Saving Themselves More than Serving Us

By GANJIKI D WAYNE

A caveat: this is a very general statement. Not every expat is in this boat.

It's possible that people from developed nations (like Australia), who work in developing countries like ours are here because it gives them some sense of meaning and significance. Especially those who serve in the public and charity/community service arena.

Their countries seem to have nothing left to offer them in terms of fulfilling, meaningful, make-a-difference jobs. Because they've generally got it all already. And when you have it all it's easy to become disillusioned and bored with life. Even if they make so much money it cannot satisfy the need to be appreciated for really making the world a better place. The world in their nations is already as "better" as "better" can be.

You'll have a clue about the famine in gratified lives by seeing the massive charity-industry that goes on in developed nations. A TV commercial break is dominated with ads by charity organizations trying to convince people to donate and make a difference. It seems like they have to do some charity if they are to truly live fulfilled lives (and I have no problems with that).

Maybe calling their world "developed" is not such a good thing. Not mentioning their sets of problems, the term possibly gives them a sense of having "arrived". And there seems nothing left to do. Except maintain the status quo. Who was it that said "The only other direction left to take once you've reached the top, is down"? So you just have to maintain. And maintaining can get pretty boring.

Unlike us they don't have as many bridges to build or roads to construct. Nor Aid posts and health centres. Nor airstrips. Nor water supply or electrify or sanitary needs. Half the population probably doesn't care what happens in government because their lives are sufficient. They (though not all) only occasionally respond to highly controversial matters. Life is good there it seems.

I even heard an expatriate say it in front of me. "Being in PNG gives me a sense of significance." I thought "how sad!" And he was a very successful partner in a business in his home country. Before he came to PNG he spent some time in another foreign country where he felt a significant "loss of status" because no one knew him and no one seemed to appreciate him.

We all long for a meaningful life. And we pursue it in different ways. Many think to be professionally successful will satisfy them. I heard of a wealthy man once saying "If I knew that even at this place I'd be this empty, I wouldn't have walked this path." And here we are trying to reach the rich-and-famous status when everywhere around there's evidence that it's really a very empty place. Perhaps at the top there's nothing there.

Maybe that vacuum in people's hearts is filled somewhat when they come and "serve" in our country. If so then maybe it's countries like PNG that's actually saving people from developed nations who are sliding into depression because what they do there doesn't really count anymore. Maybe they carry themselves around with such importance here because back home they're not important anymore. Someone has replaced them. Or they've outjobbed themselves. Or the fruits just don't bear anymore. And their governments must send them to countries like ours otherwise they'll have a depressed workforce at home.

Being in countries like ours is possibly a lifesaver. They might say they like being here because it's a great country. But maybe they're just here because it makes them feel great.

Of course as I said not all expatriates are here because of this reason. But those who are fall in possibly two categories. First those who recognize that reality and will admit it (like my expatriate acquaintance). Secondly those who don't recognize it and might deny it. They haven't really asked themselves yet why they're here.

Anyway if that's the reason you're here in PNG then on behalf of my forever-developing but very meaningful nation: "You're welcome!".

And for us at home. Let's be grateful that we do have a long way to go.

Heavenise day!

GDW

What is time?

What is time?
Mere measure of the length of each our stays
In our brackets in eternity
The length of each our songs
playing at different tempos
To different melodies
With different lyrics
The clock has fooled us
Time doesn't restart, won't refresh
It doesn't do laps, but marathons and sprints
These few minutes of my song,
In which I pen these words,
I'll never recover...ever
My song has no pause, no fast forward
Worse still, no rewind
It started, and soon it will end
Alas I shall find, there's no replay
I find us celebrating a mere progress of our song
If time was not made easier to tell
By clocks and calendars
Would we notice its progress?
Would we give reflection
And make resolutions?
What is time?
But mere reminder of our mortality
The tester of our values
Revealer of vulnerabilities
Screamer of our delays
Permitter of our growth and decay
The salt of our longings and nostalgias
We wade through our song
Oblivious to time's ultimate closure
What is time?
A seeker of the end
Its own end
Our song's end...

