By Sir John Kaputin, KBE, CMG.

--------------------------------------------
The views expressed in this article emanate from my experience as a Member of
Parliament (MP) for 30 years (1972 – 2002) and, subsequently, as secretary-
general of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states (2005–2010),
based in Brussels, Belgium. As a legislator, I was also a member of the
Constitutional Planning Committee (CPC) of 15 MPs who were charged with the
responsibility of drafting the CPC Report, which formed the basis for the national
Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. The CPC’s
important contribution to the constitution-making process took the best part of
two years.

In my various capacities, both as a member of cabinet and as secretary-

general of the ACP Group of states, responsible for significant aspects of the
affairs of 79 member-states, I observed many practices which changed over
time and lacked compliance with good governance. This experience has made
me feel very concerned and appalled by what has been going on in Port
Moresby.

Most other commentators appear to be bogged down in legalistic arguments

and technicalities, without any reference to the real issues which are the main
focus of this presentation. The most annoying aspect of the continuing debate
over the pros and cons regarding the current political saga is that media,
lawyers, and journalists in Papua New Guinea and Australia, are almost all
regurgitating the same poisonous stuff in support of one faction or another
without offering a proper diagnosis of the disease that is suffocating the nation.
It is now time that we prescribe the proper medication to deal with the cancer
attacking our democracy, which is the struggle for power and money, and the
misuse of the state apparatus, including the National Parliament and the
Supreme Court to satisfy particular ambitions and greed.

During my years in parliament, many parliamentary and ministerial practices

began to change, supposedly in the name of political stability and progress. But,
as the proliferation of political parties increased, and party platforms became
meaningless documents without any commitment and loyalty, leaders of
successive governments-of-the-day (prime ministers) realised that they could
never count on their followers, whether as party members or members of a
coalition. This situation led to the introduction of innovations by the various
leaders during my 30 years of parliamentary duties. Having served under all
prime ministers to date in one capacity or another, I have been well-placed to
observe how the processes began to deteriorate. Let me; therefore, begin by
outlining my various responsibilities.

1|Page
Under Sir Michael Somare, I served as a member of the Constitutional Planning
Committee (CPC), 1972-75; minister for justice, 1973-74; deputy speaker, 1975-77;
and minister for national planning and development, 1978-79. Following the first
successful vote of no-confidence in March, 1980, I served under Sir Julius Chan
as minister for finance until 1982.When Paias Wingti unseated Sir Michael as
prime minister in 1985, I became minister for minerals and energy until 1988.

When Paias Wingti was challenged by Sir Rabbie Namaliu in 1988 and became
prime minister, i was appointed chairman of the bipartisan special committee
on the crisis in the North Solomons province until 1990. The committee’s report
was tabled in the National Parliament in 1991.

Following the 1992 elections, i served again under Paias Wingti as foreign
minister until 1994 and minister for mining and petroleum in 1994. During his term
as prime minister between 1997 and 1999, Bill Skate (late) appointed me special
state negotiator for Bougainville in 1998. With the prime minister’s support, I went
before the United Nations Security Council to appeal for a UN presence in
Bougainville. I signed the Lincoln Agreement in Lincoln, New Zealand, and the
ceasefire agreement on board the Australian naval vessel Tobruk at Loloho,
Bougainville, in 1998.

Under Sir Mekere Morauta’s prime ministership, I served briefly as mining minister
in 1999 and then as foreign minister. I was later appointed as special ministerial
envoy for international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Union Commission, and the
Asian Development Bank.

Following my defeat in the 2002 national elections, i was appointed in 2004 as

secretary-general of the 79-member ACP Group of States to be based in Brussels,
Belgium between 2005 and 2010. Pacific ACP leaders supported my nomination
by a vote of 11 to 3. The formal appointment was made by the ACP Council of
Ministers in December 2004.

