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)

TRUTH HAS BEEN MOMENTARILY SUSPENDED

By GDW

 

People ask me how the politicians can do this or that. "What does the law say about this and that?"

 

Before I answer I say, "the law doesn't seem to matter any more...but I'll just try tell you what it says..."

 

Is the law relevant anymore?

 

We got people who make their own laws and amend and follow them as we go along. The true law, the Constitution, doesn't matter to them anymore. They're a law unto themselves.

 

They are collectively now "The King"...they make the rules, interpret the rules, execute the rules...and they break it whenever it suits them. I can explain the law till I'm blue in the face. But if it's lost its authority to a group of whimsical men then what's the use?

 

And if we are content to say "let it go, it's all good", then why should anyone be subjected to the law in the future? It has no authority except the authority we give it. Now isn't it true that all we need is majority decision and we can do anything? No matter how unlawful or immoral it is. Shall we just "let it go" whenever a person commits a crime for a "worthy" cause? How can we ever entertain such a thought?

 

There is no authority above us except a few rich men who are each elected by a tiny few thousand in some constituency, yet they claim to speak for the nation, as if they are all-knowing and omnipresent. They certainly believe they are all-powerful.  There is no law above them. Their will is law.

 

Everything is permissible. Everything is prohibited. All at the same time. Everything is subjective: applied only when circumstances and popular demand, emotion and self-interest allow.

 

Such is the scary reality when we lose ourselves to subjectivity, trading truth for preferences. Chaos and confusion are the order of things when the law is interpreted subjectively or completely ignored by people.

 

We all require rules or standards to keep order; to maintain coherence in society and in discourse. Whether we're debating on Sharp Talk, or minding our businesses on the streets, or playing sport, or conducting national affairs. There has to be something greater than ourselves that guides us. There cannot be coherent discussion on Sharp Talk if we didn't have some unwritten rules to keep discussions coherent. No sport can be played fairly without rules or with two sets of rules. No national affair can be conducted outside of the law without creating chaos and confusion and attracting the stigma of corruption. During elections imagine if there weren't rules on campaigning and electioneering. And for lawyers attending court...imagine no court rules. Chaos.

 

If we each define our own truth, if we define our own rules, if we define our own morality, we can never hope for a coherent society; let alone a society based on justice, fairness and equality. If anything, the events of the last few months since August last year prove that beyond doubt. Popular vote is not an accurate measure of right and just. It never was. Truth cannot be voted in or out. It depends not on whether we believe it, like it or hate it. It just is. You see if you and I start differing on the nature of truth itself we lose any basis on which we can argue ANY case. You cannot battle on two complete different arenas in completely different worlds. Such a war has no beginning and definitely no end.

 

If justice is defined by the person who has the power, not having obtained that power justly, then justice itself loses meaning and authority. And when those who do have the power to interpret and declare justice, that power being bestowed justly, are not allowed the freedom to do so without fear, favour or intimidation, where else can we go to inform ourselves of what is right and what is wrong. How can we establish justice if we reject the institutions and the documents that were mandated to guide us through those questions?

 

Our nation, despite daily life going on as normal, was brought to its knees in its politics and its jurisprudence, as justice and truth, righteousness, and the law, were redefined to suit warring parties. As in any sport the fight is unfair when one team does not play by the rules. No matter how popular that team is, it is not entitled to win.  

 

Regardless of how popular Mike Tyson was with the crowd, biting Evander Holyfield's ear wasn't within the rules; and so Tyson was disqualified and de-licensed. Should it have been let go because Tyson was popular?

 

Should we let it go because it is the popular sentiment? Or shall we return to the rule of law now? Shall we seek to enforce it and establish justice once again?

 

Shall we restore the authority of the Constitution so that in future we can still aspire to create a law-abiding society? God knows we need such a society.

 

God Bless Papua New Guinea.

 

Ganjiki

--

Ganjiki

"INSPIRING PASSION"

 

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/ 

JUDGES MADE RULING BASED ON MAMA LO

 Source:

The National, Thursday 30th May 2012

 

I HAVE always believed that laws, statutes, rules and regulations were devised to control the excesses of evil in society.  Laws were never intended to curb good behaviour because good people will always respect and abide by the law.  Evil, on the other hand, is only interested in destroying good and all it stands for, which is why we need laws to keep evil in check.

If not, evil will take over the land and our people will suffer greatly.