Ganjiki D Wayne
1/1/13




Sent from R&G's iPhone

HUMAN RIGHTS UNGIRDED BY MORALITY, BECOME HUMAN WRONGS

By Ganjiki D Wayne

 

Besides corruption, human rights is like the "talk of the town". Since the end of the last World War the world has grown exponentially in its concern for human rights. Almost every nation is in human rights advocacy/protection mode. Governments and leaders that are seen to abuse human rights in the eyes of the rest of the world are harshly condemned and persecuted. Almost every policy development that involves direct human impact must discuss a human rights implication. All our PNG laws must have some declaration regarding possible infringement of constitutional rights—which are our articulation of human rights. Newspaper headlines scream stories of abuse every day. Even the conversations of ordinary people are filled with concerns for human rights.

 

But have we ever stopped to really ask ourselves: What exactly is a human right? Why has human rights become such a prolific concern in the world today? It has even become the yardstick by which we measure the correctness and propriety of our actions or inactions: sort of like a new measure of moral uprightness. Let's pause to think of a few things. Where does this concern for rights stem from? What is its fundamental purpose? If we didn't have such concerns would it matter? What is its fundamental basis?

 

Human rights assumes that there is a certain value of a human being. A value that makes him worthy of the privileges that he believes are due to him. Human rights is an expression of the value of a human being. Just like any product of value is given some care and protection, human rights is the care and protection given to human beings because they are human. So the question is: Is a human being really worth it? How do we determine the worth of a man? Is that worth dependent on the usefulness of a human being to the world? Or does that worth come about by us just being; by merely existing; by being human? Do all humans have an original inherent worth or value? (Note I take the words worth, value and dignity to mean the same in this essay).

 

Some worldviews cannot explain original worth of human beings. Especially an evolutionary Darwinist view, which believes man to have evolved over millions of years from organic soup. Therefore a pragmatic view must be taken. A pragmatic view is one in which a position is taken because it's practical to do so; not necessarily because it is true. It is forward looking; not necessarily historical. We must assign human dignity because it seems like a good starting point if we are to make the world liveable. If there is no concept of our human worth we will have a chaotic world. No one would respect each other—quite validly too. We wont have a valid reason to be good to each other. This view requires us to impute value where there isn't any. Over many years this idea has been promulgated so much so that people have come to believe in human dignity without even questioning whether there is a basis for such dignity.

 

On the other hand you have some worldviews that suggest that man is not just flesh and blood and bones. But is a created being endowed with natural inherent value. One such worldview is the Judeo-Christian worldview: man is a creature of a divine God who placed in the man His own image. By doing so God imputed a certain value (human dignity) to man. From that viewpoint people would also ascribe human rights; not just because it is a good idea for a harmonious world. But man's value inherently and historically exists. It is a reality. The notion of human rights allow for man's God-ordained human dignity to be protected. I would call this view—for lack of a creative word and only in the context of this essay—the "creationist" view.

 

Other worldviews probably float around these two positions. Even to some extremes. But let's leave it there. Notice both the pragmatic approach and the creationist view can lead to a firm belief in/for human rights. But both start off at completely opposite points. One believing in man being a divine creature and the other that it's an animal evolved into sophistication over time.

 

I think it's important to revisit the FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE of human rights in order to guide its advance. Otherwise we are left with a concept that has no roots, and will therefore have no boundaries. Even to an extent that the very purpose (protection of human dignity) is lost completely.

 

We see all around us people who, in pursuit of the full utilisation of their "rights", do things to themselves (and many times to others) that undermine their own humanness. We see a man who locks his daughter in a dungeon as a sex-slave for years. We see people paint and pierce their bodies to replicate animals, in the name of freedom of expression. Pornography is on the rise for the same reason. Sexual freedom has reduced the value of family to a trivial concern, and is attempting to promote homosexual partnership to a par with traditional monogamy marriages. Abortion is on the rise because we don't know how to tell which point a human being is a person worthy of the right to life. Millions of others starve because corrupt governments don't care. And the list is endless. Inhuman. That is the term we use to describe atrocities against people, right?

 

Correct question is: What is a human? This question is fundamental. Because if the purpose of human rights is to protect human dignity, and human dignity is only imputed on humans, then it is immensely critical that know what we are. Put simply, we can't protect human dignity if we don't know what a human is—because knowing what a human is helps us to appreciate that value of that being. If we don't have an answer we lose any sensible rationale for any protection and the concept of human rights, left to pragmatism, becomes the tool by which human dignity is attacked and destroyed. (I think of the poor people that turn their bodies into carvings and mannequins).

