Academia Nomad

Who to vote for four seats

I am only writing this because it may help someone, and also because I’ve spent some time studying the subject.

First, the role of MPs since 1995 (reform) is to make laws/policies, as well as deliver services. So to measure the performance of current MPs, ask the following questions:

1. Did the MP debate on critical issues in parliament, and how did he vote on important national issues? (Look at vote of no confidence, including those who supported unconstitutional votes Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional). You have to take this into account because the first role of MPs are to make laws.
2. Did the MP deliver services? For this question, ask what services were provided, were the services equally distributed, and were they directed at critical sectors. Buying iron sheets for urban dwellers and surrounding areas is not provision of critical services. Look at health, education, roads, creation of economic opportunities, etc
3. For those non-MP candidates, ask yourself if they have the capability to meet the two points above.

Second, corruption eats up about K3 billion of PNG’s budget. It is very important that you seriously think about this issue. Don’t vote anyone who has a record of corruption. Even if corruption cannot be directly attributed to him/her, but if it’s perpetuated by those surrounding him, don’t vote him/her. He/she recruited the corrupt officials.

If you have to decide between the integrity of the candidate and his ability to debate or deliver services, go for integrity.

Third, all the people want is creation of opportunities so they can make their own living. Go for candidates who will create opportunities. Has the MP created opportunities for you to make your own living? Market access, SME credit schemes, agricultural extension programs, quality control etc.

Finally, don’t be tribal and don’t confine your choices to gender. If you don’t see any good qualities from your clansmen contesting for the seat, don’t vote him. We are searching for leadership, and there may be good candidates from other areas. Also, look beyond gender. Don’t vote a female candidate because she’s female. But also don’t restrain from voting a female candidate who has great qualities because she’s a female. Vote good leaders. Male or female.

Look at individuals who will empower you. Not make you reliant on them.

So this is the summary:

Vote someone who balances national priorities with service delivery. On service deliver, ask if it’s empowering people to be independent. Look beyond gender.

Don’t fall for MP or candidate with the loudest shouts (Thunder without rain), but also don’t settle for those who promise iron roofs without creating opportunities for you to work your land and buy your own roofs. If his household is in a mess, don’t vote him. Keep it simple.

Despite visits from Australian ministers and planned US officials visit to the Solomon Islands, Solomon Islands went ahead to sign the security deal with China. Details are still sketchy, but a leaked draft says it will allow Chinese security to assist Solomon Islands security forces when needed, as well as protect Chinese businesses and interests.

Australia had sought PNG and Fiji government’s assistance to prevent the Solomon Islands-China deal, but it appears both Pacific Island countries didn’t offer much help.

To understand the Australian failure to persuade Solomon Island to abandon there deal with China, one must take a broader view of Australia’s engagement in the Pacific, but especially the Melanesian region, because this is a culmination of Australia’s policy failures in the region in general. It’s not an isolated incident, and unless Australian changes it’s approach in the Pacific, it is bound to face similar challenges in the future.

First, no Pacific Island country will condemn another for a deal with China. Because most, if not all Pacific Island countries have some form of a deal with China. China has been offering loans to the Pacific Island countries for years now, and in the Solomon Island’s case, a direct funding to the Constituency Funds.

Australian didn’t get much response from PNG because PNG has China funded projects going on. Fiji knows very much how Australia can attempt to use the PICs against another PIC country, after having itself kicked out of the Pacific Islands Forum following the last coup.

Second, there is not much people to people connected between Australian and the Melanesian Island countries. Compared to Polynesian Islanders, the Melanesians community in Australia is very small. It is very difficult for Melanesians to get a visa to travel to Australia, and it is near impossible for them to get citizenship.

The last real connection Australia had with Melanesian countries was the fuzzy wuzzy angels who assisted Australia’s war against the Japanese, and those natives who fought against the Japanese alongside Australia. I had grandfathers who would speak highly of Australian soldiers. I don’t hear any from their grandchildren these days. Almost all fuzzy wuzzy angels have passed on. Melanesian island countries have the largest populations, land mass, and economies in the Pacific, but the most excluded in Australia.

Australian is asking for help from countries that have no sympathy for Australia. It won’t happen.

Third, the irony is not lost in the Pacific on Australia’s decision to go for nuclear powered submarine last year. If that decision by Australia can be defended as a sovereign country conducting its foreign affairs, why cannot Solomon Islands defend its decision for a security deal with China as a sovereign country engaging in a deal with another country?

This is another reason why neither PNG nor Fiji would support Australia. If PNG and Fiji help stop Solomon Islands the deal, what happens in the future when both countries engage in a deal that Australia does not approve? Australia will seek other PICs against them.

