Academia Nomad

Would legalizing prostitution increase security for PNG women because it is better regulated?

Front page, The National Newspaper, 9 September 2020

“If we all become atheists tomorrow, you will still have kanderes [relatives] raping their nieces, ol man kukim meri lo name blo sanguma [women will be burnt alive in the name of sorcery]. Christian-nation/non-Christain-nation argument is nonsense. Our problem is twofold: break down in law and order, and kids raised with total disregard for women. And that’s a problem that will not be solved by making porstitution legal. Fix the law and order, and teach your kids right. You also have to ask: if these women were educated, would they prefer another profession? If they had other employment opportunities that paid for their living, would they pursue porstitution? If the answers are yes, then what you need is provide better training/education for the womenfolk, and job opportunities. There’s nothing noble about prostitution. It takes away their human dignity, and reduces women to mere sex objects…” Facebook comment.

Would legalizing prostitution increase security for PNG women because it is better regulated?

Eight men raped a woman in Papua New Guinea’s capital, Port Moresby, and left her on the street. This follows recent proposals to amend the constitution of PNG and make it a Christian country. Opinions are divided on whether prostitution should be legalized, with some sectors of the society arguing that PNG constitution should not be amended to make PNG a Christian country because it would make decriminalization of prostitution difficult. The other side thinks prostitution should remain illegal, and PNG constitution be amended to make it a Christian country. Though predominantly Christian, the constitution does not make explicit reference to PNG being a Christian country.

Here I argue that both groups are missing the point.

1. Legalizing prostitution increases security of women as it’s better regulated.

Would this argument work for PNG? The answer is a resounding NO. Burning women accused of sorcery is illegal in PNG. So is rape, especially by close relatives. But you read about it every month in newspapers and perhaps weekly on social media. It’s the most disgusting form of torment and murder when objects are inserted in their private parts and burnt to death. According to the police, most of these rapes are underaged aged girls, and they are raped by their own relatives: uncles, cousins, grandpas, and this week a young girl was raped by her step-dad. They are being raped at the safest place possible: their homes.

Safety for womenfolk is a real problem for PNG. And legalizing prostitution will not solve this problem.
Not when women are being raped at their homes.

What then is our problem: Our problems are two fold:

A. A break down in law and order. Our police-to-citizen ratio is 1 : 1, 121. That is, one policeman/policeman responsible for 1, 121 citizens in PNG. This is about three times worse than what the UN recommends 1:450. Files of rape cases pile up at the police stations as officers respond to “more” serious cases of robbery, tribal fights etc. Furthermore our police are under-resourced and poorly equipped.

Shouldn’t the real debate be about increasing police personnel, equipping the police, increasing their budgets and giving professional trainings?

B. Kids raised with total disregard for the lives of womenfolk

We have to admit that some of our cultures (not all) and some households do not regard women with the same respect as their male counterparts. I’ve seen it in my own. When the husband commits adulatory, especially with a young women, it’s the young women’s fault. If the wife commits adulatory with a young men or a married men, she should be automatically divorced. This double standard sucks at all levels. Kids watch this as they grow. You have your own cultures, and experiences may vary, but you get the idea.

Teach your kid to respect everyone. Treat your wife with respect, so your kid can know first hand how to treat a woman.

2. Prostitution pays for the bills

There are those who argue that prostitution should be legalized because that is how women who practice it make their living.

Well ask yourself these questions;

A. If the women were better educated, would they prefer another profession? Is the problem because of a lack of education that limit women from job opportunities? If the answer is yes, then the debate should move towards improving access and quality of education for the womenfolk.

B. If the women engaged in prostitution had employment opportunity that paid the bills, would they pursue prostitution? If the answer is no, then the debate should move into improving trainings/education and providing employment opportunities.

Alternatively, ask a well educated women, employed in a job that pays for her bills, whether she thinks prostitution is an option for her. Sorry about that. Don’t dare ask her. If she doesn’t punch you in the face, you’ll be know as the most stupidest person in the community for even thinking about it.

Security: Everyone need protection. Pastors and Prostitutes. What they do for a living is a debate for another day. But as far as humanity goes, both need protection. Improve law and order for Papua New Guineans. All Papua New Guineans.