 

The world's leading humanly-authored human rights documents (American Declaration of Independence, UN Universal Declaration of Human rights, Magna Carta, French Declaration) each make an assumption: man has a certain value. And not just that. Man is worth more than animals and plants, and worth more than the things that man himself creates. Those documents assume something else: that all man are EQUALLY valuable and EQUALLY worthy of certain rights that cannot generally be taken away. As long as you are a human you have those rights. So much so that the violation of a human right is considered a violation of the humanness of the victim. And it's not just the victim but the perpetrator's humanness is called into question. Inhuman.

 

But why? What is the basis for such assumptions in those documents? Let me borrow a psalm to re-contextualize the question. What is man? That we are mindful of ourselves? That we consider ourselves above the beasts of the land, the birds in the air and the fish in the sea? Are we not but flesh and blood—as equally expendable as the animal? Some think so (and some act so), except we have superior intelligence and a conscience—a sense for morality. What gives us claim to a list of privileges that arise only because we can understand and insist on them? 

 

If a human is a highly evolved animal, there is no basis for human dignity—except a pragmatic one. If there is no basis for human dignity, there is no basis for human rights—for we are all animals. There is no basis for treating each other equal—for some animals are stronger and worth more than others. What makes us equally equal if we are evolved from organic soup? We can argue about living peaceably but if some human beings are stronger than others and would live any way they please at the expense of the weaker, then so be it. There is absolutely no basis to protect human rights.

 

So while we can push for a pragmatic approach, we can't justifiably oppose those who reject that approach and go on abusing human rights. One can choose not to subscribe to human rights and we, by being merely pragmatic, have no basis to try to change their mind on the matter.

 

On the other hand, if man is created by God and has been imputed with a divine value, then we have every reason to protect human dignity and therefore there is a valid basis to promote and protect human rights. But there is a further implication. If God has made us then He must know how we are to live. Just as a manufacturer knows the complete method its product is to be used, so the Creator would know. And He would have set some standards for us. And if we live outside of those standards we would be abusing ourselves—just as any product used outside of its design and purpose results in abuse (improper use). The Creator set in His prized creatures' hearts, a notion of morality—His standards.

 

When we, in pursuit of human rights, act outside of those standards, we abuse ourselves. It is for this reason that people who hold the creationist view will not be silent when people do what is morally wrong in the name of human rights. They will not be silent where homosexual practice and abortion and euthanasia and pornography and prostitution and racism are concerned. These practices violate the designs of the Creator. They violate the value and dignity of the creature. And as people who understand that fundamental value they will not stand and watch a fellow human abuse himself or others, even if that person is convinced in his or her mind that they can do what they do. They must speak the truth.

 

Ungirded by morality, human rights becomes an open license to do anything. To an extent that the purpose of human rights itself—the protection of human dignity—is defeated completely.

 

Furthermore, one cannot remain a consistent advocate for human rights if one does not subscribe to a higher standard (morality) to guide it. For instance, one may insist on the right to life for all humans. And also the right to choose. But proponents of abortion would have to exalt a despondent mother's right to choose above an unborn baby's right to life. The abortion problem gets even more complicated with arguments moving from the unborn baby's status as a human being, to whether it is a person at all. So now proponents of abortion argue that since the baby is not a person it is not yet privileged with the right to life. But wait. The right to life is not the right of a PERSON; it's a right of a HUMAN BEING. We've unwittingly given ourselves a new set of measurements: PERSON's RIGHTS. Problematic isn't it.

 

When we have no standard of what's right and wrong, anything is acceptable. Human rights itself will die without a moral foundation. Indeed it seems to be heading that way.

 

Heavenise day!