The Australian submarine deal was important for the Pacific because the region has maintained a non-nuclear policy since the Cold War days. Australia is pursuing a nuclear powered submarine, not a nuclear armed submarine. But, it comes with risks nonetheless. One that Greens leader Adam Bandt referred to as “floating Chernobyls.”

Finally, when was the last time Australia sought the Pacific about its deals. The AUKUS, or the QUAD, surrounds the Pacific but the Pacific is not part of the deals, neither were they consulted. Again, one can argue that AUKUS and AUADs are deals Australia entered into as a sovereign country and needed no consultation with the Pacific. Ta-daaaa. Why can Solomon Islands do the same?

Australia’s assumption that the Pacific is its “backwater” is a very patronising view. It’s unsustainable, and needs a change.

Canberra National Arboretum is one of places you should not miss whilst in Canberra, probably has the best Cafe with a scenic view of Canberra. It overlooks the city. A perfect backdrop, with its forests of endangered trees planted all around the property.

But it also has a miniature versions of the trees located inside a controlled environment. A form of greenhouse where trees more than a hundred years old are carefully kept. But there’s one thing unique about these trees: they are so controlled that they don’t grow more than one metre tall.

The oldest tree is a 143 years old box-leafed privet, which is no taller than 60cm.

To give you some idea, this tree was first cultivated in 1880, four years before the British raised the Union Jack flag at Hanuabada Village (in present day Port Moresby) in 1884 and declared Papua a British Protectorate.

The description reads:

Age of tree: 1880

Styled/trained: 1983

Basically it means this tree was cultivated in 1883, and then in 1983 it was dug out, put into a small pot, and then “trained” through various means such as pruning or trimming to not grow any further.

In fact the tree had to be trimmed to a height shorter than its original height, and trained not to grow back to its original height. And for more than 100 years it had maintained a height of less than 60cm.

In the wild the tree can grow up to 5 metres. So it was about 5 metres tall, but since 1983, its trimmed and maintained to below 60cm.

There are about 80 different spieces of trees, and the ones in the National Arboretum are all maintained under one metre.

Some of these trees would naturally grow up to more than 50 metres but in a controlled environment they can only make it to one metre.

This was all beautiful and exotic until it dawned on me that all these trees had one thing in common: they were not growing to their natural height because their height is being artificially controlled.

Think about that for a minute. A tree that can grow to several metres in the wild is being kept to under one metre. What does that say about “control” or “training.” Especially if it comes with the benefit of luxury.

These trees have all things provided for: water, the right amount of sunlight, and minerals.

But also, once in a while, their are roots are pruned, branches are pruned, all with the intent to ensure that they doesn’t grow beyond one metre.

It’s a scary thing to know that a very comfortable environment can also keep you below your potential. Worse still, relying on another entity means your growth is determined by the entity.

It can be your job. Your job, which provides you with shelter, car, home, insurance, children’s’ school fee funds, and leave fares and entitlements, also determines how high you go in your career.

Your growth, if controlled by another, will allow you to rise as high as is useful for the objectives of the person who controls your life. Your entire existence is for the pleasure, benefit and fulfilment of the one providing you with home and food.

Compared to a controlled environment, those in the wild, who have to compete for, and make their own living, have the freedom to grow to their natural potential. It may be risky, but they control their own destiny.

I looked outside from the National Arboretum, and there were trees growing wild and free. And they were tall and in the autumn, the leaves displayed different beautiful colours.

The trees outside were free. Not confined or controlled. They didn’t need extra attention to be beautiful. They didn’t need controlled sunlight to be tall. They were flourishing naturally. They were just being “trees.”

I think it takes a bit of rebellion to break out of the norm. The norm that you get educated, get a job, be excessively taxed by the government, retire by 65, buy a rocking chair and a clock to watch your days and wind down to the grave.

It’s an easy way out. But it also limits your potential. You’ll never know all you could ever be, until you step out.

Take a chance on freedom, and just like a tree blooms by being a tree, bloom by being just an individual free of opinions, family tradition, expectations or confinement.

Take a chance on freedom. Chances are, you’ll rise to your potential.

It’s Easter so let’s concluded it this way: Jesus died to free you from being controlled by sin, opinions, and fear. He died to set you free. Take a chance at freedom.

More photos below

This is the graduation season. My LinkedIn and Facebook, and even Twitter are flooded with photos proud graduates, and their friends and families.

Hugs and tears. And occasionally a heartfelt tribute to a single mother struggling to raise school fees for her kid. Or a sister who had to drop out of school so her school fees could go towards her brother’s tuition. These tributes are just a snapshot of the many struggles students go through.