Prostitution debate: Raise your kids right. Give our womenfolk the best education we possibly can. Give them employment opportunities. If, after we’ve strived for these, and young girls still go into prostitution then start your debates on decriminalizing prostitution.

Christianity debate: We can all become atheists tomorrow, and you will still have relatives burning their wives, sisters, grandmas in the highlands down to city suburbs. This Christian-nation/non-Christian-nation diverts attention from the real issue.

The problem with trying to addressing symptoms rather than the cause of the problems, is that you spend so much, and end up with the same problem.

Subscribe. Comment below. Like the page. Share.

The Gulag Archipelago 1918 – 1956: Arrests (Part 1)

This is the first of a series of reviews I intend to write about my reading of the classic book ‘The Gulag Archipelago (1918-1956)’. The book is an abridged version of three volumes of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s work, translated from Russian to English. During my visit to St Petersburg and Moscow in November of 2018, I bought as many books as I could about Russia, written by Russians. A Russian journalist, who works for one of the major newspapers with over 100 million readership advised that I should read books by Russian authors to get the ‘other perspective’. I think he was right as the literature about Russia available to Papua New Guineans are those written by Western scholars, unfairly biased towards the West’s views, but I do not think he was hoping I read the Gulag Archipelago. Or Maybe he was.

The Gulag Archipelago was made a mandatory reading for Russian students in 2009. This is interesting because the book reveals the evil practices of the Soviet Regime under Lenin and Stalin, and despite that, Russian students are required to face the evil past of their country. If you find a people willing to do that, you are amongst a people more afraid of repeating the past than facing it. Even President Putin expressed his support for the decision to make the Gulag Archipelago a mandatory reading ( Boudreaux, Richard (28 October 2010). “‘Gulag Archipelago’ Re-Issued for Russian Students”. The Wall Street Journal). For someone who still though of Russians as ‘communists’ this was an interesting revelation to me. Since then I read several books about Russian history, politics, crime etc., but none comes close to the Gulag Archipelago. So I decided to do reviews of each chapter as I read.

The Gulag Archipelago, written by a Russian, has sold more than 30 million copies world wide, and has been translated to several languages. In 2009, with the current Russian President Putin’s support, the book was made a mandatory reading for Russian students. Solzhenitsyn won a Noble Prize for literature. I’m reading the fiftieth anniversary edition released on 1 November 2018, forwarded by another prolific scholar of our time, Dr Jordan Peterson. For lack of a better term I call this series “review” but what I intend to do its provide brief summary of parts of the book that made me stop and think “how was this even possible?”

Arrests

Solzhenitsyn was arrested from the front lines fighting the Germans in the second world war, for making derogatory statements against Stalin. He was a captain in the arterially division. On page 29 Solzhenitsyn talks about the ‘quota system’ for arrests. He writes:

“Every city, every district, every military unit were assigned a specific quota of arrests to be carried out by a stipulated time (Solzhenitsyn, 1973:29)”.

The political prisoners were to be sent to the islands in the Gulag Archipelago. “Political crimes” were defined vaguely under Article 58 of the Criminal Code. Article 58 made “propaganda or agitation….” to overthrow, subvert or weaken the Soviet power a very serious crime. The problem was, anyone could be arrested, and labelled as political prisoner even if he or she did not commit any political crime. They officers needed to meet the ‘quota’.

The lower jail limit was 10 years for anyone guilty of Article 58. The maximum penalty was not set, only the minimum. Beyond 10 years, the state decided when you were released from prison. The article was amended and increased to 25 years minimum, whilst the maximum remained infinite. The prisoners were used as slaves for building state infrastructure.

A former Checkist Aleksandr Kalganov retold one of his his experiences to Solzhenitsyn on how they strived to meet the quota system. Kalganov and his friends received a telegram that read “Send 200”. They were asked to send 200 political prisoners. Kalganov and his friends had a problem: they already cleaned out the area of anyone with political crimes under section 58 of the Criminal Code. Without an alternative, they reclassified people they arrested earlier for non-political crimes as political prisoners under Article 58 of the Criminal Code. Even then they fell short of the quota. One of Kalganov’s friends had an idea – there was a gypsy band playing not far from where they were – the entire band was arrested, labeled political prisoners, and sent to Gulag. The band had members ranged from 16 to 67 years old.