 

Ganjiki

Isikeli Taureka: A Global Corporate Star

Isikeli Taureka: A Global Corporate Star

[This story is worth more than the time taken to read it. How a PNG man can rise up and be a star in the corporate world is amazing. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of Isikeli Taureka before. But I'm glad I did just moments ago. Young Papua New Guineans need stories like this. Ganjiki]

By Rowan Callick, 2009, Islands Business

People from the Pacific have made their mark all over the world.
They have mostly excelled in the world of sport—as rugby players, golfers and wrestlers.
Despite the obsession with politics in the region, few Pacific politicians have become known outside the region at all, or have made a mark beyond their own islands.
The same can be said for business. Even though business is now increasingly global, the region has developed too few stars—people who have truly excelled, either as entrepreneurs or as movers and shakers, in big corporations. 
This is the sphere, though, where the region's future lies—with the private sector that creates jobs and wealth.
In a year in which big questions have been asked about where the global economy is heading, it is appropriate that ISLANDS BUSINESS has decided to award its coveted Pacific Person of the Year award to one of those rare business heroes to have emerged from the islands as an international corporate champion.

BUSINESS GIANT

Few have excelled in that world as gloriously as Isikeli Taureka—the son of a famous Papua New Guinean politician father, and of a much loved Fijian mother. 
He has become a business giant in the highly competitive energy world of China. That he has scored such success in China underlines the importance of this award. 
The future of the Pacific depends heavily on the region's capacity to build businesses and thus wealth that creates jobs rather than build government activities that just spend it.
Taureka is a wonderful model, an example of an islander who has reached a senior level in a highly competitive global industry, based on talent and hard work alone. 
As Chevron's country manager for China, he has won a massive prize—winning a tender to develop a 2,000 sq km gas field in mountainous Sichuan province in a US$2 billion joint venture with local partner PetroChina, against determined global competition.
There are Papua New Guineans in some surprising places around the world, including for instance Granger Narara, who was the chief training pilot for Emirates Airline and is now the vice-president for flight operations at Etihad Airways. 
But Taureka is the first to have succeeded in such a high profile corporate position.
"This is the big league," he said.

His father, Sir Reuben Taureka, is a doctor who trained in Fiji and met his mother there. Hence his Fijian first name. They married and she came to live in PNG.
Sir Reuben later became a trade union leader, and entered parliament with Sir Michael Somare's Pangu Party—claiming credit for introducing to PNG its new nationalist political uniform, the sulu, which he had seen worn so much in Fiji.

Isikeli—usually "Keli"—Taureka graduated in economics from the University of PNG in 1976 and joined the Bank of South Pacific, then owned by the National Australia Bank (NAB). He worked for some time with NAB in Melbourne before becoming an accountant, then a manager of Port Moresby branches.
He worked with the bank for 12 years, including five as deputy managing director of the joint venture Resource Investment Finance Ltd—during which he helped finance the first airline owned by a PNG national, pilot Nat Koleala, from Enga in the Highlands.

Then, he says, "I decided I had had enough of banking. The capital market wasn't very complex and it wasn't exciting any more". 
His time-out which followed, fishing and playing golf, was interrupted by a call from a staffer of the then Prime Minister, Sir Rabbie Namaliu.
He told his wife Joan—a close friend of Sir Rabbie's wife Margaret Nakikus, who later died tragically young—grabbed a tie, headed for the PM's office, and soon discovered his new challenge, taking over as managing director of the imploding state-owned monopoly telco, Post and Telecommunication Corp.

THE VISION

"I went into the office the next day. It was in chaos. We managed to stabilise it, then brought back in some of the experienced staff who had fled. 
"Corporatisation was the flavour of the day, and we started that process with a lot of help from Telstra in Australia and from New Zealand Telecom.
"I learned how people can rise to such occasions." But then a new prime minister wanted to give the telecommunications licence to a Singapore firm for just  Kina 10,000." 
Taureka arranged an independent review that was somewhat critical of such proposals, and when he delivered it, he was shown the door.
As ever in PNG, "politics interfered in what should have been a smooth transition to corporatisation," Taureka says. 
"Telecommunications was among the country's crown jewels. I tried to slash costs and introduce greater accountability, but the unions objected. 
"The vision of enabling grassroots people to communicate, was lost. The country couldn't progress while calls were costing more than a kina a minute."
But he is delighted that private competition has recently, finally, arrived, increasing access and choice and slashing prices. 
"Now there's competition in the mobile market and it has turned the country upside down. But there are still no funds earmarked to provide cheap communications for villagers."
In those years before constitutional change held MPs to party loyalties, there was constant churning at the top. 
Sir Julius Chan reappointed Taureka when he returned to the prime ministership and he served out the rest of his original contract and left.

