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.

 

Tribute to Dad, Rev. Martin Luther Wayne

Tribute to Dad, Rev. Martin Luther Wayne

(On the occasion of my wedding, I gave this tribute to my dad. I post it as perhaps a lesson to fellow preachers' kids, any kid, who wishes to or should honor our fathers whilst they live...whilst we all live.)

I love funerals, but I also hate them. I love funerals because you get to see the life of the departed through the eyes of people who knew them differently. And you can learn a lot of life's lessons from the words shared. But I hate funerals for the same thing: those words. Because the one person who needed to hear those words when he was alive can no longer hear. Those words are of no benefit to him. He may have died thinking no one appreciated him. I intend not to let my father leave this earth without knowing how much he is appreciated, by me at least. And so with these words, I pay him tribute whilst he lives. It will not compare to the grand applause he will receive when he enters his eternal home. And my highest opinion, as his son, cannot compare to the opinion of his Maker and heavenly Father. But that same heavenly Father demands that we the earthly children of our earthly parents honor them sincerely. And so with these few words I attempt to honor my dad.

My dad, Rev Martin Wayne, is a simple man. He is as simple as simple can get. Dad isn't earthly rich. He has hardly owned a brand new car. He's got no permanent house. Nor some small business to sustain him and his family. His wardrobe is rather small. He's got no financial security. His bank account hardly exceeds 4 figures on any given month. Yet I can't recall any day being with dad that he would not utter the words "Thank you Lord." He knew he had more than enough. He was content.

How did he sustain his family all this years? Pure faith and God's amazing Grace. Dad didn't live in this world. So he didn't have a care for the things of this world, except his family. And the souls of every men women and children. Dad lived in a place where souls mattered most. Ever since he received God's call to serve Him, dad has never taken a step back. Whether he did it officially as a serving missionary and minister of the Word or as an unemployed house-husband, he would diligently seek ways to serve his master.

Dad has taught countless young people in Religious Education. He loves doing it. We can never know what impact he has had on this nation through his ministry. We don't know how many hours he has spent talking to young people, sowing seeds of hope and faith in their souls. Countless hours he spends counseling people who are humble enough to seek his help. Countless hours spent preparing and delivering sermons. Now he serves that Master in a time that people who've not heard God's call as clearly as he has, think they can serve better than pastors like him. We don't know exactly how much fruit has been harvested from the seeds he's sown. But I know that at least the One Person whose opinion does matter knows exactly what impact dad has made in this world. And it's more than all our earthly awards can measure.

In our pursuit of the valuable things in this world we may not have noticed that the truly wealthy men of our times are those who walk on their feet, carrying a back pack, have little in their bank accounts. Who fight for the Lord armed with nothing but a helmet of salvation, a belt of truth, a breastplate of righteousness, and the sword of the Spirit. Men like my dad. They wake at 4:30am every day to talk with the one friend they have that's always faithful. They probably tell Him that they're lonely. That they're discouraged because the world doesn't seem to appreciate them, and they can't see themselves being productive for the kingdom. That they're tempted to leave the service so they can earn some money finally, and give their kids a life. Men like my dad. Who attend one-man prayer-meetings. Men who preach God's Word every week. Feeding a flock that forgets to say grace. He serves tea and coffee like it was the highest call of man. And he walks the streets praying for the lost souls that pass by. And it seems God decided to remove dad's capacity to hate, and anger and to hold a grudge against any person.

I watched my dad work beside mum. I watched him do the dishes, cook the meals, do the laundry, sweep the floor, iron the clothes and fold them, even attempting to dig a garden despite his bad back. Once when we needed a home he walked the city of Lae on foot looking for accommodation that his meager savings could afford. He even scaled a fence because his legs were too tired to walk around the university campus. I watched him faithfully and patiently serve his wife, my mum, with so much love. He would brave the highlands highway every week to be with mum when their respective jobs separated them. Then he resigned because he'd rather be with mum than earn extra money for the family. Dad didn't have all the money to give his kids everything. But he had all the time to give his kids all the attention they needed. Mum and dad worked as a great tag-team wrestling team. Because they had a great Coach in the Christ they believed in.

Dad taught me to love my woman, the way he loves his. He taught me to love my family, the way he loves his. He's exemplified humility and meekness such that I can't help but marvel at his inability to think of himself highly. I know not of any man other than dad, who entitled to say what the apostle Paul said: "Imitate me, as I imitate Christ." But dad would never say it because his humility would not allow it. But also because he doesn't think that he imitates Christ well.

Dad may never get extra letters after his name. No earthly award may be given him. No paper would run an article on men such as him. He is unsung. They won't give him a second glance on the street, because he has no fame. If he passes away they'll be no state funeral, no 21 gun salute, no full-page condolence message in the papers.