Sometimes if the officers were lucky, their quota problem was solved without the officers going out to do arrests. One day a women went to the police station to ask the officers what to do with her neighbor’s baby who had been crying non-stop since her mother was arrested. She went at a time when the officers were contemplating how to meet their quota. The woman was arrested, branded as political prisoner, and added to the list. She did not commit any crime, but she was needed to meet the quota.

Not all arrests driven by the need to meet the assigned quota. There were those, like Solzhenitsyn, a war hero decorated twice, arrested for expressing a negative view of Stalin. Solzhenitsyn tells the story of an independent journalist who was arrested for being the first to ‘stop clapping’. A district Party conference (the Communist Party) was underway in Moscow, and at the end of the conference, as was the custom in those days, the members stood up to applaud Stalin when his name was mentioned. Stalin was not even in the room! The small hall erupted in a stormy applause.

They clapped with hands raised, and cheered. It went on for one minute, five minutes, ten minutes, fifteen minutes. Everyone was afraid to be the first to applauding for Stalin. So it went on and on. Tired, hungry, weak, but who would dare to be the first to stop cheering? Suddenly the journalist stopped clapping and slumped into his chair. The tired party members stopped almost abruptly and collapsed on their chairs. They had someone who they would blame for being the first to stop applauding Comrade Stalin. The journalist had saved them from collapsing from exhaustion, but he had to pay the price! The journalist was charged for some crime he probably did not commit and sentenced to 10 years. He was later released, but the the interrogator warned him “don’t every be the first one to stop clapping” (Solzhenitsyn, 1973: 28).

All kinds of people were arrested including people of all faith. Husbands would renounce their faith to remain with the children whilst wives kept the faith and went to prison. Spounses were arrested for not breaking up with partners arrested for their faith. The rich were arrested for being wealthy. The poor were arrested.

One lecturer was arrested for talking about Marxism and Lenin, but forgetting to mention Comrade Stalin. The reasons were many, the quota was endless. Those who conducted the arrests were also vey creative in their techniques. You would be arrested by a hiker, who did not dress up as a military or police officer, but carried an ID nevertheless. A young woman was arrested by her date. Every train station had some kind of cell.

This book makes a very interesting reading. Solzhenitsyn writes it was incredibly painful detail. I am excited to read the next chapter: “Interrogation”. I will review it once I am done with the next chapter, so be sure to subscribe to the blog and follow the the succeeding reviews.

At completing the book, I will write about what we can learn from the Soviet experiment of communism and socialist policies. Appeal for varied versions of socialist-like policies are rising on every continent. Will we be better at implementing socialist policies that Communist Russia?

Also, there are those who say “communism began as a good idea, but was corrupted along the way.” I will use provide insights from this book on whether that is true. Others say “I would have done things differently if I was Lenin or Stalin.” I will also provide my views on that. And finally, I will conclude with what impact communism had in places it was practiced: USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba etc.

Subscribe, Like, Share, Comment.

Somare’s Sandals vs Suspected Cocaine Pilot

What is more serious: Michael Somare’s sandals setting off an alarm at the Brisbane International Airport in Australia, or an alleged cocaine pilot crashing into PNG sovereign boarders illegally?

Were anyone of you pissed off, when in 2005, Michael Somare was asked to take off his sandals at the Brisbane airport when the sandals set off an alarm? After a long protest, Somare was given the choice of taking off his sandals, or get on the plane and return to PNG. Somare did take off his sandals – sandal that could hardly hide any illegal substance.

PNG wanted an apology, or an expression of regret, over the Somare incident, Australian the Prime Minister, John Howard declined to apologise. He said the airport security were doing their job.

It was disrespectful of one of the founding fathers of PNG, and the incumbent prime minister of the time. But that is how serious Australia is with their security.

Fast forward to 2020, an Australian pilot enters PNG airspace illegally using a plane registered under a dead man’s name, violating of sovereignty of PNG, and crashes his plane. He allegeded to transported cocaine (reports from journalists of traces of cocaine found at the crash site). He is charged K3000 for illegal entry, which is equivalent of AUD 1, 200.

