From a distance I respect the indigenous people of UK to celebrate because they understand the cultural significance and background for having the monarchy.

I can understand why Australia had to take a referendum because a significant part of its population has links to UK.

For PNG, our politicians can ask their Fijian counterparts how they operate without a GG next year when they are in Suva for their annual golf holiday.

I remember when the republic last raised its ugly head in Australia.

During the 1999 referendum one wag wrote in a newspaper, "As far as I am concerned I want my head of state to be as far removed from Australian politicians as possible.

"Buckingham Palace is far enough. Balmoral Castle is even better."

So given the current push for a republic, a far-away friendly head of state is probably a nice compromise.

That the monarchy is an anachronism is hardly a contestable statement, yet it continues to exercise a fascination for many people.

The vast crowd who attended the coronation of King Charles III is clear evidence of support for this very ancient institution.

The current king is clearly very mindful of the significant socio-cultural changes that have occurred in his various kingdoms since his much loved mother ascended the throne.

As it has consistently done over the centuries, the monarchy is adapting to those changes, which the guest list at the coronation clearly demonstrated.

The aim of this king is to make the monarchy fit for purpose for another generation at least and I have no doubt that the Prince of Wales will, when it is his time, make further adaptations as necessary to do keep the monarchy in tough with his people and the times.

Whether the monarchy is truly emblematic of the new neo-liberal elite is, I think, an open question.

The great and the good these days are obsessed with money and property much more than their social standing within a long defunct aristocratic pecking order.

There is no reason to suppose that Australia switching from a constitutional monarchy to some sort of presidential system will make the slightest difference to how the country will be governed or who will have the most influence over the process of governance.

The rationale for transitioning to a republic amounts to little more than symbolism. No-one is seriously suggesting that Australia should move to a fully presidential system such as that of the USA or Russia or just about any South American country you can name.

The reason for this is simple enough: the world's presidential systems are distinguished more by scandal, misgovernment and failure than by triumphant success.

The list of failed states led by corrupt or incompetent presidents is long.

It is important to understand that the system of government is of no consequence to the neo-liberal great and the good.

They simply navigate whatever system is in place, always finding ways to exert influence in their own interests.

In our neo-liberal system money talks and vast amounts of money simply whisper insistently in the right ears.

No matter viewing processions and crowdings in the UK, an embellishment of the technological achievements of the era in which we celebrate, and no matter a sense of stability of governance in so many realms from which salute is garnered, to the East there is a monstrous thrust upon humanity that darkened every day of the past fourteen months, and has yet no prospect of being resolved into an abating calm.

The warfare inflicted by a non-hereditary regime at Europe's East has diplomacy "tip-toeing" on a scale that even House of Hanover might gasp.

So if liberalism (or it's neo) is not effective in promoting economic development and securing political liberty, why moan about monarchy?

Phil is absolutely right to raise questions about this important issue.

If anyone has the right to do this, surely Phil has. In terms of working tirelessly for other people for many years, Phil has enhanced the lives and perspectives of many including those in PNG who would otherwise never have the opportunities they have now.

It does however beg the question: 'If not, then what?'

The mass appeal of last night's spectacle is there for all to see. Could that be done on the same level and panache as the Brits do it? That surely must be in the eye of the beholder.

What was in the eye of the beholder was the equal treatment of both PNG and Australia where their flags were displayed along with other nations and their leaders accorded the same level of respect.

If one looks at the glass and concentrates on it being only half full, it's amazing how some will always be able to find justification for their views. Yet the same applies in reverse.

If you look at other nations and their systems, it's hard to find too many that are the equal in human rights today as are the Brits. You only have to look at their PM or the Lord Mayor of London for example.

The good works being done today will never erase the sins of the past. Those of today should however be assessed on their own merit and not dragged down by those who did despicable things in the past.

We today, cannot be held accountable for what happened before we were born but only what happens now and in the future.

If our society and civilisation are to last and be for the betterment of others, we need to look at the glass being more than half full, lest we become depressed and give up on the age old struggle of good versus evil.