It was against the background of my experience in the various positions

mentioned above that I have been exposed to the idiosyncrasies of national
politics and the national executive council. My long association with ACP-EU
institutions since 1978, including a term as co-president of the ACP-EU Joint
Parliamentary Assembly (1995-97), and as ACP secretary-general (2005-2010),
added to my experience and provided a unique opportunity to observe many
aspects of politics both from within Papua New Guinea and overseas,
particularly in Europe, Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.

In Papua New Guinea, I saw the emergence of vote-trading and how it

became an expensive business, which allowed the foreign exploiters of our
2|Page
timber and other natural resources to start imposing their influence in national
politics, and, in turn, reduce our leaders to financial slaves. In order to keep
members together, one requires a lot of money - which our leaders do not have
in the bank legally but as a result of corruption. Political horse-trading has
become so competitive that, unless one is connected to those who have the
financial resources, and especially the timber people, becoming prime minister
is a no-go zone for anyone without a great deal of money.

Thus, in terms of power and money, Papua New Guineans are now dancing to
the music composed by foreign businessmen who have taken up so much land
in Port Moresby for themselves and their businesses. Yet in places such as
Malaysia and Singapore, outsiders cannot acquire land so easily. So why do our
leaders turn a blind eye to this unacceptable situation in Papua New Guinea?
The answer is: money!

Even the procedures and processes of the national executive council have
been affected by the same money-men, who have been cleverly exploiting this
country’s natural resources and buying off our leaders in order to control the
politics of the nation. Thus, cabinet submissions no longer mean anything when
so many of them are prepared by people from outside the proper and normal
government agencies. This has been a growing practice during the past three
decades, over which the new boys on the block are fighting so that they too
can benefit from the spoils. Unfortunately, things are likely to get a lot worse
before we will see any real improvement, if improvement will still be possible
then.

As I have seen for myself, the same people who are exploiting our timber
resources and corrupting our leaders can be found in African countries such as
Gabon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Angola. They are so ruthless in
their business dealings that they do not care about their corporate social
responsibility to society, except when it can be used to cover up their own
greed through their involvement in occasional, selected community fund-raising
activities.

Equally dangerous for our country’s future is the blatant access to state
resources by members of parliament and their cronies in the public service.
Various people have been arrested and charged with corruption, and are then
allowed out on bail. Why is it that the system has failed to detect and give early
warning of people openly exploiting state resources? Could it be that our
present predicament has resulted from our lack of capacity? If this is true, then a
bigger threat to our national security and resources will surface when the
expected billions of dollars from resource development starts to flow to the
national treasury.

3|Page
Can the proposed legislation on the sovereign wealth fund be the answer by
providing security for our nation’s wealth? In this regard, two important issues
come to mind.

The first is the assumption contained in the proposal that there will be no
corruption among the six wise men on the board, who will be political
appointees charged with responsibility for the security of the nation’s wealth. If
this is the case, then our leaders are clearly completely ignorant of the global
financial and economic crisis of 2007-2009 - which does not provide a sound
basis for confidence in trusting banks, investment houses, accountants, lawyers,
and other devious souls who can easily take our wealth and disappear into the
wilderness.

Secondly, if it is already known that we do not have the technical capacity to

cope with present demands, who will implement the decisions made by the six
members of the board no matter what the projects are? Even when our national
wealth is to be invested overseas, it will cost money to do so; and, as advice
becomes competitive, how can we be sure that money will not be pushed
under the table for favours? As we have seen from the experiences of 2007,
2008 and 2009, and especially the loss of 152,000 service providers, financial and
other experts, including those from Canary Wharf in London, it is clear that even
the collective brain-power of the six wise men will be totally inadequate to
withstand the forces generated by the greed of bankers, financial advisers and
other so-called experts. Closer to home, let us be mindful of how Australian
accountants and lawyers robbed the citizens of Nauru of their investments
made with income earned from mining their phosphate.

Finally, the wholesale exposure of corruption on the part of members of both the
House of Commons and the House of Lords in London in 2007 and 2008 should
remind us that members of parliament cannot always be trusted. As a result of
media exposure of members of the mother of parliaments at Westminster, some
members have been made to return monies that had been improperly
acquired, and some have been sent to jail. Moreover, according to media
reports, even the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, has been found
guilty of corruption and is currently on a two-year suspended sentence.

