Academia Nomad

This title of the post will raise eyebrows (if not a storm), but I hope you read to the end to make sense of this post. I will confine this article to the seats in NCD.

Following the 2021 Port Moresby Northwest by-election we conducted small survey among 120 UPNG students and working class residents of POMNW. One of the questions we asked was what criteria did they use to cast their votes for the by-election, and what criteria would they use for 2022 elections. Below is a summary of the responses, including the top 4 criteria.

This was a high focus on policy issues. Quite possibly, participants’ education levels may have affected the responses we received. Of the 120 respondents we surveyed, 72% either had a degree or were studying towards a degree. Also, we cannot say for sure that when they actually voted, participants in our survey prioritised policies as much as they said they did. At the very least though, our participants showed an awareness that policies should be important in electoral contests.

The three main issues that voters said the candidates should talk about for Moresby Northwest were law and order issues in the electorate, economic opportunities, and health services.

We also asked the same policy question but with respect to the 2022 national elections. When asked to think about 2022, respondents said candidates and political parties should focus on how to deal with law and order issues, economic development, and corruption.

Regarding female candidates, 84% of those respondents who voted in 2017 said they did not cast a single preference for any of the three women who contested the Moresby Northwest seat (three out of the 35 Moresby Northwest candidates in 2017 were females).

48% of respondents who voted in 2017 said they would consider allocating one of their preferences to a female candidate in the Moresby Northwest by-election (one female candidate was standing), whilst 37% said they would do the same in the 2022 election.

When we asked what it would take for someone who was not planning to vote for a female candidate to allocate one of his or her preferences to a female candidate, we tended to get responses emphasising that participants would not vote for women candidates just because they were women. For example:

“She must not play the ‘gender card’ too much and concentrate on policy matters. Being male or female does not bring about changes we hope for but the right person with good quality.”

“My preference on women candidates will depend on their education qualifications and political party and policies of the party that she was endorsed by, her leadership qualities and someone who can fight for the common good for all people.”

As Figure 2 shows, when asked if they would vote a female candidate because she was a “women”, it got low response.

We also asked the respondents to pick the five political parties that they thought would win the most seats in the 2022 elections. The names that were mentioned the most were Pangu Pati, People’s National Congress, the Allegiance Party, the National Alliance Party, and the United Labour Party. However, the reasons respondents gave for selecting these parties were that these parties were either led by or, in the National Alliance Party’s case, composed of prominent individuals.

Our survey participants were urban and well educated, so we cannot claim our findings hold true for all of PNG. Yet, our findings are still interesting. Voters of the sort we surveyed are at least aware that policies should be important in electoral competition. At the same time, though, our participants were under no illusions about the nature of party politics in PNG.

Voters primarily saw parties as vehicles for prominent individuals. But it may also mean that female candidates endorsed by party with prominent individuals will draw some sort of votes.

This is an edited version of our article for Development Policy Blog. To read the full paper, go online an search for:

“PNG’s 2022 elections: parties, policies and women candidates”….. by Michael Kabuni, Minetta Kakarere, & Russel Kitau.

Over the weekend, a gun allegedly belonging to a PNG politician was “accidentally” discharged in Port Moresby, killing an by-stander.

The gun related death was confirmed by Assistant Police Commissioner Anthony Wagambie.

This follows a viral video of Finchfen MP and Minister Rainbow Paita firing a semi-automatic weapon towards the end of last year. After investigations, Paita was not charged.

It goes without saying that any ordinary Papua New Guinean would probably have faced prison time.

Paita justified his handling of the weapon on him having a firearm license. He didn’t clarify, and neither did the police, whether Paita’s license allowed him to handle a semi-automatic weapon.

There are only two more groups in PNG who are notorious for owning and operating guns. Criminal gangs and tribal warlords in the highlands of PNG.

Among these three groups, politicians “legally” own guns (there are few politicians who own guns).

If politicians own guns, and have license to handle semi-automatic firearms, shouldn’t we all be entitled to own and handle firearms as well?

Where do we draw the line on who owns and handles firearms?

After all, politicians are PNG citizens. Just like any ordinary citizens. Why shouldn’t we all own guns.

If politicians own guns because they feel unsafe, I know of thousand other Papua New Guineans who don’t feel safe.

In fact every young girl should own a gun!

Everyone who commutes to work on a bus, and has to pass through 4 Mile Bus Stop should own a gun. If you go to Koki Market any time of the day you are entitled to a semi-automatic weapon.

Where do we draw the line?

It’s either we all have guns, and license to handle semi-automatic firearms, or we don’t. There’s no justification for only MPs to own and handle guns.

Once I was asked by a friend to recommend six graduates for positions within his department. He promised that those I recommend would immediately make the list for interviews. Call for applications was also advertised.

True to his word, all six graduates I recommended were shortlisted for interview. Three were recruited. It was interesting to me that the three that got the positions were not the kids with the highest GPAs.

I intentionally recommended the three graduates with low GPAs nonetheless.

For one I remember writing about his work attitude. As a honors student (I was teaching the research method bit of the program), he would consistently submit his assignments on or before time. I made the point that he was not the smartest, but was hardworking.

The other had the most friendly personality I’ve ever encountered teaching for five years. You wouldn’t know the kid was having a bad day. He once came to my office, argued for me to adjust his marks for a test which I didn’t. He left with a broad smile 😃.

The other graduate, who I was friends with on Facebook (when I had an account), publicly got into argument with his tribesmen and country men about the unjustifiable cases of violence against women, and tribal fights in the cities. He called them out – which to be honest, many from areas that these practices are endemic don’t!

