SUSAN Merrell, in her comments on PNG Attitude, has neatly illustrated how she, and presumably others who support prime minister Peter O'Neill, willfully misunderstand the nature and intent of the criticism directed towards him.
This criticism is not motivated by his politics, or even his distinctly hazy grasp of economic fundamentals: it is about his complete unwillingness to submit to the rule of law.
If, as he is consistently maintained, he is concerned about being "fitted up" by various un-named political enemies, surely this is a compelling reason to allow the police and judiciary to examine his situation forensically and, in so doing, vindicate him entirely?
It is possible that he is innocent of anything more than being grievously misled into signing documents that he should not have signed.
A very busy minister could be relatively easily misled into signing or approving something whilst not understanding its full implications.
That is not a crime, merely an example of bad judgement.
The heart of the criticism of Mr O'Neill is that he refuses to do what any honest citizen would surely do, which is to assist the police with their inquiries.
By all means hire the best legal team you can get but don't then use them to explore every possible avenue to avoid even fronting up for an interview.
Protestations of innocence don't sit easily with such behaviour; they merely arouse suspicion that Mr O'Neill has something to hide.
As for critics claiming to represent the silent majority, I have not seen such claims.
Anyway, the so-called silent majority never existed and doesn't now. It merely is a rhetorical device of politicians, not a reflection of reality.
Mr O'Neill can disarm his critics at a stroke, merely by sitting down (with his legal representatives beside him) to discuss the allegations against him with the police.
It's as simple as that.