The experiences just outlined provide a worrying basis for predicting what might
happen in Papua New Guinea. As popular saying has it, when you see an
iceberg floating on the ocean, what is above the water is only a small fraction
of the total mass of the iceberg. The danger lies below the surface of the water,
as we know from the history of the Titanic.

The ship of state is not the Titanic, a newly-launched ship which apparently
struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean due to a
4|Page
human error of judgement by the captain, and is now sitting on the bottom of
the ocean. Fortunately, Papua New Guinea’s ship of state is currently only
marooned! But, let us not forget that all citizens have a responsibility not to allow
it to sink into the hands of warlords and profiteers.

The present political convulsions in Papua New Guinea are not a new
phenomenon in human history. Those of us who have been exposed to
international politics and global events know that many other countries have
gone through much more dangerous and deadly experiences than the current
political skirmishes in Port Moresby.

It would, obviously, be very much more serious if people were to engage in

armed conflict. Having spent the best part of 10 years of my life working to
resolve the Bougainville conflict, as chairman of the bipartisan special
committee on the Bougainville Crisis and as special state negotiator during the
peace process, I will not enjoy seeing the situation in my country develop
beyond the ongoing political convulsions.

As minister for foreign affairs, I participated in the UN General Assembly’s debate

on the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict. Then, in 1991, I was attending the ACP-EU
Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Strasberg when United States president Bill
Clinton authorised the intervention by United States forces in the
Yugoslavia/Serbia armed conflict.

As ACP Co-president of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I led a

number of missions to various countries, including the Republic of Togo,
Equatorial Guinea, as well as Burundi and Rwanda in 1996 following the 1994
genocide, when approximately 800,000 men, women and children lost their lives.
What I saw in the refugee camps was horrific. It hurt to see hundreds of children
from Burundi and Rwanda, some barely eight to ten years old, being locked up
in prisons for crimes which they might not have committed on their own.

Children prisoners at the Ruyigi prison in Burundi. Picture courtesy of UK Channel

4 Television Among countries where resource development is a major issue, I
have had the opportunity to visit Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, where I met the
leaders from both countries.

More recently, in my capacity as ACP Secretary-General, I had to deal with

countries such as Mauritania, Sudan, Niger, and Chad. during the 2008 ACP
summit of heads of state and government in Accra, Ghana, I assisted the
Ghanaian president and his foreign minister in dealing with the situation when
two delegations, both claiming to be the lawfully elected government of
Mauritania, turned up for the meeting. We had to pursue this issue in Paris,
followed by a visit to Mauritania itself. With regards to oil-rich Sudan, I visited
5|Page
Khartoum on four different occasions for various meetings, including two
separate meetings on a one-to-one basis with president Al-Bashir. Today, what
was Sudan is divided into two countries for various reasons, including the
extraction of oil.

In 2007, I visited Tunisia, and, in 2009, Egypt, though neither is an ACP member-
state. My mission arose because of their close association with the African Union,
whose members are African member-states of the ACP. It was clear, from both
my personal observations and my dialogues with leaders that things were not
right there - which eventually proved to be correct, when these two countries
exploded politically in 2010 and 2011 respectively.

Though the matter is one for accountants and, ultimately, courts to determine, it
has been claimed that the former president of Egypt embezzled around $US60
billion. After the death of the late president Sani Abacha of Nigeria (whom I had
met in 1996), an account containing $US350 million was discovered in a bank in
Paris. In the overall scheme of things, let us not forget the history of former
presidents Marcos of the Philippines and Mobutu, of Zaire who, despite their ill-
acquired billions, finally escaped from their respective countries as very sick
people.