If you were a PNG man who illegally flew into Australia on a plane registered under a dead man’s name, crashed it whilst on a suspected cocaine smuggling run, the least you be subject under is: you’d still de detained, and investigations conductedt on substance found at the crash site. If it was cocained, where did it originate from, who are your suppliers, who are your buyers, how long as it been going on, and so on.

In PNG, you commit the same crime, you are charged K3000.

One nation takes mere sandals as security threat. Another nation disregards a potential cocaine business. Which is of a greater threat, sandals or cocaine?

Like. Subscribe. Comment. Share.

72 Hours in Belden Namah’s Life: More than a nuisance?

How did Belden Namah go from volunteering to lead the State of Emergency as a Chairman of the Emergency Committee to arguing it is unconstitutional and invalid in less than 72 hours? But this is Namah-like, and you should not be surprised. But a much bigger question is, even if Namah appears to be a nuisance to many, does he have a point? Is he defending the constitution? What does his track record say about the man?

A little background: Namah has been pursuing a case in the Supreme Court, seeking the court to declare the election of Prime Minister James Marape on 30 May 2019 as unconstitutional and therefore invalid. PM James Marape and Deputy PM Steven Davis, and the Minister for Justice & Attorney General, countered this claim by first stating that election of the PM is governed by the Parliament Standing Orders which are non-judicial (not matters for the courts to decide), it is not constitutional matter which requires the courts’ involvement. Second the PM & AG argues that Belden Namah did not have the legal standing, that he was not eligible to pursue this case. PM and AG therefore wanted the case dismissed.

State of Emergency was declared before the Supreme Court ruled on this case on 23 March. Namah’s appeal to the PM to lead be the Chairman of the Emergency Committee was 24 hours earlier. James Marape did not give Namah the position, and assumed the Chairman position himself. The next day, as the nation went into lock down under James Marape as the Chairman of the Emergency Committee, the court ruled that Namah had legal standing to pursue the case that would potentially remove James Marape as the Prime Minister of PNG. Namah then raised another argument that the SOE was unconstitutional and invalid.

So far, Namah appears to be a nuisance.

Scenario One: James Marape appoints Namah as the Chairman of the Emergency Committee and 24 hours later the Supreme Court rules that Namah can pursue the case to remove the PM, who appointed him as the Chairman 24 hours earlier. Wouldn’t that be weird? Would Namah continue as the Chairman, reporting to the PM he intends to remove in the near future? Or would Namah just withdraw the case and retain his job as the Chairman? What was Namah thinking!

Scenario Two: James Marape appoints Namah as the Chairman of the Emergency Committee and 24 hours Namah realizes that the Committee he was appointed to lead is unconstitutional. Wouldn’t that be weird? Would Namah resign as the Chairman, and pursue the case to declare the SOE unconstitutional? Or would Namah be just silent and retain his job as the Chairman? What was Namah thinking!

OR DOES NAMAH’s ACTIONS MEAN MORE?

Part of the reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Namah was because the judges thought the process in which James Marape was elected raises constitutional questions, not just a breach of Parliamentary Standing Orders. The constitution rises above everybody, even if the PM is beloved of the nation. The Constitution rules.

In the last decade, no MP has defended the constitutional more than Namah. Now bear with me as I provide reasons for this unpopular statement. When People’s National Congress led by Peter O’Neil had about 85 MPs, and almost all other parties and MPs under its coalition between 2012 and 2017, they amended about 14 provisions of the constitutions. They basically bulldozed amendments, legislations, budgets and just about any other decision in the parliament. The opposition, which was depleted, could not stop it. When nothing else was left to stop the carnage, Namah took on the fight individually.

He pursued until the courts ruled that the Manus Refugee Processing Centre was unconstitutional. The opposition could not stop it because they did not have the numbers. Namah had to stop it and reverse the parliament’s decision through the courts. When the grace period was moved from 18 months to 30 months, again the parliament could not stop it. Namah was among the others who pursued the matter in court until it was declared unconstitutional. The same goes for reduced parliamentary sitting days, and the number of MPs required to sign the motion for a vote of no confidence. And finally, when the parliament was adjourned in mid-2016 to avoid a vote of no confidence, Namah was among other MPs who sough the court’s interpretation. The court ruled in favour of Namah.

