TREV SHELLEY
PAUL OATES’ RECENT ARTICLE, What should Australia do? What can Australia do?, serves to highlight the conundrum faced by Papua New Guinea and Australia.
It seems the socio-cultural disposition of our nation (certainly at a political level) is to deflect blame towards Australia for any failings incurred post-independence.
Whether it be the implementation of the failed Westminster system and its unsuitability to PNG’s social dynamics or the ineffectual aid programs that seem to haemorrhage funds at a great rate (with little or no return), it is apparent, through the eyes of many Papua New Guineans, that Australia offers nothing of real substance.
Conversely, there exists a continued call for Australia to intervene. Surely any additional assistance or intervention by Australia would essentially end in criticism and inadvertently help perpetuate a cycle that would inevitably see a return to the status quo – that is, a systemic failure of whatever was introduced with PNG again pointing the finger at the former colonial master.
The blame-game thrives as we attempt to identify the culprit responsible for PNG’s current state.
Australia cannot be blamed for mass corruption and misappropriation of our nation’s resources.
Nor can tribalism, as I know of no ethnic group within our country that actively promotes fraudulent acts as values one must possess in order to exist or succeed.
The ‘Melanesian Way’ is all too often used to deflect blame in a weak attempt to mask our own misgivings and incompetence.
Neither Australia nor tribalism is responsible for PNG’s current state. The true driver of corruption in its purest form is greed – nothing more, nothing less. Modern day corruption manifested through greed has no respect for tribal boundaries.
As Paul Oates succinctly states, ‘The impetus for that change must come from PNG.’
This will serve to guarantee that an organic solution is delivered, and ensure accountability rests solely on the shoulders of our leaders, removing the option of blaming Australia, which in turn serves to absolve PNG of responsibility.
Rest assured, any system introduced to or nurtured from within PNG, no matter how robust or agile, will be able to withstand an individual’s blatant intent to continuously defraud or circumvent it, in an attempt to benefit either themself or their cronies.
DSIP [district improvement] grants or free education, although relatively sound in concept, fail to deliver the intended benefits because people in positions of authority, manipulate the system for their own gain: Lae City roads, the Gumine-Karamui road and the deplorable state of the health system are examples of this.
Sadly it is the educated elite who conspire to defraud the general public of what is rightfully theirs whilst lacking the political will or conviction to inspire change.
They essentially practice politics without principle whilst achieving wealth without work (ironically two of Gandhi’s seven dangers to human virtue).
Too much thought is dedicated towards identifying complex solutions. As simple people, we Papua New Guineans respond to simple concepts. Keep it simple – enforce the rule of law in every facet of our society (political landscape included) to guarantee an individual’s security and inevitably public order will follow. It is upon this essential foundation that PNG’s future must be built.
A very thought provoking article, Trev - thanks! Greed is not peculiar to PNG. Shelley senior rightly points out that the environment in PNG is conducive to corruption.
On my least trip to the Highlands at the height of the last election campaign, I was staggered by the scale of pork barrelling that went on (noted in my blog on DevPolicy - see http://devpolicy.org/png-national-elections/).
The challenge for us is in changing the incentives for pork-barrelling to get better leaders. I realise that this is easier said than designed!
Posted by: Satish Chand | 20 July 2012 at 10:11 AM
Trev, you say that implementing the Westminster system has failed in PNG? I won't presume to disagree with your knowledge of the subject, but mate, we've pretty comprehensively stuffed up the system here in Australia.
Senators represent their parties, not their States - and the complex system of governance here goes back to Sir Henry Parkes buying off his political opponents with patronage positions in colonial (now State) Upper Houses.
Short version, we whitefellas have got no business pointing fingers at anyone.
Our leaders are just as incompetent and corrupt as any village head using the wantok system for his clan's advantage.
The only difference is that our mob wear slightly better-tailored suits. And I like what Mrs Short said - there's a lot of wisdom in the Psalms and Proverbs about good (and bad) governance.
