But some dynamics of the Miss Pacific Islands pageant, particularly the PEOPLE’s CHOICE AWARD, appears to be lopsided – favouring Papua New Guinea (PNG). This category is won by the picture with the most Facebook reactions.
If there’s anything you must know about us Papua New Guineans, it’s this: we are tribalistic. We literally live in tribes, and at the regional level, we would vote our own.
Not that’s not a problem, until you realise that the number of PNG social media users alone is larger than the entire population of Pacific island countries.
A study by ANU PhD students Jope Tarai from Fiji and Michael Kabuni from PNG in 2022 shows that there a 1. 03 million active social media users in PNG alone. No Pacific island country has more than 1 million people except PNG, whose population is estimated to be more than 11 million.
With PNG’s social media users surpassing the total population of many other Pacific island countries, the likelihood of PNG contestants winning the PEOPLE’s CHOICE AWARD is significant. Even if only a fraction of PNG’s social media users participate in voting, it could sway the outcome in favor of a PNG contestant.
This phenomenon highlights a potential skew in the game, where the sheer population size of PNG gives its contestants an advantage in online voting competitions.
However, it’s important to note that winning the Miss Pacific Islands title requires more than just social media reactions. Nonetheless, the PEOPLE’s CHOICE AWARD, which relies solely on social media engagement, is inherently biased towards countries with larger populations and higher social media usage.
As a result, Tyla Singarok from PNG has a good chance at the PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD, simply by virtue of having a million people behind her.
This situation underscores broader issues of digital equity and representation in regional competitions, where disparities in population and technology access can significantly impact outcomes.
I’ve had readers asking me to write about the steps involved in removing the prime minister in a vote of no confidence. Instead of writing a new article, I’m reposting a blog I wrote for ANU’s Development Policy Blog in 2020. It details steps involved in removing an incumbent prime minister.
(This was an article published in 2020 by Devpol. See link at the end).
“What does it take to change a prime minister in PNG”
The Papua New Guinean Supreme Court ruled this week that PNG’s Parliament will return on 14 December 2020. Now that a possible vote of no confidence against Prime Minister James Marape looks likely, I ask: how can PNG change its prime minister?
Outside an election, a vote of no confidence is only one such mechanism. PNG’s constitution provides for the dismissal of the prime minister from office for breaching the Leadership Code (s. 142(5)(a)), removal from office on health grounds (s. 142(5)(c)), suspension from office pending an investigation (s. 142(6)), as well as removal through a vote of no confidence (ss. 105 and 145). A vacancy can also occur if the prime minister resigns, dies or has his election invalidated by the courts.
Since PNG’s independence, no prime minister has been dismissed from office for breaching the Leadership Code, though, in 2011, Michael Somare was suspended for two weeks as PM for his failure to submit complete annual returns to the Ombudsman Commission.
No PM has died in office. Michael Somare was removed by Parliament for being unfit when he was undergoing medical treatment in Singapore in 2011. The Supreme Court ruled his removal unconstitutional since expert opinion was not sought. But Parliament ignored the ruling.
There have been numerous challenges to the validity of a PM’s election on the floor of Parliament, including Marape’s own election, but the Court has only ruled one election invalid. On 23 September 1993, as the 18-month grace period was coming to an end, Prime Minister Paias Wingti secretly resigned, hoping to be re-elected the next day and enjoy a fresh 18-month grace period. When Speaker Bill Skate announced the vacancy and call for nomination the next day, Opposition MPs protested and left the chamber. Government MPs proceeded to elect Wingti as PM. A year later, the Supreme Court ruled the re-election of Paias Wingti to be invalid.
Now we come to votes of no confidence.
In total, since independence, PNG has had nine prime ministers elected on the floor of Parliament following a general election, but only two have completed their terms: Michael Somare (2002 to 2007) and Peter O’Neill (2012 to 2017). As mentioned above, Somare was replaced by Peter O’Neill in 2011 on the disputed grounds of ill-health. Three PMs have been replaced through votes of no confidence (Somare by Julius Chan in 1980, Somare by Wingti in 1986, and Wingti by Rabbie Namaliu in 1988) and three others resigned to avoid a vote of no confidence (Wingti in 1993, Skate in 1998 and O’Neill in 2019).
Section 145 of the Constitution provides for a vote of no confidence against the prime minister, with two different sets of provisions: first, for a vote of no confidence conducted within the first four years following the election of the prime minister; and second, for a vote of no confidence within 12 months before the issue of writs for the next election.
If the vote of no confidence is within the first four years the alternative PM needs to be named. If it is within the last year an alternative must not be named, since, if the vote is successful, Parliament will be dissolved and an election held.
The notice for a motion for a vote of no confidence must be signed by one-tenth of the MPs (at least 12 out of 111 MPs). It then goes before the Private Business Committee (PBC) for vetting. The notice should include the name of the alternative PM (if within the first four years). Once the PBC is satisfied that the required procedures have been followed, the motion is then listed on the notice paper. The next day the Speaker announces to Parliament that a vote of no confidence has been moved against the PM. Parliament is adjourned for a week and then proceeds with the vote of no confidence.