Following the 2008 presidential elections in Kenya, the result led to rioting in the
capital, Nairobi, which claimed the lives of more than 850 people. Over 600,000
people were displaced, mostly squatters in Cabrera, one of the biggest slums in
Africa. Ethnicity was one of the contributing factors, and one side of the political
configuration would not accept the result as it claimed to have been unfairly
treated. Oginga Odinga, who became prime minister in the subsequent
government of reconciliation with the incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki,
claimed that those who had fought for political independence, had been left
out of the political equation for far too long.

So, with regard to the current political convulsions in Papua New Guinea, it is
clear to me that the crux of the matter is not the Supreme Court or the National
Parliament as institutions of the state. The issue at stake is one of power and
money and the misuse of our state apparatus, including the Supreme Court and
the National Parliament, out of political ambition and greed.
In a paper prepared for the Kokopo summit on micro-finance and small business,
held on 3-7 April 2011, I wrote: When confronted with the current political scene
in Papua New Guinea, one feels somewhat cheated and angry at the lack of
transparency and compliance with the laws of Papua New Guinea and related
procedures by the leaders. What has happened to the dreams and aspirations
of emancipating ourselves from the Australian colonial cocoon in order to
paddle on our own canoe to the Promised Land following independence in
1975? Were all the efforts and contributions made by our people to attain
6|Page
political independence and to create a just society that would not be
contaminated by corruption, bribery and personal greed, and the constant
struggle for personal power misused? Were the energy and personal sacrifices
they put into these efforts and contributions really for nothing?

Following the declaration of independence, who was it who had the temerity to
proclaim publicly that ‘we are not Africa’, and, in doing so, to insinuate that we,
Papua New Guineans, are different in our character and national aspirations?
While participants in the constitution-making process in Papua New Guinea
drew on experience, both positive and negative, and precedents in other
countries, the Constitution itself is ‘home-grown’, both as a matter of law in that
it does not owe its authority to any foreign law or government but to the people
of Papua New Guinea, and because of the role many thousands of Papua New
Guineans and their elected representatives played in its making.

Some tens of thousands of people were consulted during the process by making
written submissions directly or as members of discussion groups which met and
considered both issues and options around the country, or by attending
meetings at which the CPC met with them when we went on tour around
Papua New Guinea and listened to what they said, before finalising our report.
It is, therefore, all the more dismaying to read comments by people, including
some very prominent foreign lawyers mistakenly described as ‘experts’,
suggesting that the problem with our Constitution is that it was designed by
outsiders. This is not only untrue. It diverts attention from the real, underlying
causes of the ongoing political convulsions. These seriously mistaken – and
misleading claims – are also being used to suggest that the Constitution is
somehow responsible for the current situation, and not the behaviours I have
outlined.

Having been a member of parliament for 30 years, I have personal experience

of the reality that parliamentary debates have become theatrical and
meaningless. Debating real issues has taken a back seat, while shouting
matches and bickering over procedures and irrelevant technicalities have
become the major preoccupation of the dominant performers in our National
Parliament.

The former member for Maprik, Sir Pita Lus might have been perceived as
vociferous and a loose cannon, but, behind this façade, there was a very
serious mind concerned with real issues, expressed in pidgin with lots of humour
and punctuated with colourful phrases in English. Unfortunately, most of the
arguments in recent times are self-centred, and although members may be very
argumentative, their arguments provide little guidance as to the way forward to
prosperity and integrity for Papua New Guinea.
So, how do we move forward?
7|Page
The most obvious thought that comes to mind is to go to election. While this may
provide the opportunity for some good prospective leaders to enter parliament,
unfortunately, history has not been very kind to us. Electing more ‘bros’ like the
present members into parliament will not necessarily resolve our ongoing
problem with the leadership issue.

Elsewhere, current political convulsions would have provided the perfect

environment for some general or commodore to take the bull by the horns and
throw some leaders into jail in the name of non-compliance, lack of good
governance and accountability, and to rule by decree. However, this would not
resolve our political problems. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on one’s
point of view, our various forces are not united and do not have the numbers or
unity to impose and sustain military rule. But there are, of course, people who
are misguided enough to try.

