Pasifik Wantoks International

Former Governor General passes away in Honiara

2012-02-16T03:46:00.000-08:00

Solomon Islands former governor general, Sir Baddley Devesi, has passed away in the national capital, Honiara, at 6pm today (Thursday 16, February 2012 – Honiara time).

The late Devesi became the first Solomon Islands governor general in 1978 and served two consecutive terms and only ended his tenure as required by the constitution – a total of ten years.

Following the end of his tenure as GG, he entered national politics and successfully contested and won the parliamentary seat of North East Central Guadalcanal in the early 1990s.

As a political leader, the late Devesi had served in a number of executive governments, during the late Solomon Mamaloni era, as a senior government minister.

In the late 1990s, Devesi broke rank with his former political colleague and good friend, the late Mamaloni, who was then the Prime Minister, due to his displeasure over allegations of persistent corruption in government, fuelled by Asian loggers.

Subsequently, the late Devesi became the Leader of Opposition in parliament. During his leadership, he strongly advocated anti-corruption and accountability in national leadership.

He remained in national politics until the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF) forcefully ousted the democratically elected government of former Prime Minister, the late Bart Ulufa'alu, of which he was Deputy Prime Minister, in a coup in 5 June 2000.

During the height of the ethnic conflict, where he was one of the main targets of the MEF armed thugs and leadership due to his prominant status on his native Guadalcanal, the late Devesi left and seek refuge in the Western Province in 2000 and 2001.

As Paramount Chief of his tribal group in the Tasimboko region, North East Central Guadalcanal, the late Devesi exited national politics under duress at the post coup December 2001 national election.

The late Devesi has left behind his wife, June, and eight adult children and several grandchildren.

Condolence Message:

From Catherine Koroi Angiki and Children in Brisbane to Aunty June and family members in Honiara and New Zealand: We learn with great sadness the passing away of uncle Devesi. Our prayers and thoughts are with you all during this time of sorrow. May the good Lord continue to comfort you.

Solomon Islands illegal workers arrest in Queensland

2012-02-07T22:41:00.000-08:00

News Scoop

Queensland Police and Immigration Officials have joinedforced in a stinging operation that led to the arrest of a number of SolomonIslanders, who are working illegally in farms near Brisbane.

According to sources who have witnessed the arrest and the unfoldingevents, the workers were on their way to a farm when Immigration Officials andPolice, stopped their vehicle.

Following a search of the vehicle’s occupants, ImmigrationOfficials and Police Officers found that a number of them had overstayed theirvisas with no legal permit to work in Australia.

Sources alleged that the arrest could be the work ofsomeone, who is not happy with the people concerned, and had decided to reportthe individuals to the authorities.

As of this evening, sources claimed that following thearrest, police and immigration officials took the individuals to a policestation for questioning and later put them in custody.

Sources also confirmed that four other Solomon Islanderswere also arrested early this week and subsequently deported on Tuesday back tothe Solomon Islands.

Recently, some farmers and subcontractors have hired illegalworkers, included students, who had left their studies. Most of them are Indians,Africans, Middle Eastern, Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Sources closed to some illegal workers, farmers andsub-contractors, in townships near Brisbane, alleged that similar operations inthe past were failed because someone in the police and immigration had tip-off farmersand subcontractors before the operations.

In other cases of pure cruelty and slavery, a number of subcontractorshave exploited Solomon Islanders, who are considered by farmers as hardworking, by sending them to work 14 hours per day under the minimum wage inAustralia.

Further details will come shortly… watch this space..

Abolishing the "Aid Coordination Office" is a smart move

2012-01-31T18:13:00.000-08:00

The decision by Prime Minister, Gordon Darcy Lilo, to abolish the “Aid Coordination Office” or better known as "National Bureau for Social Economic Reform (NBSER)" should be applauded as a step in the right direction.

Whether or not the action was a “point-scoring” exercise by the Prime Minister is besides the point. It was an intelligent move that saves Solomon Islands millions of dollars.

