can afford legal help.
Now could this situation possibly be of assistance to anyone currently under investigation, I wonder? As the Americans say, "go figure".
That the PNG judiciary system is fair and just is not at issue. But any system that has been reportedly been starved of funds or clogged with spurious and intentional obfuscation by those who can afford legal assistance cannot function as it should.
There have been many ongoing cases concerning your current leaders that are either still before the courts or haven't yet been even started to be investigated. Why has this been allowed to happen do you think if there is actually no case to answer?
Owing to your country's parliamentary rules, it is my understanding that even if there was to be an adverse ruling in the near future against one of your members of parliament, that would have no bearing on that member's eligibility for continuing to be a member.
Why? Well since there is now no Parliament to report to, there doesn't need to be a Leadership Tribunal convened to investigate if someone has broken the rules.
By the time the current Parliament does meet again, it will be well into the exclusion period for a possible vote or confidence prior to the next general election. So who does this help?
It has been reported in the media how the current Somare government has been able to manipulate the so called western parliamentary system by having the government elected Speaker virtually disband this elected forum three times in the current parliament.
This action has effectively prevented the elected representatives from meeting and debating government actions.
When a parliament is disbanded or removed by whatever means, whoever leads this action, by logic becomes a dictator. Dictator is an ancient Roman term for a leader who governs without recourse to an elected body.
Gerald, you can see that I haven't mentioned any particular person other than your current PM. That is because he as PM must take responsibility for everything that has or is currently happening in your country.
The fact that the PNG Parliament has now been effectively silenced for six months after his government just voted itself a reportedly huge pay rise, when the rest of the country is crying out for government funded services, is just an example of what has become a growing trend.
You mention the possibility of the PNG government being infiltrated by outsiders. If you have examples of this, please air them for everyone to know.
Thank you again for raising these very important issues affecting your country. I can assure you there are many people I know who wish you and your countrymen and women nothing more than the very best for the future.
Posted by: Paul Oates | 28 November 2010 at 08:59 AM
Mekere quoted figures and references to make his budget reply. A nice cut to whoever that can reason, analyse and think a little more.
Gerald, I have zero clue as to how you would yap about Noel Anjo's claims of kidnapping (appears to have solid credence) and attempt to protect the Somares. They're politicians whose actions (and inactions) need to be scrutinized by the opposition and the people of PNG.
Posted by: Ipamange Nenge | 26 November 2010 at 04:34 PM
Paul - It seems you are an outsider living inside PNG politics. I’m not sure whether Bart Philemon's budget speech has some inputs from your end.
Paul, the issue here is that Mekere Morauta and his opposition team are fabricating lies to destroy Somare and his family.
Would you support Noel Anjo episode even though you know that it was completely a fabricated move aiming to win consolation support so to overthrow the government!
Would it be right for PNG to remove this present government of Somare and replacing it with Sir Mekere Morauta? Will Sir Mekere becoming the solution to all the problems faced in PNG. Tell me does Mekere Mourauta have alternative policies to run this country?
I'm not sure whether you are pro-Mekere Morauta, thus it seems that you want Sir Mekere to become the Prime Minister.
PNG has an independent judiciary that is fair and just. If Somare is a dictator or if the Speaker of the parliament is acting against the rule and laws of this country why not take these twos to courts and let the courts deals with them.
Somare's case is already in the higher court and Jeffrey Nape, the Speaker of parliament, his matter is now brought forward to the national court. The court as an independent body should tell us whether these two people have broken the parliamentary democracy rule of this country or not.
Paul would you able tells us! did Sir Michael Somare ever force the courts and the Ombudsman Commission to follow his political will? His he dictating these two independent bodies in PNG?
Nearly all Pacific Island countrys' governments have been dictated by outsiders except for Fiji, and PNG is no exception.
PNG politics can be easily infiltrated or manipulated by outsiders and certainly Paul I believe you can be a solution or problem to PNG politics even though you are living abroad.
So if you think this is the best option now for PNG to remove the Somare government and replace it with Mekere Morauta’s government, will this be the solution to all the problems face in PNG or will this causes more political instability which is more detriment to the all aspect of growth in this Country. Will you solve or will you destroy.