GLOBAL EXECUTIVE

His new life as a global executive was about to begin. It was 1995.
Chevron, which owned extensive oil fields and prospects in PNG's Highlands, took a strong interest in him and he was headhunted. 
When Taureka expressed concern that he knew nothing about the industry, the company said it would teach him.
"That was one of the luckiest breaks in my life—to be employed by a great company"—in fact the world's sixth biggest.
During his learning curve, he was placed in charge of finance, human resources, government relations and public affairs.
Chevron liked what it saw of him in PNG and swiftly shifted him to San Ramon in northern California, its global HQ. 
There, he became the planning manager for international exploration and production, and facilitated top management meetings.
The company viewed this as a "development assignment" for Taureka, he says. 
"It was a plunge into the real world of big business. I saw how companies are run, the processes and people and behaviour required to achieve outstanding results—things you don't get to see in PNG.
"Compared with my previous business experience, it was like night and day." 
He thought, during his two years there, that he would learn about the business more broadly and then be assigned back to PNG for good.
"It didn't dawn on me that this would actually trigger an international career."

Taureka did return briefly to PNG, but also looked after Chevron's West Australian operations on Barrow Island. 
In 2002 he became a Bangkok-based managing director, looking after operations in Thailand, Cambodia and Bangladesh—reorganising things to confront steep production declines.
In 2005, Chevron acquired fellow California-based Unocal, whose Thai assets were its most important—and Taureka smoothed their transition into the Chevron fold.
When the Chevron chief in China retired in mid-2006, Taureka replaced him and was able to hit the ground running as he had been working for sometime on regional strategy, formulated around gas and oil opportunities—a new direction for a vast country in which Chevron was not then an operator.
He says: "We were in a head-to-head bid for the acquisition of Unocal with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), with which we had two joint venture offshore oil operations, so I went to China with some trepidation. But I now enjoy close relations with my CNOOC counterparts."
Shortly after Taureka's arrival in China, he led the team that won the tender to develop, with PetroChina, the Chuandongbei "sour gas" fields in mountainous Sichuan in the south-west—the largest foreign involvement in the Chinese oil and gas industry. 

The government had insisted on the introduction of a foreign operator after an uncontrolled release of sour gas resulted in 200 deaths and forced 5,000 people from their homes.
"It's an amazing project for us. We developed a plan and won the tender in less than six months. 
"That's almost the speed of light. Petrochina wanted to expedite it too, because of the strong pressure for increased energy supply in China."
Taureka was able to call on the best resources the company had to offer, from everywhere in the Chevron world including the head office, and the company won the contract for 49 percent of the project, which covers 2,000 sq km and involves 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 
Now, wells have been drilled, reserves proven, funding arranged and the project is in full construction mode.
"We did not think we could do anything in China," he says, because of the potential resentment over the withdrawal of CNOOC's bid for Unocal in the face of political opposition in the US.
"But the Chinese are pretty practical people and they appreciated our experience in handling sour gas. We have had to prove ourselves, though. It's not just 'ganbei' (the Chinese toast at banquets). We have taken a very consultative approach. 
"We hope to grow in China through opportunities where we can offer technical advantages and also seek to work with our Chinese partners in the international arena."

DEALING WITH CHINESE

Today, based in a massive office tower in the heart of Beijing's central business district, he heads a fast-growing operational business with about 200 staff there and in Tanggu, Shekou and Sichuan.
Taureka says that being a Papua New Guinean "provides a degree of comfort when I'm dealing with our Chinese counterparts coming from this Asia-Pacific region.
"When I walk in the door, they tend to think I'm South African or American. When I say I'm Papua New Guinean, things loosen up quickly. 
"People in the resources industry know the country. Chevron also employs a number of Papua New Guineans working in other parts of the world, including in Lagos and Bangkok and Houston.
"The company helped Petrochina drill its first well overseas, in Kikori in PNG, and such links go a long way.  
"PetroChina's PNG manager then is now president of CNPC, PetroChina's parent company, and I recently took him to see our deep-water operations in the Gulf of Mexico."
"It's been quite an exciting ride," Taureka says. 

He remains a PNG citizen. But he has become very interested in China and is building an awareness within Chevron of the possibilities of doing business there "across the value chain."
The company already supplies liquefied natural gas to China out of Australia's North West Shelf.
Taureka loves the energy industry. "There's nothing like it. The numbers are much bigger than most other industries. It's strategic, it's political."
He has now recruited six top Chinese graduates, "building home-grown talent" as he was himself once groomed in PNG—where he still has aims of returning, one day, to contribute again.