But.

If Heaven had a newspaper it would be front-page! The headline would most likely read: "A general is coming home!" They'd throw a massive party and sing for joy. The angels would lead him to his mansion. And it would be a million times bigger than the castles and palaces of the kings of this earth. Dad would be finally be served his favorite coffee, in a golden mug with the words "Good and Faithful Servant" inscribed on it. His Lord will most likely visit him every day and they'd look back on his life here. And His Lord will tell him "Well done, well done!"

I hope I had enough words to pay him the tribute he deserves. But I am a fallible man. One day Dad will hear God's perfect opinion...and it will suffice.

I hope I can be at least half the husband to my wife, that dad has been to mum. And to be half the father to my children (God willing), that dad has been to my siblings and I. And I hope I can find the strength to serve the Lord, as faithfully as Dad has served Him.

If I can be half the man my dad is, I would have done well.

Thanks dad, for representing God well.

I love you,

Ganjiki

17th September 2012

An Essay on Racism

Origin and Racism

Ganjiki D Wayne

               

Many years ago the Western world—the Caucasian man—determined that the black man was not man at all. They believed that the darker race was not a race. The black man was a stage of evolution somewhere between the Apes and the Caucasian man. Therefore the black man, not being fully evolved, was not fully human. And therefore not entitled to the rights understood to be due to human beings. The black man was a different species.

 

And so they treated them as slaves. The black man was an animal, a living tool. They patronized them; not believing them capable of anything they themselves were capable of. Even of independent thought. And they could justify that perception with arguments both from science and religion. But whichever angle they spun it, they were wrong.

 

It is ironic that people who thought themselves the benchmark of the human race, allowed such fantasies in their minds. And they couldn't shake it off no matter how much reading and thinking they did, or how educated they got.

 

Ironic still, is the fact that even to this day some of them think that way. For people who believe in everything being explained by science, they failed to note that their theory of a non-human-savage was/is unsupported by science. Every indication—biologically, psychologically, emotionally, socially, existentially, and through history—shows that the "savage" is as every bit as human as the Caucasian man.

 

Racism is a natural outworking of belief in evolution. It is not only plausible, but justifiable if evolution is held as the process by which mankind is formed. Evolution espouses a stage-by-stage production process. And as in any production process, the final product is far more advanced than its preceding stages. As such it's logical to argue that a darker-skinned man has not yet reached the stage of production that the white man has, and is therefore less advanced than the white man. Therefore still, he is not entitled to "human rights" the way the white human is.  It's a bit difficult for those who believe in evolution to reject racism: yet they must import some idea (from the air) that all man are equal in order to be socially acceptable. Hitler developed his "perfect Aryan race" illusion based on Darwin's concept of "natural selection", and sought to eliminate a race that he thought was a threat to human civilisation. Racism is tenable with the theory of evolution.

 

But evolutionary theory isn't the only perspective responsible for racism. Religion and abusive interpretations of the Bible also promulgated beliefs that some humans were inferior to others. With a foolish and obnoxious interpretation of God's Word, racism was justified. The white Afrikaans of South Africa believed their superiority was an act of God. Dr. DF Malan, a former South African PM, even remarked that "Afrikanerdom [white South African political philosophy] is not the work of man, but the creation of God". In America, though believing all man were created by God, some believed that in the Creator's "series or progression from a lump of dirt to a perfect man" (Edward Long, 1774), the "negro" was inferior to human beings. These are but some of the perverted views of "enlightened" man. Even now some participants in the white supremacy movement believe that white is God's chosen race. Other racial supremacy groups (e.g. Black Supremacy) believe the opposite for the same reason. There is not a shred of biblical truth in these claims. So what is the truth?

 

"[A]ll man are created equal", screams the American Declaration of Independence (1776). "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights" says the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens (1789). In recognition of the "inherent dignity" of the human race, "all human beings are born equal", affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). And long before these documents, King John's Magna Carter (1215) afforded certain rights to his subjects within the context that all man are equal under God and no man is above the law. But is 1215 as far back as we can go in attributing equality of man?

 

Under God. This is a crucial point. No equality of worth can be legitimately claimed if man was formed any other way but by a Supreme Creator who creates and simultaneously stamps a value onto the creature. These above key world-impacting documents presuppose that man is created by God and is not the result of a timeless evolutionary process. Words such as "all man are created...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" (US), "under the auspices of the Supreme Being the following rights of man and citizen" (French), and "inherent dignity...of the human family" (UN) speak of the origin of the human being: a being created by a creator and not evolved over millions of years from primordial organic soup. I can't image anyone defending the American Constitution if it read "all man are evolved equal".

