Paradise Cinema Not Enforcing Ratings

Dear Paradise Cinema,

You've been letting kids in to watch R-Rated, MA 15+ and MA 18+ movies. Do you have any control on that or do you just sell tickets irresponsibly. Does Censorship Board approve of your indiscriminate allowance of kids into those movies?

Ironic that you vigorously enforce your "no-slippers" rule yet you won't enforce your movie-ratings.

Please do something about this.

Sincerely

Ganjiki D Wayne


Sent from R&G's iPhone

LET's SUPPORT OUR ELECTORAL OFFICIALS

For two years I was an election committee member at the UPNG SRC ELECTIONS. PNGEC ran the elections with our supervision. At the so-called premier university of the Pacific we struggled to get the students-yes the so-called educated elites of PNG-to follow simple rules and processes that we had in place. It was a nightmare trying to control headstrong people who didn't want to follow the rules.

The students would insist on voting without iD documents which was mandatory, and supporters of rival candidates would stand so close to voters trying to sway them or intimidate them into voting for their SRC candidates. And I had to constantly ask them to move away ad if they were little kids who lost their way. There were many unruly groups who wanted to have their way with the elections and there was always potential for things getting violent.

Anyway I realized how much pressure electoral officers had to endure in a simple UNI SRC election. To run a national election would be an utter nightmare!

I told the electoral officers then that I take back every undue criticism I had made against them in respect of running national elections. If we struggled to reason with educated elites in a university, how on earth could they reason with uneducated villagers who want nothing but have their clansman/tribesman get into Parliament?!

And so I've come to appreciate how hard they work and I'm reluctant to condemn them when things go wrong.

Not only are these officials managing a process, they also have to manage people. And PNG people are not exactly the easiest people to manage. Things are bound to go wrong more than once in a country such as ours with a people such as ourselves.

The best we can do is manage those difficulties as best as we can, support the officials and be patient with them. They're under extreme pressure, they don't really need the extra burden we put on them with our constant criticism and complaints.

The electoral process is a difficult one. But it's an extremely important one. It's worth our time. It's worth our sweat and tired legs in long cues. It's worth skipping a few hours of work; maybe even a day or two. We won't do it again for another five years at the most.

Let's value this process and the people who have volunteered to manage it. They may not be adequately compensated for their efforts, and the least we can do is show them some support instead of beating them while they're probably already down.

God Bless ALL ELECTORAL OFFICIALS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

And GOD BLESS PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Ganjiki


Sent from R&G's iPhone

MYTHS of LEADERSHIP: “YOUNG LEADERSHIP IS BETTER”

MYTHS of LEADERSHIP: "YOUNG LEADERSHIP IS BETTER"

By GDW

 

We live in a day and age where so many people believe that young leadership is better than old. We see it everywhere now. People complain that the time for the older has gone. We think the "old timers" have passed their "best by" or "used by" dates and should no longer be in the scene. We need "fresh", "young" leaders to take our nation forward. We are increasingly seeing a good number of newspaper articles and letters calling for young leadership to take this country forward. Some have even made it their calling card.

 

Use those words young and fresh interchangeably with "vibrant", "energetic", "passionate", "straightshooter" and you can create the perfect salad of leadership. Really?

 

I may be considered a young leader (in many different ways), but I'm under no illusion that young equates best. History has shown that young leadership has given the world some its worst atrocities and shameful experiences. In PNG recent events have proven to us that young is not always the best, perhaps not in the atrocities level, but certainly down there amongst the worst of our events.

 

I'm reminded of the Biblical story of Rehoboam son of King Solomon. When he took office he was asked by his people to reduce the tax burdens his father had placed on them. He first listened to his elder advisers who told him to listen to the people and ease their tax burdens. In their words they said "If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them...they will always be your servants." But then he consulted younger men, his peers who had grown up with him, and they told him to increase the people's burdens manifold.  They said "tell the people 'my little finger is thinker than my father's waist. He laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions'."

 

So he rejected the old men's advice and took the young. And his legacy is being the king that split Israel in half.  

 

The young men's answer illustrates a few shortcomings of young leaders (and here I include myself in the discussion):

 

(1)     pride—we think we know it all, that we're better than others, that we don't need anyone but ourselves and those who think exactly like us. We think our ideas are more in touch with the times and see no need to take heed of our elder's words;

(2)    security—we are so insecure in our leadership that we want to exercise control extensively. We want people to know who is in charge that we foolishly do anything to secure our fleeting positions.