I sent both the recommendations, together with their transcripts. And made the point that their marks were average, but what we need more in PNG are people who work hard at opportunities that are given, good attitude, and are willing to stand up against injustice for those that cannot.

To me, a student who keeps the candy packet in his pocket to throw in a prosper rubbish bin is more deserving of a job than one with high GPA who spits betel nut on the clean pavement, or throws an empty can out a moving bus.

Occasionally I get asked to recommend new graduates. I also get requests from students to write references. It’s always the same: attitude over GPA. A good GPA and a good attitude would make a great recommendation.

In less than a week, the wold came together to condemn Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions on Putin and the oligarchs, Russian Central Bank, suspension of SWIFT services, and supplied weapons and aid money for those affected.

The question many, especially in the Pacific are asking is: what about West Papua?

West Papua has been illegally occupied by Indonesia since 1963. Brutal and endemic abuse of human rights violations continued unabated since then.

The UN Human Rights Commission said on 1 March 2022 that “Between April and November 2021, we have received allegations indicating several instances of extrajudicial killings, including of young children, enforced disappearance, torture and inhuman treatment and the forced displacement of at least 5,000 indigenous Papuans by security forces.”

So even the UN knows what is happening. So the obvious question is why isn’t the UN or EU or US or Australia doing anything about it?

The issue is complex, but here we will talk about just one, and probably the most important one. It has to do with the geopolitical benefits of pleasing Indonesia.

Indonesia is and has been an important ally of the US and Australian, the two powers with the highest stake in the region.

During the Cold War, domino effect of Communist ideology spread to Southeast Asia. Indonesia was an important ally of the West against communism. Indonesia activity suppressed Communism.

To please their ally, US and the West left Indonesia move in an occupy West Papua following the so called Act of Free Choice, which has been branded as Act of No Choice by many. A form of referendum where about 1000 representatives of West Papua were forced to sign to integrate into Indonesia.

Fast forward to now, the same countries are worried about the rise of China. And they are content with ignoring Indonesian atrocities in West Papua.

Countries in Southeast Asia with a stake in the South China Sea need US help to stand up against China so they remain silent. India has border conflicts with China so it remains it does what US wants. Japan has its own conflicts with China, so is Australia.

There are rumours that China sympathies with West Papua. This appears ironic that a Communist country with poor record of human rights would be sympathetic with human rights abuses in West Papua.

There are two reasons for this: Indonesia has claims over South China Sea which China considers as her own; and Indonesia’s criticism of China over imprisonment of Muslim minorities.

There are allegations that China maintains a modern day labour prison camp for an estimated one million Muslim Uyghurs. China calls it the re-education camps. Being the largest Muslim nation on earth Indonesia condemns China. Rumours started emerging that China then supported West Papuans.

A classical “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” play going on in the region.

In the Pacific, only Vanuatu has consistently supported West Papuan’s independence and spoken up in the UN. Papua New Guinean, which shares a 700km land border with Indonesia has been very cautious. Indonesia has very huge standing army compared to PNG.

There were calls for Commission of Inquiry into West Papua by countries in the region, but that never took place. Further calls for allowing journalists into West Papua has been ignored. And in the absence of international presence, Indonesia controls the narrative.

So here is how the world politics play: if an invasion or occupation or atrocities against a group of people affects the interest of the West, and US in particular, only the is there condemnation and even action taken.

The difference between Ukraine and West Papua is that, in Ukraine, it’s Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the enemy of the West. So the invasion is considered illegal, and civilians killed in Ukraine amounts to war crimes.

In West Papua, the same or even worse has been occurring for over 70 decades. Buts it’s been carried out by an ally of the West.

Unless the geopolitics in the region change, and US and it’s allies do not need Indonesia, West will continue to ignore West Papua.

Alternatively, China can step up its support for West Papua.

There’s no help from Australian. In fact, Australia supplies arms to Indonesian military.

The Pacific countries are the only realist voice. They have to do what Vanuatu has been doing.

The similarities are striking. Putin wants Ukraine, Xi wants Taiwan.

Both Ukraine and Taiwan are democratic countries. Countries where elections are relatively free and fair compared to dictatorial style governments of Russia and China.

Putin makes the historical and cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine. Xi makes the same claims for Taiwan.

But what Putin and Xi fear the most is that, the freedom enjoyed by Ukrainians and Taiwanese people is a threat to Russian & China, whose population don’t have similar freedoms. Putin and Xi fear their own people desiring Ukrainians and Taiwanese lifestyle and freedom. Putin and Xi’s main threats lie among their own people, not necessarily form the West.

But both Putin and Xi blame the West for interfering because it’s convenient.

China is watching Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine very carefully. It’s watching the world (with very few exceptions) unite against Russia. The economic sanctions of the EU and US will cripple Russia in the long run. Both US and EU are crucial for Chinese economy.

US is China’s main export destination. EU is one of China’s major export destinations.

It is very likely the world will unite against China if China every attempts to take control of Taiwan.

Just last year, Australia, Japan, India and the US formed the “QUAD” alliance. Some have referred to it as QUAD NATO. Just like NATO was created to stand up against USSR and Russia, QUAD NATO is projected against China. QUAD will have supporters like South Korea, Indonesia (allegedly over one million Uyghurs Muslims in China kept in camps, and Indonesia being the largest Muslim nation on earth is concerned), and other Southeast Asian countries that have constant disputes with China over South China Sea.

China’s ambitions over Taiwan will very much be shaped by success or failure of Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine, and the future of Putin and Russia.