 

To say all man have equal value is to determine that all man are worth something. To say we're worth anything we would have to determine that such value came from somewhere. Such value would have to come from that which creates or forms us. Just like the money we print, being affixed a certain value that we its creators decide (all variables considered). We cannot be more valuable than that which gives us life—from which we have our existence. If that source is less valuable than our perceived worth, we would have to admit that we are less valuable than we currently think. And our real value will have to be pragmatic; that is, we would have to import value (e.g. usefulness to society) to give ourselves a sense of worth. But that will immediately separate our individual values and makes us not equal, thus justifying racism. On the other hand, if that which makes us has value far above us, then we indeed have equal value under a common standard. And we need not import some arbitrary rule for that purpose. The WORTH of man is directly attributed to the ORIGIN of man.  

 

So what is our origin? We would have to go to the beginning. Did we start of as primordial organic soup and evolve over millions of years to get here? Or did an infinitely powerful and creative God make us in His image and likeness? We would have to admit (at least I would) that it is only because "in the beginning God created" man in His image and likeness, that we even have a starting point of reference for the dignity of ALL human beings.

 

Racism is a belief in the superiority of the culture and community from which the racist hails. The Western man believed his style of living, his values, his way of life, was far more superior to others. And therefore by virtue of being born into or living up to those standards, he considered himself superior to others. Western society has indeed become the yardstick by which the world is measured. "Developed" and "Developing" are stages of nations' progress—based on how "Western" a nation is. Western values of monetary and economic wealth, modern education, materialism, selfish indulgence in pleasure and eroticism, fame and fortune, have become the key values of the world. And if a nation is not giving the opportunity to its people to pursue these values, then it is a failing nation.

 

But cultures are diverse. They're diverse not because we evolved differently. They're diverse because God created man to be diverse. He made us to be different to magnify His own power of creativity and infinite ability to make countless kinds (variations) of the same thing. He never intended that one kind would consider itself better than the other. But all are of equal worth. And He does hope that all man would ultimately recognize and live up to His own ultimate "culture" within the context of theirs.

 

Indeed we are all different. And not all equal in ability. We are all gifted and equipped differently. From the Olympics we notice that the white man cannot run as fast as the black man. Some can sing, some run, some play basketball, some play guitars, some write, some paint, some speak, some listen. We are not all equal in our abilities. But we are all of equal worth: regardless of colour or race.

 

Our individual cultures have shaped us differently. In some countries they have thousands of high-rise buildings and thousands of homeless people on the streets. In others they have bush huts and everyone has a roof over his head. The urban man cannot handle the bush like the bush-man can. He can't utilize nature using the "primitive" technology of the bush man. And the bushman cannot drive a car, operate a train or fly a plane. But both can learn. And this is a vital point. Both can learn each other's ways and do as well as the other within their physical capacities. That is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind: the gift of learning.

 

With intelligence that can only come from an intelligent Creator, man has been able to improve his lot in life. He could teach himself. He could learn. God intended that man could learn so that he could learn more about Him. Man could adapt to his surroundings. He could be sociable. Sadly some have not used that learning ability to recognise equality in our diversity.

 

Racism was concocted in the mind of man, just like countless other evils that can be concocted in our minds. Minds that God in His divine grace allowed to think freely, knowing that that freedom could lead us to deny His existence and cook up evil notions. We see a common thread in history: man, particularly the Western man, has denied God's existence and attributed ours to a random process. That process could justify racism, and it cannot justify a moral scale by which we can tell if anything is right or wrong.

 

Now that same western man is trying to impose his amorality on the world. Racism (slavery its linchpin) has proven to be wrong, yet it thrives today in subtle ways such as unjustified visa restrictions and asylum arrangements, or coffee-making policies in mega-malls. Other ideas emerge from within that same Western man's mind. Such as the amorality of things before believed to be immoral: e.g. homosexuality. But if Western man was once wrong about the value of human beings, what makes him trust-worthy in his perspective of human sexuality and morality now? He may be proven in a few years to be wrong...again.

 

The world has adopted almost all Western values and perspectives as the yardstick for progress. As if the West created the world and bears witness to ultimate reality. Some of its beliefs are good because they correspond with reality, but many do not. The promulgation of the revelation of God may be one of the few great gifts that the West has brought to the rest of humanity. Ironically its promulgation of non-belief in that same God may be its worst "theft" to the world.

 

We need a standard of guidance beyond ourselves. Beyond the black man. Beyond the white man. Beyond ALL man. It would seem that God still is the best option for guidance of moral perceptions.

 

Because God is real, racism is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, and everything wrong is wrong. Indeed it is because He exists that we have a concept of "wrong" at all. Nothing else can explain such a deep recognition of a moral dilemma in mankind's hearts.

 

Heavenise day!

 

Ganjiki

--

Ganjiki

"INSPIRING PASSION"

 

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/