If the vote of no confidence is within the first four years, MPs vote (in a single vote) either for the alternative PM or the incumbent. Whoever gets the most votes becomes prime minister. In a vote of no confidence within the last 12 months, Parliament only votes for or against the incumbent PM. If there are more votes against than for, Parliament is dissolved.
This process can be delayed if government MPs dominate the PBC. This is why the Opposition voted to reconstitute the PBC with its supporters on 13 November. The government reversed that decision on 17 November when Opposition MPs were absent, but the Supreme Court has ruled all decisions of 17 November were invalid, which restores the PBC back to the Opposition’s control. From past experience, the vetting process can be done in a day if the PBC is supportive.
What all this means is that the Opposition will need to nominate a leader by Monday, 14 December if it plans to table its motion of no confidence as soon as Parliament resumes. If it does so, the critical showdown between the current PM and the nominated alternative would then take place the following week.
Of course, it might take much longer to organise than that. However, as noted in an earlier blog, due to the high turnover rate of incumbent MPs, politicians have historically been reluctant to institute a vote of no confidence within the last 12 months of a parliamentary term as, if they are successful, elections are brought forward. This gives the Opposition until 30 July 2021 to try to change the prime minister.”
Link to the original article. When you click on the link, and scroll to the end, you will also see the comments, questions and my response to the questions.
Everyone has been held accountable except the prime minister, who bears the highest responsibility as the head of government.
Approximately 10 public servants have faced suspension or sidelining, each having varying degrees of responsibility for failing to prevent Black Wednesday.
While the police, National Intelligence Organisation, and treasury and finance personnel have distinct roles, the overarching responsibility for addressing issues such as job creation, education quality, inflation, law and order, and respect for the rule of law falls on the government, led by the prime minister.
The events of January 10 reflect years of governmental negligence in addressing these structural issues, including inflation, unemployment, and impunity.
Therefore, if accountable public servants are being suspended, it is time for the prime minister to hold himself to the same standard and either suspend himself or resign from his position.
Kerenga Kua has just announced his resignation as Minister for Energy from the Marape Coalition. Many have asked me if there will be a vote of no confidence.
This is my prediction: the prime minister who is elected following the 2027 national elections will face a vote of no confidence 18 months after his election. Why am I so confident that would be the case?
Because VONC is a permanent feature of Papua New Guinea (PNG) politics. Only 2 prime ministers have ever completed their terms in parliament.
It doesn’t matter whether you are the founding father or have delivered high economic growth. PNG politicians love VONC.
Michael Somare was removed in a VONC. Sir Julius Chan was removed. Pias Wingti was removed. Rabbie Namilu failed to return as PM. Mekere Mourata failed to return as PM. Skate was replaced. Peter O’Neill was replaced.
It doesn’t take a political scientist to make correct predictions. Anyone can say “there’ll be a vote of no confidence after 18 months” and be right 95% of the time.
This time it’s no different. Even if Marape delivered everything we want, the politicians would have removed him.
What is the real cause of the vote of no confidence then?
Some are genuinely concerned about the affairs of the country. This is usually the few minority. The majority just want access to state resources. The vote of no confidence is used as a vehicle by those who have no access to state resources to replace those who have access to state resources.
What about 10 January 2024 riots and looting?
For a vote of no confidence you need an issue, to use as grounds for moving a vote of no confidence. The riots is an easy pick. But if it was not the riots, opposition would have picked one of many issues in PNG. Issues are used almost as an excuse, whilst the real reason is to have access to state resources.
PC: Kerenga Kua announcing his resignation from the Marape coalition as a Minister for Energy.
PNG’s Ombudsman Commission (OC), the anti-corruption watchdog, has written to the Prime Minister James Marape seeking clarification on how the new ministry – Ministry for Constitutional Offices will affect the independence of the constitutional offices such as the OC.
In a recent cabinet reshuffle, Marape appointed a new Minister for Constitutional Offices.
The point OC raises is valid: constitutional offices are independent and not politically answerable to the government. And in a highly politicised bureaucratic environment, bringing an independent agency such as the OC under a minister will compromise the work of constitutional office holders.
Below is an extract of the letter, and it’s implications:
Ombudsman Commission’s Letter to James Highlights the following:
The head of the executive government, the prime minister has the right to appoint ministers and create ministries
Departments are politically answerable to the ministers
Constitutional offices are an exception: they are independent and not answerable to a minister
James Marape recently created a minister to for constitutional office
Ombudsman Commission seeks clarification on what this minister’s role is, whether OC will come unde the powers of the minister, and how this reconciles with the fact that constitutional offices are independent
Implications
If Marape undos the ministry of constitutional office he will lose face
If he maintains it, it will potentially be unconstitutional
If a dispute arises the matter will go before the Supreme Court
A Supreme Court ruling will prove to be very important:
if ruled in favour of Marape, the constitutional offices will be compromised as all other PNG government departments are
if ruled in favour of OC, again, Marape will lose face, but an important precedent will be set not to interfere with constitutional offices
Way forward:
Marape must undo the ministry for constitutional offices.
Academia Nomad 