It also puts an end to the appointment of individuals, with major credibility problem, whose agenda is quite suspicious and potentially harmful to the future security of Solomon Islands.

Philip - you are wrong

Danny Philip (former PM)’s attempt to demonise the action and warning of future ramifications is nonsense and a clear reflection of a leader, who is out of touch with reality.

One of the issues that concerned many Solomon Islanders about the existence of these so called consultants is the involvement of Andrew Nori, Lesley Kwaiga and Alfred Sasako.

From a credibility point of view, this is a public relation (PR) night mare for the government. Yes – they are known as policy advisors, but yes – we have all good reasons not to trust them.

Two of the key advisors of this group are former leaders of the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF). They were not the foot-soldiers, no! They were the brain-power of the armed militant group.

Cost to the nation

No one can deny the fact that the office was an unnecessary financial burden to taxpayers. The salary scale of a government bureaucrat at Permanent Secretary or Political Appointee level is $90,000.00 per annum.

The total cost of the five political appointees, whom the former Prime Minister had personally recruited to the office of “Aid Coordination” was estimated to be around SBD$4.5m annually.

The question is: What qualification and expertise do they possess and bring to the table?

Surprisingly, they are the most unlikely candidates for the task of rebuilding Solomon Islands from the ashes of their own destruction. They are Alfred Sasako, Andrew Nori, and Lesley Kwaiga.

The task of the office was to coordinate, plan and implement government economic and reform programs. Surprisingly, none of them is an economist, let alone with an impressive background.

Waste of taxpayers money

The worrying issue about their appointment is the duplication of the roles similar to the ones now undertaken by other government ministries such as the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Planning and the Prime Minister’s Office.

Of major concern is the expertise and capability of the staff. With the exception of Luma Darcy, a career public servant and Simeon Bouro, a former politician and diplomat with a squeaky clean reputation, the mention of the others is a curse to the country.

Let’s take a brief snap shot of the office bearers.

1. Andrew Nori – a lawyer graduated from UPNG, former leader of the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF), failed politician, former coup leader, former government minister. Allegations against him of pocketing millions of dollars and hashed money during the ethnic conflict are unresolved due to the amnesty that provides him immunity from prosecution.

2. Lesley Kwaiga – a lawyer graduated from UPNG and a former Deputy Leader of the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF). Amongst other major criminal activities he had committed during the MEF coup era, he was implicated in using armed militants to possess vehicles from car dealerships in Honiara during the conflict.

3. Alfred Sasako – a Public Relation spin doctor, former journalist, and former government minister. No one denies that Sasako is a Public Relation spin-doctor, but his tainted image over allegations of colluding with MEF thugs to capture former GRA warlord, Harold Keke, had made him an unfitting candidate for the position.

The most intriguing issue about the appointment of Nori is his job description as a policy advisor on “Land Reform”.

The danger of employing ex-MEFs

Everyone in the country and the international community is well aware of the role played by Nori and his assistant in crime, Kwaiga, during the ethnic conflict between 1998 and 2003.

Back then, they allowed their egos, without their thinking caps, to lead them and didn’t show any respect for the rule of law, so what guarantees us that they are going to act responsibly now?

Make no mistake, the Solomon Islands of today (i.e, ailing economy, political instability, social dislocation and uncontrolled corruption) is a byproduct of their action.

The efforts by the international community now to rebuild and rehabilitate our public institutions, is the result of the role played by these two political appointees.

The "credibility"of Nori and Kwaiga should have ruled them out of any prospective employment opportunity with the government.

Obviously, the former Prime Minister was sleeping on the wheels.

I’m sure victims and survivors of the Guadalcanal ethnic conflict are watching with horror the appointment of Nori and Kwaiga.

Whose land are they going to reform? – Hopefully not the land tenure system on Guadalcanal.

After all – Nori and Kwaiga are the most unlike candidates to engage in land reform in the country.

I’m sure Guadalcanal people are silently furious that the very individuals, who have inflicted them much pains over five years, are given the responsibility to advice the government on land matters.

Additionally, Sasako's political history of flattering from one government to another, hypocrisy, tax evasion and extra marital affairs, has made him the most unlikely candidate for the job.