Behind the glamour and camera flash lights are some four, five or even six years of toil. That don’t make it online.

There are many, me included, who are critical about the high unemployment and masses of graduates coming out every year. And it has its merits. Whilst I still hold the same position, here I offer an alternative as to why I think the lack of jobs shouldn’t mean producing less graduates.

Education is more than just a pathway to getting a job, paying high taxes, contributing to Nasfund and retiring at 65 years old with a rocking chair and a clock to count down your days to the grave.

University education is special. It teaches you life skills that you would not have learnt in the comforts of your family, clan, tribe, or community.

You’re forced to meet deadlines. You are forced to work hard. You have to show up. Hungry, mood swings, mad, lack of sleep, but still show up.

Let’s be honest you wouldn’t do that at home. You’d sleep whole day, and take two extra days.

At Uni you are forced to work with people from different backgrounds, sometimes conflicting perspectives.

You’re become immersed in cultures different from yours. You develop empathy for others in the process, and tolerance for different people and ways of life.

You’re involuntarily exposed to a world that is different from yours.

And therein lies the true benefit of Uni life. What you become over the four, five, six years is more important than getting a job.

You can go out and create a business by sleeping under the table. Deprived of sleep you still show up when your client needs you. You feel comfortable speaking to diverse groups of people.

Opportunities are not limited to your church networks. You may have to talk to that next door sinner, or the guy from Highlands, or the dude who talks funny and walks with a limp living down the street.

You may need that Central guy, sport-less and uninterested in life back at Uni, to introduce you to the next opportunity.

Or that sister who hated all movies that involved blood in general, and Game of Thrones in particular.

Remember, the best part of University is what you became in the process. Character. Perseverance. Consistency. Tolerance. And showing the hell up even your hormones said “sleep.”

As the US Navy Seals say:

“The only easy day was yesterday…”

And the Brits SAS say:

“He who dares wins.”

Okay I got these phrases from watching special oops movies whilst at UPNG.

The world owes you nothing kid. Go out there, apply what you learnt. And take what’s yours. No apologies.

All the photos were taken from “Orchy Andono”. You can check out Orchy Andono on Facebook. Used here with permission.

Both Australia and PNG head to the polls in May and April 2022 respectively. Both Australian PM Scott Morrison and PNG PM James Marape risk loosing their grip on the PM posts.

If PNG appoints a new PM after the 2022 election, it would be the 4th PM since 2002. If Australian gets a new PM, it would be their 7th PM since 2002.

Australia has changed their PMs seven times in 20 years compared to PNG’s three.

This would give the impression that Australia is more unstable than PNG when it comes to politics. But when you dive deeper, PNG’s instability is worse than just merely changing PMs.

In Australia, even though PMs were changed more times, only two political parties namely Liberal and Labour held the posts. From Howard, a Liberal PM, it went to Rudd, a Labour PM, who was replaced by another Labour MP, Gillard, as PM. The PM post then returned to Liberals when Abbot was appointed PM, who was replaced by another Liberal, Turnbull and finally to yet another Liberal, Morrison.

Australia’s PM posts either revolves within the same party, or alternates between two major parties.

This is important, because even when PM’s change, the core party values remain when PM within the same party is appoint. Even when the PM post goes to another party, voters know what to expect as it’s either Labour or Liberal.

In PNG, with every change of PM in the last 20 years, a PM from another party got elected: Somare, a National Alliance PM from 2002 – 2011; O’Neill, a People’s Congress PM from 2011 – 2019; and PM Marape is from PANGU Pati. At most times the executive were replaced in its entirety.

As both PNG and Australia go to elections, we know that the next Australian PM will come from one of two parties: Liberal or Labour.

PNG’s PM on the other hand, will come from one of the 44 political parties currently registered. What’s worse, you don’t know what any of these parties stand for. You don’t know what you are voting for.

So even though Australia replaced more PMs than PNG, the changes of PNG PMs caused more uncertainty than in Australia.

In PNG, voters don’t even vote based on party policies. But that’s partly because there are too many parties, and MPs are switching between parties every time (45 MPs have switched parties between 2017 and 2022). Parties do not have distinct ideologies or policies. In fact when you go to PNG Registry of Political Parties & Candidates, you will not tell the difference between People’s National Congress (PNC) and PANGU Pati’s policies. PANGU replaced PNC in 2019. Worse still, the PANGU MP who replaced PNC MP as PM in 2019 was himself a former PNC MP. If this sounds confusing it’s because the whole thing is confusing.