NOT LETTING THE FIGHT GO

NOT LETTING THE FIGHT GO

 It is a sad reality that most people are not interested in the improvement of our country. They don't see how they should be involved in the fight for a better PNG—primarily because circumstances have not yet hit home within individuals, and probably because they feel powerless to do anything about anything. Or they just don't feel the problem; but mostly because they simply don't care. They're indifferent.

Apathy, I think, is a worse epidemic than the corruption in our country. Many of us do not really care that our country's not being lead well or that change is needed. We seem content just to build our own empires, and live our own lives, take care of our daily lives.

Someone asked me why I care so much. I really don't know. But I look at things on the basis that God has created each one of us for a specific purpose for the specific time into which we're born. And to fulfil that purpose He has put into each of our hearts a burden and a passion. I believe mine is the people of PNG, their behaviour and its impact on the nation as a whole. 

 

And so it is incumbent on me to do what I can—to say what I can— to preserve and/or restore that dignity. I see around me a people who have lost sight of the inherent dignity and value that God Himself placed in all our lives. Such a perspective should make one naturally concerned. This concern reaches the corners of this country because this nation and these people are whom God chose for me within this bracket of eternity.

Apart from that I do have a somewhat selfish motive. That is, I want my children to be born into, grow up, and live in a better place than I currently live. I'd like them to live in a country where people respect each other, and everyone is looking out for each other (not just wantoks), there's unity, and progress, and less crime, and more justice and so on. I hope that my daughters could walk down the road without fear of being harassed or molested by unruly young men. And my sons could find inspirational people wherever they turn, to be men of courage and moral uprightness. I hope leaders would have emerged who are committed to improving the nation and not their private bank accounts and pot (or beer) bellies.

I may be an idealist, but who isn't? Deep down, we all dream of a better world. I just like talking about it more than some. In spite overwhelming evidence that our children will enter a worse world than the one we currently live in. We need to allow ourselves to dream. It is a definitely cause for concern (and maybe that's an understatement!) that things could be getting worse. But should we give up trying to create a better world? No. The status quo need not be the reason for us to give turning things into the way thing should be. God didn't. We shouldn't. 

There is a lot to be done. But people need to do it. Money and resources are tools. People decide whether they are constructive or destructive tools. And the less good people use those tools constructively, the more destructive those tools become at the hands of wicked people. We need to speak out (and work hard!) against corruption and the breakdown of morals in our society. We have to actively reject corrupt practices such as giving and taking petty bribes. We need to stop littering our streets; spitting our buai, vandalising property, etc.

Corruption is a killer. Evil is all around us. It's not easing up its effort to corrupt the world and destroy people. It corrupts our people through every mean available. Corruption isn't perpetrated in a vacuum. It's done by people. While "agents of change" are only wishing things get better the agents of corruption are working hard—losing more sleep than those who hate corruption, simply to pursue their ends. Successfully countering evil and corruption requires much more passion and action. We cannot expect things to get better without doing something to make things better.

We can't afford to not care about what's going on. Sooner or later it will hit each of us right where it matters. You could wait for such a moment to jolt you awake or you could start doing something about it now. Apathy is like enduring a slow painful (maybe painless!) death. Despite having the means to avoid such pain and death, the victim simply does nothing to improve his condition. 

We're living in a time of conflict; conflict between good and evil. And to remain inactive in this battle is to allow evil to triumph. As Paulo Freire put it "Washing one's hands off the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."

Heavenise week

Ganjiki

--

Ganjiki

"INSPIRING PASSION"

 

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/ 

"True" National Leaders

THE "TRUE" NATIONAL LEADERS

 

"Let me write the songs of a nation: I don't care who writes the laws." Andrew Fletcher, Scottish Politician

 

When he first took office I used to hear news about Governor Powes Parkop's vision to clean the city and the people's mindsets by the year 2012. That year is coming to an end now. How have we fared? Have we changed? He posed the question to a workshop of certain middle level bureaucrats: "How do we get people to change their mindsets and attitude?" Indeed: "HOW?"