I am disheartened to watch the fight between parliament and the judiciary in the matter between Sir Michael Somare and Peter O'Neill.

 

We have a political impasse simply because one party is refusing to accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution.If you take the time to read the Constitution and the CPC Report 1974, which is the basis upon which the Constitution was derived, you would understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.  It did not rule because it favoured Sir Michael.

On the contrary, it ruled because that is what the Constitution says.

 

The Constitution is the armour that protects us from evil; let us not destroy our armour.

Parliament has no authority to give itself powers as it is not expli­citly stated in the Constitution.

The Constitution is crystal clear on this matter in sections 10 and 11.

The exercise of power by our leaders also must be tempered with great responsibility.

I call on O'Neill and his supporters to respect the court's decision.

 

Sorry gentlemen, you were wrong and you have been found out.

 

It takes a great man to admit he was wrong and an even greater leader to do the same.

O'Neill, are you that man?I also call on Sir Michael to concede that the majority of MPs have aligned itself against you and have disregarded the Constitution to do what they have done. Sir Michael, you have nothing left to prove, you have been to the highest heights and I do not see how anyone in this generation will match your political achievements in this country. I ask both parties to be responsible in this matter and to do the right thing to restore and preserve the integrity of our judicial system.

 

This nation must be ruled on the basis of law and not the whims of a few proud men. Our judges do not have a choice in this matter, they must defend the Constitution; they cannot make rulings outside of that. We cannot attack them for doing their job.

 

If we are going to be leaders, let us be leaders who aspire to seek the truth and compete to do great things, let us not be bound by our own desires and reduce ourselves to competition to see who can do the most negative things.

 

I ask you all to declare a truce and respect the rulings of the court in upholding the Constitution.

 

Both sides will have an opportunity to form a new government in eight weeks time and only the Constitution provides the bedrock for this process to happen.

If we continue to erode the Constitution, then on what basis will the new government be formed?

 

Allan Bird

Wewak

The "Apprehension of Bias" argument is a Pathetic argument.

This post by Mark Flynn this evening on Sharp Talk is brilliant:

Mark B Flynn ▶ Sharp Talk

The O'Namah government has successfully moved all debate away from the 21 May 2012 decision by the SC, and the merits of it, to a beat up of the majority judges who delivered it.

The 2 Judges who declined to make a judgment erred in my opinion. We will never now know if they dissented, and the argument of that dissent, because they did not hand it down. Their statement of bias by their fellow judges was also not handed up, so it is a mute or silent position.

The inference then, is that they did not find facts against their fellow Judges argument, or for the argument of the O'Namah government lawyers.

The two judges who did not hand down their judgments cannot in my opinion now expect to stand on any appeal, due to a real bias against their fellow Judges who did hand down a decision.

The majority view of the Judges was supported by references to the Constitution. This is where the debate should be in my opinion. There's been no analysis of the decision of the majority of the Judges, just an attack on those learned men.

We should refocus on the judgement and its merits or otherwise.

--

And this comment by David Dotaona under Flynn's post:

I read the judgment by Judge Injia. It was a brilliant exposition of the law about 85 pages in which he pointed out all the constitutional breaches. The losing party had an unwinnable case so obviously they blamed the referee when they could never have one the case. But you must appreciate there has never been any cogent evidence to prove the allegations of bias. The email from the newspaper article was not even evidence at all. Eminent counsel Ian Malloy for ESP PEC completely destroyed the other sides arguments.

The two dissenting judges should have been wiser to disqualify themselves before the hearing when the allegations relating to the email surfaced. They had a duty to either disqualify or hand down their considered judgment rather than create a furthet debacle by not giving any ruling at all, by arguing with the CJ in open court thus bringing the judiciary further into disrepute.

And again by Flynn:

The 2 judges that failed to hand down a decision silenced themselves. The legality of the majority decision and its merits are whats important. There were many major breaches of the Constitution by the O'Namah government as outlined in the judgment. They continue to breach the Constitution.

---

Superb rationalizing by these gentlemen. PNGeans would do well to listen to reason (yes I know, who does?!) and make well-weighted opinions instead of believing the propaganda by ONamah.

Like I've said before. This de facto govt has always played the "majority rules!" card to justify their coup. Now they rely on the abstinence by the minority to argue their own case. Pathetic I say.

Unfortunately many PNGeans are just too gullible to resist the propaganda by ONamah.

God Bless PNG!

Tokaut Tokstret





Sent from R&G's iPhone