My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2006

« Incumbency in Papua New Guinea: the minuses & the pluses | Main | "I don't look like a tomato, I'm a human being,” says Gamato »

18 July 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

External states' totes not loud
squash of burly unendowed
nor churns
simpering press.

External states' motes allowed
watched though surely un-avowed
thus spurned
pampering tress.

Internal stuff, votes still rowed,
warriors' reins not yet bowed,
papering mess.

Puffered personage bye strode
suffered populace ill strowed
in turn
buffering vests.

Coppered cop-dresser sessioned
bluffered stuffed cans cessioned,
and burned
crowd-pleasing quest.

Choppered medicine lessened
proffered mercenary vested,
not yearned,
displeasing jest.

Eternal mores mates avow
weighs speaking up’s not bellow,
citizens best.

Who then has the power to sort this mess out?

The Electoral Commissioner is clearly not interested in doing so due no doubt to an obvious conflict of interest.

The PNG Ombudsman is not directly tasked with this responsibility.

The PNG Governor General could declare a failed election and decide not to accept the results. Could he order another but then who would pay for this if indeed it was possible? As a recently retired politician, it would be unlikely he would make any move in this direction however he could surely request advice from competent Commonwealth authorities.

The PNG Courts might well be tied up for years with extended legal challenges to any results. If that happens, it is clear that whoever is declared winners and can make up a government might then obviously have the power to squash any subsequent appeals.

Can those who have subsequent challenges and appeals against their being elected still be able to vote in Parliament before the matter is resolved? If so, could it be that whoever can raise or divert enough funds to pay for the best legal team might then win government in the end.

Who knows the answers?

PNG is at the crossroads.

The sting in the tail of John Braddock's article seems to infer that Australia and New Zealand and of course the US, have no interest in PNG's democracy. If that is indeed true, and recent comments by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop seem to indeed indicate this is will be treated merely an internal PNG matter, the proof of the pudding will be whether the Australian and New Zealand governments don't say or offer to do anything at all about this blatant and serious problem on their collective doorsteps.

The Australian media have so far almost virtually departed the scene entirely. If such a situation had occurred in say New Zealand, the media would have been full of reports. While then is there such a deafening silence about our nearest neighbour?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)