(3)    unbridled passion—we may have much passion yet it has not stood the test of time nor has it been tempted by access to power. It hasn't been restrained by a bigger ability to discern what is wrong and right. So that when we land ourselves in a position of unlimited power we drool over it like hungry hyenas, and like fools we fight for it like our lives depend on it;

(4)    lack of wisdom—our thoughts are rushed. We haven't spent much time contemplating them, nor refining them. Our ideas haven't been tested; yet we still think they are the best because we're well-educated or well-informed. Not to mention "in touch with the times". But we haven't taken time to seek and to be endowed with sound Godly wisdom...like King Solomon sought when he was young.

 

We may find another word synonymous with young: "immature".

 

I, a so-called "young leader", would very much love to see young leaders who have taken time to build their character, their discipline, and who've stored for themselves sound wisdom, and whose identity is not dependent on the positions they occupy or could occupy. More importantly we need young leaders who value their elders and their elders' opinions. Because like Rehoboam's elders, they can see beyond the now, they can see real long-term consequences of choices we make in our lives, and in more ways than one they can provide the best counsel and guidance a nation needs.

 

Like a British politician once said: "There comes a time in every man's life when he must step aside and give way to an older man."

 

God Bless PNG

 

Ganjiki  

Better Behaving People Equals Better City

Parkop got massive support in the last elections. Yet his voters spat on his posters calling for sanity and cleanliness. He scrubbed the roads, and his voters spat on the road. He built plant holders in the middle of roads and his voters crashed their cars into them.

Just today I trailed a vehicle with his poster on it...and the guy opened the door and let out a massive vomit of buai sputum on the road right under the Governor's poster imploring people not to spit on the city.

People don't understand what he stands for yet they "support" him...if they knew what he was about they'd have changed their attitude yesterday.

They want one man to change the city while they carry on destroying it.

PNG wanem taim bai yumi senis!?

God Bless PNG!

SICKENING TO LEARN OF FUJITIVE OBTAINING CITIZENSHIP

This news is sicker than anything I've read this month.

 

Post Courier Headline: "'FUGITIVE' IS NOW A PNG CITIZEN"

 

Fugitive Joko Tjandra, wanted by Interpol (see http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons/(wanted_id)/2009-21489), has been granted Citizenship by government under the recommendation of the PNG Citizenship Advisory committee.

 

Mr. Tjandra has never been a resident of PNG. The Constitution provides that at a person must have "resided continuously" in PNG for "at least eight years". Yes. 8 Years!!!. Mr. Tjandra has possibly been here in PNG for ONLY 8 MONTHS! Yes. 8 Months as far as we know.

 

He is wanted by Interpol and Indonesia's Supreme Court. He was carted into PNG by Belden Namah and Sam Basil in November last year in OUR plane.

 

Article says he was not present at the citizenship ceremony because his papers were given to him before the event, unofficially of course. Foreign Minister Ano Pala says NO COMMENT as issue has been taken up to the PM and DPM.

 

The Citiizenship Advisory Board is made up of four permanent members, two of whom are MPs, and an ad hoc member representing the community in which the applicant for citizenship resides.  The Committee is currently chaired by Matthew Poia. And to think there are countless other residents who lived so many years in PNG-who actually serve this country--who cannot afford the K10,000.00 application fee for citizenship. This guy comes waltzing into citizenship like he was going to a userpay toilet!

 

I ASK AGAIN: IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY THAT MONEY CANNOT BUY?

 

Like, oh I don't know....DIGNITY perhaps? Or National Sovereignty? Pride and Patriotism?

 

 

GOD SAVE PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

 

Defective Rationale of Mercenary Lawyers

In a recent email exchange between me and a lawyer for the ONamah "govt", I came to realise the rationale behind the "govt's" lawyers in carrying out, in almost a blank robotic devoid-of-conscience manner, their clients' instructions. Two significant perceptions were revealed in the email exchanges.

 

There are lessons here for this election period:

 

1.       The Elected leaders are the ONLY people mandated to think up and decide what is in the nation's "BEST INTEREST". I was scolded because I was putting forward my opinions on what's best for PNG, when I had NO MANDATE to decide. That disqualifies YOU and me, and EVERY ONE else who is NOT an elected leader, from thinking up and deciding what is the Nation's best interest. So we're all wasting our time discussing and debating on Sharp Talk or anywhere else right? This is an amazing perspective that this lawyer has. We are expected to be blind citizens, blind public servants, devoid of any independent ability to assess whether an act or omission is in the best interest of the country. Or if we have any opinion we must subject it to the elected leaders.