 

Mindsets and attitude cannot be legislated or regulated into form. They exist freely of the external things we set up ourselves to control society. The conscience is the freest component of a human person. Inserted and guaranteed by God Himself. I could even say that the freedom of conscience is a freedom more precious than liberty itself. Throughout history and even today people have sacrificed their physical freedom and even the lives to keep their consciences. And the most powerful of people have been those who have been able to permeate people's conscience.

 

Leadership, I heard from Myles Munroe, is the ability to influence human behaviour. Human behaviour is a product of the human conscience. Leadership is therefore the ability to influence the human conscience to such an extent as it affects human behaviour.

All these considered, I have concluded who the REAL leaders of this nation are. They are not the Prime Ministers, the Members of Parliament, or the nation's top bureaucrats. They are not the ones who possess power or control over vast amounts of money or land, or people. They are not those who have many wives and massive wealth; or who drive successful businesses and expensive vehicles.

 

For me the true leaders are smaller people. They probably live with relatives because they can't afford rentals. Maybe they make their homes in settlements. They possibly have small blue-collar jobs that they struggle through every day. But they are famous people. Known and loved by many who share the same everyday experiences as they do. They are the local songwriters, singers, poets, writers and the storytellers. But I'll focus on the songwriters and singers because that segment of the arts has more dominion in PNG than the story-telling, books and poetry.

 

The majority of this nation listens to music and song every day. And songs have the ability to stick and continually play in the minds of people. The words, aided by music, can seep easily into our sub-conscience, shaping the mindset without us even knowing it. When we constantly listen to the same thing we usually end up believing it—without even making a conscious decision to start believing. Sooner or later we start living out the kind of beliefs transmitted by the songs. Our behaviour is affected.

 

Human behaviour is shaped by what we constantly hear, see and read—by what is constantly communicated to us. Politicians can deliver speeches once in a while but their words do not dwell in our minds and hearts as much as songs and music. Hence politicians, despite having the authority to make laws and the macro-decisions for the country, do not have much influence on the people's behaviour. That privilege (or responsibility) lies with our song-writers and singers.

The problem however, is that much of our popular local songs are full of negative themes such as self-pity and regret, low self-esteem, loss of hope ("I give up") etc. They are un-inspiring and narrow-minded. They stimulate fleeting desires that can never be satisfied.

 

Such songs that carry words such as "mi pipia blong pipia blong pipia", "maski mi rabis man mi simel tinpis". Or "save-kad nogat save", "skul-pepa blong yu skul-pepa nating", or "wai na mama karim mi?" or "mi bai stap na raun wabo", limit our ability to dream and aspire for great things or greatness. They remove our ability to look beyond our current limitations—beyond the immediate.

 

One song that has been very influential (to my utter disgust) is Skwatas hit Take Me to Parardise. This song opens with the phrase "Wik i kam pinis em wikend nau taim bilong kisim wara wantaim ol poroman". Those words, and the phrase "I'm living for the weekend", reinforce within young people that life has no ultimate meaning or everlasting joy, but if we compound our pleasures every weekend—by taking alcohol, dancing away and picking up a one-night stand—we may salvage some happiness. This is a dangerous message. Yet this song is (was) a hit with very young children who had yet to cement a proper outlook of life.

 

Then there's Tania's song Trupla Man. I once watched a TV program showcasing Tania promoting her album and that song to hundreds of kids mostly below the age of 13. Some kids (possibly aged between 7 and 10) were called to the stage and sang the chorus brilliantly: "Trupla man, wokobaut long bikpla nait. Painim mi. Em orait. Mi save long ting ting blong yu!..." (translation: "A real man. Walks in the dead of the night looking for me. That's fine. I know what you're thinking") One phrase goes "Mi tu mi man na mi gat bulut na mi nidim presens blong yu..." ("I'm human too. I got feelings (hormones) and I need you").  I thought to myself "what the heck!" These kids are singing along without a clue as to what Tania's intent was (I doubt Tania herself knew). Very early a mentality is being imbedded into their sub-conscience. That is, if your body desires something, get out there and do what it takes to satisfy your body. And if you do so you are a "trupla man" (real man)!

 

Songs such as these are dangerous to our society. They summon up energies and curiosities within children and young people before they built strong foundations from which they can properly direct such energy. They lack a message of hope, peace, unity and other positive themes that could energise Papua New Guineans to do the right thing. Yes we do have some of those songs ringing through the air but they're significantly outnumbered by the negatives. Songs with such words are not just harmless music and entertainment. They shape human thought. They shape the conscience. They shape culture.