The question is - what role does Sasako play in an “Aid Coordination Office”?

If there's any justification about the employment of Nori, Kwaiga and Sasako as advisors, it has to be that they were employed when Ronald Fugui, was secretary to the former Prime Minister.

The MEF connection

Fugui, Nori and Kwaiga were partners in crime during the ethnic tension. Back then, Fugui was the Lord Mayor of the Honiara City Council and also member of the MEF National Security Council.

In a sense, the appointees are part of the MEF’s All Boys Club, known in the Solomon Islands society as “Wantok System”. The frightening reality is – what are they planning in the name of reforms?

Guadalcanal leaders should start asking questions now or else, the Nori-Kwaiga land reform program is the reincarnation of the MEF agenda to take control of Guadalcanal and every province during the ethnic conflict. The plan failed to materialise due to the intervention of RAMSI.

We need to scrutinise the activities of these individuals because prior to the MEF coup of June 2000, no one, included the mainstream media, was bold and gutsy enough to ask hard questions.

In the end, our country pays the ultimate price for inaction.

The Ugly Side of the Australian Race Debate

2012-01-29T18:44:00.000-08:00

My view on racism in Australia

Participants of a conference on "Still Image Messages". Second from right is Duran Angiki.

In mid-2009, I was invited to a conference at Wollongong University, South Coast of NSW, to present a seminar on the topic: “Wantokism”and a brief outline of my research. The organisers of the conference requested participants to present papers along the theme: “Writing the Pacific”.

The conference was organised for scholars of different academicbackgrounds and disciplines, who are writing and researching the PacificIslands region. The three-day conference was jointly organised by theAustralian National University (ANU) and Wollongong University.

Out of the less than 20 participants who were attending the conference,only four were from the Pacific Islands region: an Indo-Fijian, a mix raceFijian lecturer from Victoria University in Wellington, NZ and two of us fromthe Solomon Islands.

During one of our panel discussions, our Fijian lecturerfriend from NZ, who happened to be one of my former lecturers in historypolitics at University of the South Pacific (USP), enthusiastically suggestedthat Pacific Islands’ scholars should be playing a role in advocatingAboriginal struggle.

As the discussion progresses, I hesitantly weighed into thedebate. My point was, the case of Aboriginal community in Australia is quitedifferent to ours in the Pacific Islands region.

I said the challenges and struggles that the Aboriginalcommunities are facing are a "byproduct" of a “developing people (third world), living in afirst world nation.

Indigenous disadvantages are designed and enforced by "White-Australian"mainstream political institutions, which are clearly uncomfortable about openly debating issues regarding the cultural, social, economic and political wellbeing of the indigenouscommunity.

One of the causes of Aboriginal struggle

Politically, the challenges are enormous and perpetuated bythe fact that the indigenous population of Australia will never see the lightof "Political Self Determination" or Independence.

This is an issue that goes direct to the heart of indigenous self-esteem,pride, aspiration, cultural, social, political and economic participation, and the lack of desire to better their future.

For decades, the majority of indigenous people, who lived in remote settlements around Australia are caged by designed and pushed to circumstances beyond their control (racism, discrimination, disadvantage etc), which instill in their minds distrust and dislike of anything and everthing government and yet we often wonder why?

Secondly, the Anglo Australian media will never allow a genuinedebate about Aboriginal problems from the perspectives of the indigenouscommunity. The mainstream Anglo-controlled media will kill any issue that deemsembarassing and against their interests.

In the end, indigenous people of thiscountry will continue to suffer the same fate that indigenous communities of countriessuch as Canada, USA, NZ, are also experiencing in the hands of “Pakeha, or Palangi or Kaivalangi or Araikwao.

I've never regretted making the above assertion in frontof professors and doctors of philosophy. My observation then and stillis, is as long as Australia exists and remains a predominantly White -Society, Aboriginals will remain and continue to be "second-classcitizens" in their own land.