Posted by: Jason Gardner | 08 July 2012 at 06:08 PM
For about 50 years I have been involved in PNG - mainly remote areas and a lot of the time working with dedicated, often unpaid peope who will struggle to keep a rural health centre operating against all odds.
On the other hand, I have many PNG born friends who live and work out of PNG and are everything a nation could dream of having as part of its foundations, but they don't want to go back.
Time and time again I will observe simple village people elevated to a position of power such as a landowner board in a resourse area and in 90% of cases they become instantly corrupt and forget about the crumbling services in their village.
I have been watching this tranformation for so long I have begun to feel it is just a natural process.
It's definitely fuelled by the unquestioning acceptance of corruption but sitting for years in bush camps pondering the reason I must admit I am baffled for any practical answers.
It's something that accademics will long ponder over but I doubt there will be any answers from that quarter.
The place will stumble on with the odd sparkling moment but not much will change.
Posted by: Trevor Shelley (Snr) | 08 July 2012 at 04:54 PM
We assume too much - we assume everybody has common sense (what is common sense anyway?), we assume every politician has a good and evil meter inbuilt in them and we condemn them when we judge them for falling short.
We assume they intuitively know how to make the Westminster system work.
Not all leaders start of conspiring to steal from the people, but tell you what - it is so easy to con ignorant people. It is true that they become greedy, but you know what, you can get away with it.
These "sheeple" do not know their rights to demand accountability.
What is there to police if people are, indeed living in ignorance? How can you hold people to account when they is no standard and they just feign ignorance when caught?
It is a over-used cliche but I cannot stress more that - knowledge is power. We need to educate our people on their rights as well as their duties.
My experience working with people show me that when people are empowered with information/education, they in turn make well informed decision.
To see any difference, we need more people to make more well informed decisions. The sum of the total is the change we want to see.
Policing by itself will not make people change, together with education, there is hope.
Posted by: Tanya Zeriga Alone | 06 July 2012 at 05:36 PM
Good one Phil
One wonders how long it would be for the "skinny newly elected" before they become fat also. Lets hope that they are too busy fixing up the present mess and avoid the Port Moresby "Crowne Plaza" restaurants and bars.
Posted by: Colin Huggins | 06 July 2012 at 01:08 PM
You've taken a very complex debate and reduced it to its simplest form and it makes a lot of sense.
I've noticed that all the politicians, public servants and business people most suspected of being corrupt are overweight - perhaps that is a good measure for the current elections, only vote for skinny candidates.
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 06 July 2012 at 09:11 AM
Trev - I am not sure it is true that tribalism has no part in the corruption we see around us.
Martyn Namorong has written some great articles about social capital (wantok system aka tribalism) and how we go to great lengths in protecting this.
Ours is a culture of give and take. We give in our good days and take in our bad days.
Sadly some of us have access to the public purse and draw from this seemingly bottomless well to fund just that. The very act of having access to the public purse is seen as the "good days" and the "bad days" befall us as soon as we lose our jobs.
A majority of the election related violence have their roots in tribalism too. Then Post Courier carried a front page news article this week about a fight between supporters of two rival candidates in Mt Hagen.
Reason for the fight? Because a tribesman of one of the candidates exercised his freedom of conscience to support another candidate who doesn't belong in their tribe.
Nevertheless, I agree with your article overall. Most of our problems are none of Australia's doing and it is pointless pointing fingers at them.
It's time to start asking the man in the mirror.
Posted by: David Kitchnoge | 06 July 2012 at 08:38 AM
"Show me a righteous ruler and I will show you a happy people. Show me a wicked ruler, and I will show you a miserable people.
"When the king is concerned with justice, the nation will be strong, but when he is only concerned with money, he will ruin his country. "
-- Proverbs 29:2,4
Posted by: Mrs Barbara Short | 06 July 2012 at 06:18 AM