 

If there are songwriters out there reading this, you have more power than you know. Use it well. And for politicians, if you'd like to regain some of your lost power from the singers and songwriters, I'd recommend that you ban the so many negatively-charged songs that infiltrate almost every young heart every single day in Papua New Guinea.

If we are to have a positive society with a positive culture we have to change the things that shape the minds that shape the behaviour of the people that shape our society.

Heavenise Week!

 

Ganjiki

A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

By Sanga Ge Abolo

 

Lae city is home city. But it is a deteriorating city, although the Morobe Provincial Government and the Lae city authority will never say this outright. Being based in Port Moresby, it is disheartening to return to see parts of the city fall to ruins or another remains of a recently-burnt building, testament to the downward spiral facing the country's "industrial city".

 

So it was an absolute treat when, yesterday, I was introduced to a small second-hand clothing shop and bistro in the heart of the city. Sha-Mata Clothing & Bistro is like no other - at least not like the type I am so used to seeing in PNG. Located in a spacious premises within Lae's post office building, Sha-Mata is a breath of fresh air to Lae's staleness.

 

Walking into Sha-Mata is almost like walking into a boutique. The shop is air-conditioned, aesthetically arranged - and startlingly clean. One end of the outfit has been partitioned and serves as a bistro while the main area sells "quality" second-hand clothes ordered directly from the United States.

 

After the doorman opens the door, shop attendants briskly walk up and serve customers with promptness and such sincerity, I found myself smiling and revelling in this gem of a find. "Who owns this place?" I immediately ask my cousin, Desley - my guide and a 20-plus-year resident of Lae. "One Central woman—the owner of that cleaning company, Lae Everclean. This is an arm of her business," Desley replies. Oh!, that must be Sarah Haoda-Todd!", I say in surprise, remembering Sarah on Facebook's Sharp Talk and the fact that she had been the winner of some business award the year gone by.

 

No wonder Sha-Mata was spotlessly clean and its service unique by the general PNG standard. The woman was an astute business woman. We order our coffee, two lamingtons and long creamed donuts. Altogether, everything totals K15.10 - the coffee at K2 a cup. "Is that all?!" Again, I am in disbelief. I am so used to the ballooning prices of Port Moresby. As we find our seats at one of the neatly-done-up tables, my cousin explains the reasoning behind the shop's operations.

 

"I think they try to fill the market that is quite badly needed today - treating ordinary Papua New Guineans with respect, without making them pay an arm and a leg for the service."

 

Promptly, our coffee arrives. "We hope you enjoy your coffee," the waitress says as she departs. The coffee is great - steaming hot, sweet and creamy as directed. "I think what the owner is trying to say is: 'we can prove we are able to deliver the same service offered at high-class eateries at affordable prices," Desley continues. "And prove too that Papua New Guineans can do a much better job at running every-day eateries than what most of these Asian s.... offer!", I pipe in, remembering and getting agitated at the dirty Asian-owned kai-bars mushrooming all over Port Moresby and the National Capital District Commission's struggle to keep them compliant with the public health and safety standards. I look around. All the tables are occupied. At one, a child has spilled a drink. Immediately, a waitress shows up and wipes away the spill. I am amazed!

 

For a simple place of eating where a cup of coffee costs K2 and a plate of food K15, this is quite unusual. We chat and enjoy our coffee. Upon our departure, the waitress thanks us for our patronage as she whisks away the empties. At the door, the doorman opens the door smartly as he bids us farewell.

 

"Wow!", I grin into my sister's face as we step out and into Lae's heat and humidity. "A plus for old Lae, aye?", she grins back.

 

"And a breath of fresh air!" I add.

 

~SGA©~"

 

GDW's note: A breath of fresh air indeed. My complaint in almost EVERY eatery I attend in PNG, is the lack of respect, attentiveness and courtesy that the employees exhibit; even to ordinary Papua New Guineans. Even in hotels you'll get disappointed by the service (or rather "disservice"). We could do well to learn from Sha-Mata and its valiant and adventurous proprietor Sarah Haoda-Todd. I can't wait to visit that joint.