The culture of racism in mainstream Anglo-Australian society against indigenous people has continued to be a major stumbling block in every attempt by some sections of the White-Australian society to recognise indigenous rights and equality.

History tells me that institutionalised "racism" is not new in the White-Australian mainstream society. And worse still in the Anglo-controlled mainstream media, government institutions, public and private sectors, and the NGOs.

Mainstream media contribution to racism

In my own experience, the news media in Australia is thelast frontier of Anglo-ownership of this country. And this is also the same situation with other public and educational institutions.

Allowing their workforces to bemixed with people of different colours is a huge threat to the White or Anglo -Australian ownership andsupremacy in this country.

A clearindication of this case is the fact that out of the "three" free-to-air televisionstations in Australia, none of them has a news reader or prime time news anchor of an indigenous ethnic or racial background, let alone a person of black or brown skin.

Compared the Australian news networks with BBC, CCN, Fox News and many otherinternational news networks in the United States and UK, television newsnetworks are anchored by “Black Face” journalists.

Historical Context of Racial Discrimination in Australia

Racism against the indigenous people of thiscountry is a modern reflection of the 1800s White Australian policies. Back then, racial discrimination laws were formulated toprotect the interests of settlers.

And also legitimated the forced acquisition ofland and assimilation of indigenous people into a designed “White Australian”society. The whole idea was to change the skin colour of black indigenouspeople.

The Australian government ‘White Policy’ simply treatedindigenous people as “non-entity” and labelled them under the same category of stones,trees and animals in their own land.

The inhuman treatment of Aboriginals finally ended in1967, following a national referendum, where White-Australians, the only oneswith voting rights, were asked to vote and determine whether or notAboriginals should be considered as human beings and allowed to become citizens.

Referendum triggers race relation

Following a “yes” vote, which was not overwhelming, to recognise Aboriginals as human beings,it started an ongoing race struggle that simply unable to go away until today. Itwas the beginning of a long struggle that mainstream Australian society hasattempted at every twist and turn not to revisit.

Sadly, the biggest hypocrisy is what the Australiangovernment and its social, political and economic institutions have been doing againstthe Aboriginal people of yesteryears that perpetuated until today.

During this period, successive Australian Federal and States' governments have been unfairlyexpecting indigenous people, who were denied human rights, dignity, equal opportunity, and formal education until 1967,to educate and immediately integrate to mainstream Anglo-society.

For decades, the above case has furthercomplicated by governments politicising and economising of everythingAboriginals, without consideration to indigenous struggles to embrace new and rapid social, cultural, economic and political changes and challenges.

Aboriginals - 45 years, White Australians - 300 years

This year (2012) marks 45 years following the abolishing ofthe White Australian policy. Again, this year marks four years since the formerPrime Minister, Kevin Rudd, formally apologised to the Aboriginal communities and the stolen generation for the wrongs of the past.

But since then nothing has changed in the institutionalised racism, stereotyping and negative perception, attitude and treatment by the mainstreamAnglo-dominant society of Aboriginals.

Although some of the decisions and policies taken by recent governments are the infant steps in the right direction, they failed to stop racism at its ugliest form against indigenouspeople and stop short of restoring indigenous rights in landownership, self determination and dignity.

Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in this country. They are a "damaged " people , who continue to suffer social stigmatisation and separation, cultural dislocation, and economic and political disadvantages.

One classic example of this is the formular of governments funding for Aboriginal communities. According to Aboriginal communities, project funding and aid money are often quarantined by States and Federal governments, to the detriment of the people.

The processes of applying for States and Federalaid fund are so complicated for any average Aboriginal community or institution or person toapply. In such a case, Aboriginal institutions, individuals and communities, have to rely on Anglo-Australian business experts to help them out in their project proposals.

In the end,only White Australian mainstream business houses are benefiting from governmentfunding and projects, with only peanuts trickling down to indigenous community.

Unfair expectations

The sad irony of this issue is the unfair expectations by AngloAustralian institutions, for Aboriginals to speed up their integration intotheir society in 45 years.