Despite all this, Namah is also known for orchestrating the overthrow of Somare as the PM in 2011, an action that the Supreme Court retrospectively ruled unconstitutional. He also burst into the Chief Justice’s chambers to arrest him.

It is difficult to say where Namah stands. Is he a defender of the constitution or a nuisance?

Comment below…..

Judiciary: PNG’s last defense against executive carnage, and a legislature on her knees.

There is so much conversation on Facebook on the decision of Deputy Chief Justice Kandakasi to summon Governor Alan Bird to appear before the court and show reason why he should not be held accountable for contempt of court. The governor is said to have expressed dissatisfaction on certain matter/matters before the courts. Justice Kandakasi also told Kramer to confine his role as Minister of Police to Policy matters and not indulge in police operations. The former has generated much debate.

There are many opinions, including those who argue that Alan Bird is protected by parliamentary privileges to debate and question any matter in parliament. And there are those who say this privilege does not extend to matters currently before court, therefore amounting to a contempt of court.

PNG is a land of many political and legal blunders, and exciting precedents, but very few are as memorable as the first contempt case between a MP and the courts. Manus MP Nahau Rooney was jailed for contempt of court in 1979. In 1979, when she was the Minister for Justice, she wrote a letter to the Chief Justice, and later went on to NBC, to talk about Dr Predmas’ case. The NEC had terminated Dr Predmas, a lecturer at UPNG, and wanted to deport him, but he took an injunction against the NEC decision, which the courts granted. The NEC were frustrated against the court’s decision. The Public Prosecutor took Rooney’s case as a contempt of court and raised it with the courts. The judges ruled that it was a contempt of court and jailed Nahau Rooney. Michael Somare, then Prime Minister, used his executive decision to release her from prison. All foreign judges resigned in protest, and the first national Chief Justice was appointed – Sir Buri Kidu. It is something that shouldn’t be repeated.

You can read the court case on Paclii: Rooney (No 2), Public Prosecutor v [1979] PNGLR 448

The difference between Nahau & Bird is that, apart from the facts of the case, which are different, Alan Bird has the parliamentary privilege to argue. Is that sufficient? We’ll wait and see.

But as far as power of judges go, criticizing judges on Facebook is a very bad trend. PNG is in a privileged position whereby lack of strong political party systems prevents appointments of Supreme Court judges who are aligned to certain political parties. In the US, the President gets to appoint the Supreme Court judges. And without exception since the 1930s Richard Nixon’s case, the Presidents have been appointing Supreme Court judges who belong to their party. These judges are appointed for life, subject to good behaviors. A Democrat appointee will always make decisions in line with liberals’ values, whilst a Republican judge will rule in line with conservative values. In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party dominated Japanese politics post-WW2 until very recently. Because the executive appoints the Supreme Court judges, since WW2, the judges were appointees of the LDP, and ruled along the values of LDP. In Malaysia, for the last 40 or so years, the judiciary and the executive were the same guys. Anwar Ibrim, Opposition MP was continuously jailed over 20 or so years as the judges, who conspired with the ruling party to keep Anwar out of politics for as long as they could. Worse still, there are countries right now where the judiciary is a mere extension of the executive arm.

PNG has, despite all the criticisms, an independent judiciary. Judiciary is the only arm of government among the three, that has some integrity left in this country. The executive in the past decade has dominated parliament, diminished legislature to a mere rubber stamp, stifled debates and bulldozed legislations. The only institution to stand up against these carnage was the judiciary. The courts ruled the Manus Detention illegal and unconstitutional. That couldn’t be done in parliament because the opposition didn’t have the numbers to stop the government. We as a nation had to rely on the Supreme Court to do that for us. When the government in 2016 adjourned the parliament to avoid a vote of no confidence (next parliament sitting was scheduled to fall well within the 12 months grace period before issue of writs for the 2017 election, thereby preventing any vote of no confidence), we had to rely on the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional. The opposition could not stop the government from adjourning because they did not have the numbers.

If we bring the judiciary down to the same level as the legislature and executive arms, we are finished. Let the judiciary be. Even if one judge is wrong, there are others who, upon appeal, can review the decision. It has a self-correcting mechanism.

I recommend members of this page to grab a book titled “Anwar Returns” to see a real case of judges compromising.

Please Like the page Academia_Nomad and follow.