Posted by: Gerald Tananu | 26 November 2010 at 03:46 PM
Sir Mekerere's Budget speech brilliantly and succinctly exposes the fundamental weaknesses of a lying, clueless, brainless, corrupt and non-caring 'government'.
Truly, where has all the money pumped into IPBC gone to?
Where are the records of investments (if any) and where are reports on these?
The "money wasted record" rings true for the National Alliance's hollow grandstanding.
Truly, it is frightening.
The duplicitous hallmarks of this venomous heir on the throne needs to be short circuited – somehow, anyhow and anytime soon before this venom’s spill extinguish the country’s life unfairly.
Posted by: Ipamange Nenge | 26 November 2010 at 03:45 PM
Hi Gerald - Thank you for airing your views about the current parameters and some of the players in PNG politics.
That you have the opportunity to look at the issues and determine your opinions is very fortunate. Many of your countrymen and women, as you point out, do not have this opportunity and are therefore excluded from the PNG political process.
The next step for those who do have the opportunity should be to establish how things can be improved.
The current political scene in PNG appears, to some who look at it from the outside, to be slowly lapsing into anarchy and chaos.
The notion of Parliamentary rule has clearly been ameliorated in favour of a ruling elite that is manipulating political power to their own advantage and not that of the PNG people who they are supposed to be representing.
This situation is not dissimilar to what has been played out in many other developing countries in the world and, again, appears to some to replicate the traits of human nature revealed in these particular circumstances.
The eventual result of ignoring a nation's and her people's needs, and merely looking after a ruling cartel's greed, is a breakdown in representative government.
There are in history many instances where this has happened. While some, like Mahatma Gandhi, helped lead (eventually) peaceful resistance movements, in the majority of cases home grown revolutions often overthrew by force one dictatorship for another.
The real losers were always the people who continually got caught up in each dictator's personal ambition and were not led by statesmen and women.
So what is your solution to the current imbroglio? It seems inevitable that unless intelligent and educated people such as yourself come up with some practical alternatives and start making some positive initiatives to help your country, you may well be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Posted by: Paul Oates | 25 November 2010 at 12:54 PM
Sir Mekere has previously attacked PNG Petromin regarding this company as presumed to be owned by Sir Michael Somare and his family.
He has led many elite Papua New Guineans to believe that Sir Michael and his son Arthur have been using state assets to build their family business, for instance the Falcon jet and the PNG Protromin company.
Many high profile people behind the vision and the set up of this PNG Protromin company have had to fight strongly against Sir Mekere's deluded views to set the record straight on this state owned company.
All his personal attacks on PNG Protromin have now ceased after he realised he was barking up the wrong tree. However Sir Mekere is now continuing on to attack IPB and, due to what has transpired with PNG Protromin, no one in PNG will believe what Sir Mekere is coming up with regarding the IPBS issue, or know whether it is true or not.
Sir Mekere is a good politician but it is now questionable about his political career and character. He has personalised politics, and his style of politics has been emulated by Sam Basil, Jamie Graham and Beldan Namah.
His style of politics will become a trend of PNG politics in the future. His personal attacked on Somare and his family may seem good to his political supporters in Port Moresby's North West electorate but I'm not sure about the rural population of PNG.
It’s a shame and annoying to see such degrading way of playing politics in PNG.
Many Australians and John Howard are pro-Mekere and thus whatever Mekere utters in the media, his supporters within and outside will tend to affirm and believe in his allegation, but not so with the rural population in PNG.
The recent media publicity of the kidnapping of Noel Anjo is a clear example of how Sir Mekere and his team are playing their cheap politics. It’s a shame to see Sam Basil, Jamie Graham, Beldan Namah and Sir Mekere using this tactic to fight for power.
These four politicians have used what I would call a criminal tactic to gain popularity and support so as to pursue personal political gain. This is a corrupt political practice.
Noel Anjo's story is fabricated - framed and acted upon to try a last minute attempt to character assassinate Sir Michael Somare. This episode will be affirmed by opposition political supporters but not the rural population.
The opposition budget reply was a speech written in 2008 and 2009. Bart Philemon and Sir Mekere have just reiterated what they have both been saying in the previous years.
The speech is not related to the budget, but it’s a frustrated speech given to show how desperate these two so-called leaders are in trying to gain power.
Posted by: Gerald Tananu | 25 November 2010 at 11:31 AM