Perhaps one saving grace we have is the cultural and linguistic diversity among
our people.While we have two, in certain respects, dominant regions in the
highlands and the Sepik, and another region is separated from the mainland by
the ocean, our diversity means that we can never be united to prop up any one
leader forever.Although smaller regions such as Papua and the New Guinea
Islands have been cleverly used in the past, time is fast running out for this kind of
political exploitation.

Instead of exploiting the national constitution for their own purposes, members
of parliament should be examining the constitution in order to ensure that our
system of government caters for the future, taking into account cultural
differences, ethnicity, the distribution and sharing of wealth, provincial powers
for raising internal revenues, land use and ownership, and the costs of
infrastructure, education, and health, as well as issues such as migration, and
effective access by our people to opportunities for development.Unless we
address these fundamental issues, national leadership will continue to be a
major problem. What if the leadership issue is not resolved and more and more
problems are created in the future?

Australia must not be allowed to be involved in our internal problems as the so-
called “deputy sheriff” of the United States.They played a major role in the
creation of one of Papua New Guinea’s major problems, which was the
compulsory acquisition of Rorovana and Panguna land for the Bougainville
copper mine.Moreover, the lack of capacity that has continued to plague this
country was to a major extent created by Canberra and its colonial
administration with their lack of realistic policy initiatives to prepare Papua New
Guinea for independence.Until the 1960s, there were no full high schools in
Papua New Guinea, and our first university was opened only in the late
8|Page
1960s.We have tried our best since 1975 to educate and build up our trained
personnel and capacity for over 35 years, but, unfortunately, we are still a long
way from what we need. Although we are constantly being criticized by
Canberra and other Australians for our current lack of capacity, they have
never admitted that the fault was theirs.

Despite the quite sizeable pool of intellectuals who have joined the Waigani
ghetto at the Australian National University, Australians have never really
changed their views about Papua New Guinea, despite the grim reality that,
although many aspects of our country are changing, more and more Papua
New Guineans are being left out of mainstream development. Listening to the
political polemics by Australian spokespersons with regard to current political
events in Port Moresby gives the impression that there is nothing they can do for
us except to use their military might to protect their economic interests in Papua
New Guinea. They seem to think that Papua New Guineans are a bunch of
actual or potential law-breakers and that they can, therefore, apply their
security laws in the name of democracy and non-compliance without
recognizing that the main issue is, in fact, their failure to educate us well in
advance for independence and to help us build up our capacities both in the
public and private sectors.

In anticipation of our lack of adequate capacity, Australia made sure of

securing easy access to Papua New Guinea for Australian businesses and
citizens in bilateral agreements but without reciprocity for Papua New Guineans,
or an option even for Papuans, who are former Australian citizens, to obtain
similar opportunities in Australia.

Finally, if our leaders cannot resolve their differences, article 96 of the Cotonou
Partnership Agreement can be used in situations of non-compliance with the
principles of democracy. This can lead to economic sanctions, which, in Papua
New Guinea’s case, would mean that our tuna, cocoa, coffee, and other
commodities such as oil and gas would be taken into consideration. This would
be a real test for the European Union and Australia – whether they are genuinely
prepared to protect our democracy, or whether their own economic interests in
Papua New Guinea will take precedence over the maintenance of important
principles of democratic parliamentary rule.

In conclusion, it is hoped that the views expressed in this article, may assist
readers to appreciate and understand the complexities of the political situation
in Papua New Guinea. All citizens, whose rights are protected by the national
constitution of the independent state of Papua New Guinea, must use all
resources at their disposal, including their intellectual capacity, their other
manpower resources, and their voting rights to protect the constitution. It is both
our moral and collective duty to do this. As I am reminded by Nelson Mandela,
9|Page
“overcoming poverty is not a task of charity; it is an act of justice. Like slavery
and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome
and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a
generation to be great. You can be that great generation. let your greatness
blossom”, and as Martin Luther King has reminded us, “the ultimate measure of
a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but
where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
Are we that generation?
Source: http://www.webnode.com
http://www.pngperspective.com/…/kaputin-png-parliament-cou…/

10 | P a g e