 

We must believe without question, our elected leaders when they open their mouths and say "I'm doing this for the good of this nation". That is law. That is the gospel. Who am I—who are we—to question such authority?

 

With this premise these lawyers have hung on to their client's word, not willing to believe anyone else when they pointed out the red lights for the country. They wrote their laws, "PR"ed their moves to make them saintly, and defended them vigorously. And with the majority of the nation's populace being unable to form proper opinions based on truth, they swallowed lies like they were the gospel. They turned their hatred to the ones hated by those who spread the "gospel" the loudest.

 

I refuse to buy such a rationale. That's not the way God made us. He made us to reason, to question, to asses and consider. One of His greatest lines in the Bible is "Come, let us reason together." If the all-knowing God is willing to sit down and reason with us "mere mortals", what makes our elected leaders think they should not try to reason with their people, with us? Why should they be right all the time and our opinions don't even get a vote?

 

No. I think ordinary citizens of PNG, even "loud-mouth" public servants like me, have the inherent mandate to assess and decide what is the "nation's best interest"; and attempt to articulate it so that the nation can have something, other than the elected leaders words, to consider. We become dangerous tools, like those lawyers, when we wilfully vacate our independent consciences on matters that touch us directly or indirectly.

 

2.       "You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you". The government pays you your salary/fees, so don't speak out against it. In this caution to me the lawyer betrays their way of thinking: that the client, in paying for everything, decides what side we're on. After realising such a rationale, it makes no use to reason with such people. They don't have the luxury of seeing reason through unclouded glasses. They MUST side with the "hand that feeds them."

 

It's a really sad perception...and not very accurate. For us public servants, we're not paid by the government; we're paid by the People of PNG--by their sweat and taxes. Biting the hand that feeds us, in our context, means taking from the public purse, and serving ourselves rather than the public, etc. And it can even mean remaining silent while the nation is dragged through the mud by rogue "elected leaders". When we see what's wrong and we let it slide, that's when we betray our EMPLOYER: the People of PNG.

 

The government of the day just so happens to be our current boss. It's like the relation between sub-ordinate employees in a company and their top managers. The sub-ordinates, appreciating the interest of the shareholders, have it within their unwritten duty to break the silence when they notice the detrimental actions of top managers—actions that may hurt the interest of the true owners.

 

So whilst mercenary lawyers are loyal to their clients, public servants are loyal to our people. (Yes even when those people are so confused because the "Boss" of the day has produced a beautiful report of himself). And in their loyalty to the people, which is a loyalty that's higher than to the government of that day, they must find a way to serve the people best—be it in speaking out or in doing their job well.

 

It's indeed sad that people could posses the above two perceptions regardless of the confronting truth and reality of the mess.

 

But it tells us this: The people we are about to elect will need to have a balanced and sound philosophy of the "the nation's best interest". We can't always take their word for it. We need to read between the lines, assess their past actions; weigh out their words, to find out what they think is the nation's best interest. They have to be willing to listen to reason. They must consider the opinions of their sub-ordinates, testing their opinions against a higher standard—not their own. They have to be humble enough to admit they are wrong. They shouldn't shove "my word is gospel" down peoples' throats. And the people should not let themselves be fooled.

 

Sadly many people WILL let themselves be fooled. But I believe that the few who do elect good-thinking leaders will provide PNG the much-needed ballsy and truthful leadership. So much so that even if that kind of leadership is a minority in Parliament, it will be a formidable force, a voice of reason that can steady a ship even if the captain gets too drunk and off-track. God knows we need such leadership.

 

God Bless Papua New Guinea.

 

Ganjiki

 

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/ 

Richard Aupae on Sharp Talk

Below is a sensible comment by Mr. Aupae on a post attacking CJ's decision and integrity.

 

Recent decision was a result of application filed by Mr O'Neill's attorney General, Dr. Allan Marat. Because that court action related to the current Parliament the SC's decision needed to be handed down within the lifetime of the present Parliament. The Supreme Court would have no doubt been fully cognizant of the issuing of writs that's why it basically reaffirmed its decision of 12 December 2011.

 

If after hearing Dr. Marat's application the SC had ruled that it would not hand down a decision because the election writs had been issued, the O'Neill regime may have felt that they had been denied justice and could have again complained about the judiciary. What Dr. Marat could have done is go back to the SC and applied for leave to discontinue the case on the grounds that the writs had been issued. That would have possibly been valid ground for the SC to then have been relieved of its jurisdiction over the case. Instead the O'Neill regime has been, in my view, mischievously blaming the CJ and other two Judges when they could have, as "RESPONSIBLE/MATURE Leaders" also taken steps to mitigate any chances of conflict. That would have been an honourable thing to do.

 

With regard to the argument on perception of bias, not many will be aware of the legal principle of "Competence Competence" - i.e., a Court/tribunal is empowered to determine, in the first instance, whether it is competent to deal with a matter where a challenge (on grounds of bias, amongst others) is raised with the Court/tribunal. A party who is still not satisfied with the decision on competence can then appeal to a higher Court. In my respectful view, the allegations of bias arose out of another mischievous allegation of improper conduct on the part of the CJ with the view of scandalizing the CJ so that he takes no further part in the matter. If one looks at it properly, there has been one party in this sorry saga that has featured prominently and had real poor choice of "TIMING" in relation to its actions ever since the filing of the SC Reference by the ESPG.

--

Ganjiki

"INSPIRING PASSION"

 

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/ 

The Human Element on the Political Impasse

I've side-tracked a bit from the original purpose of this blog, which was to discuss the human element of change in our nation.

 

I've posted comments on the turn of events in our nation in the last few weeks because I think they are quite relevant and demonstrative of the human element. That is in the issue of morality, pride, humility, honesty, loyalty to the Constitution, the reality of truth, the reality of a moral order, etc.....and the impact these invisible qualities have on our nation.

 

This blog was set up to maintain a discussion of PNG's "attitude problem" and lack of patriotism problem. The events of recent months, from immediately before August 2, 2011 up to the present, have demonstrated drastic "attitude problems" at the top most level by our leaders, and lack of patriotism from all levels--the top and the bottom-most level. We would do well to dissect those fundamental human-element issues, extract lessons and learn from them.

 

I think recent events have given us an ugly insight into a world where ultimate truth is deemed absent and everyone makes their own mind on what is right and wrong. In the greater scheme of things we cannot have a nation -a world!- void of fundamental standards that guide our everyday actions.

 

If anything we should now realise that arguing that "truth is relative" and "everyone makes their own truth" is an ugly philosophy that ultimately leads to chaos and disorder. Morality cannot be left to the whims of every person. Reality, no matter how hard we try to think, cannot not be defined differently, especially in contradictory (opposite) terms, and be truly real.

 

There are fundamental truths. We cannot keep our sanity and insist that we are all CORRECT in our diverging views of any one particular issue. We can't even start discussing if we don't have a basis on which our arguments can find meaning...coherent meaning.

 

I will do the best I can to compile a commentary on the human-element. I think the law still needs to have its say. But I think the human qalities deserve more attention than what we have given it in our debates on the recent events.

 

Ganjiki

Lady Winifred Kamit, on signing the Petition:

 Ladies & Gentlemen,

 

 I have signed the Petition for these reasons:

 

1.    The event of 24th May was uncalled for and no reason justifies it. There are systems and processes that should be followed.

 

2.    There were Police & Military personnel involved. Was there a legitimate call out? I believe not.

 

3.    Following this incident, would lawyers and their clients be safe within the confines of a court room? The Court is every lawyer's place of work we expect it to be where we can represent everyone who comes to use it, & use it without fear of intimidation. Outside of the Court, is one safe from expressing an opinion? The intimidating presence of senior Government Ministers including the DPM, Senior Police and members of the Military personnel is not the protection our constitution promises.

 

4.    The Petition is not about supporting any particular party or individual who is caught up in this legal battle between the Parliament and the Judiciary. It is about protecting institutions of the State from abuse by individuals. I am sure if the Parliament was stormed in the same manner, the citizens of this country would be just as concerned. We are concerned about the blatant disregard for the judicial arm of the government and we are here to express that.

 

5.    PNG citizens are looking for model behaviour from our leaders in times like the present. The Event of the 24th is an unfortunate choice of dealing with an issue. IT MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

 

Lady Winifred Kamit

(31/05/12)