White Australians had taken 300 years, since their arrivalfrom Europe, to get their in-house right in Australia today. But expect indigenouspeople to achieve parity in slightly more than 40 years.

In my experience with the Aboriginal community of the MidNorth Coast of NSW, people are living in third world environment, but their sad situations and challenges are always maskedby the sophistication of the White-Australian society.

Indigenous disadvantages are also perpetuated by Federal and States governments’ programs that are tailoredto meet the expectations and sophistication of an Anglo-Australian society.

Worse still, the programs are often designed and implemented by Anglo or White bureaucrats andconsultants, who have never lived or understood Aboriginal mind set, cultural andsocial context.

The sad reality is in may cases, like many similar cases in the Pacific Islands region, White-consultants left indigenous communities with negative impressions of the indigenous communities.

Wrong programs for wrong people

In contemporary Australian society, the consistent failure by mainstream "Anglo-Australian" government institutions to address the fundamental issues that are impacting on the "development" of the indigenouscommunity is complicated by the issue of racism

It contributes and plays a huge role in the widening gap in the social, economic and political status and wealth between mainstream White-Australian society andthe indigenous community.

In the heart of this debate is the case of "institutionalised racism", which perpetuates indigenous disadvantages and victimises non-caucasian migrants to this country: a problem that resurfacedin two separate events over the weekend in Sydney and Canberra.

The first event was a call by one of Australia finestcitizens, and first generation Asian immigrant, Dr Charlie Teo, for all Australiansto be compassion to new migrants to this country.

In a speech to mark the Australia Day in Sydney, Dr Teo condemnedthe Australia’s Federal government major political parties for flounderingpolicies on immigration and treatment of asylum seekers.

The second event was a peaceful demonstration by a group of indigenousAustralians on Thursday (26/1/012), which quickly turned into violence againstthe Leader of Opposition, Tony Abbott.

The Ugly Side of Australian Politics

Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Opposition Leader,Abbott, were officiating at a ceremony to mark the Australian Day celebrationin a Canberra restaurant, when protestors arrive.

The protesters target was the Leader of Opposition, TonyAbbott, who had earlier in the day, told a radio and television stations that the“Aboriginal Tent Embassy”, which is pitched at the front-lawn of the oldParliament house in Canberra, should be removed.

The statement infuriated a group of indigenous people, who hadtravelled from various parts of the country and gathered at the tent embassy inCanberra, to mark the “Australia Day”, as a “Sorry Day” for Aboriginals, whoseland were forcefully occupied and confiscate by White Australians.

Following the demonstration outside of the restaurant, policeand armed security guards escorted Abbott and Gillard through a police human barricadeto a waiting motorcade.

The demonstrators also staged another one on the followingday (27/1/012), where young Aboriginals were filmed andphotographed to have spat at an Australian flag before setting it on fire.

The history of racism in Australia is always a thorny issuein the effort to build bridges, not only between White Australians andindigenous people, but with people of other ethnic groups.

Sadly, racism is not only exists in Australia. It existseverywhere around the globe, in many different ways, forms and levels, including my country of origin, Solomon Islands.

What frustrating in the end is the hypocrisy of the Australian government, which often lectures developing countries about moral ethics and universial values and obligations, when in her own backyard, she fails to fix institutionalise racism against Aboriginals.

Melanesian politics and the risk of harboring Fiji (Part 1)

2012-01-17T22:37:00.000-08:00

Melanesia traps in Fiji’s selfishagenda

Opinion

Twoweekends ago, Fiji’s military regime unexpectedly lifted its five years PublicEmergency Laws, which banned public meetings and censored media freedom. Thedecision was greeted with fanfare by critics of the dictator across the PacificIslands region. But as the week progresses, it’s apparent that the military dictatorwas simply replacing the draconian emergency regulations with new repressivelaws, designed to eradicate any remainingpolitical opponents, putting serious doubts about Fiji’s on and off promise ofreturning the nation to democractic rule in less than 24 months.

Butthe biggest disappointment is Fiji's dictator selfish agenda, which continuesto threaten the future security and stability of Melanesia, through the regime’sdirect promotion of dictatorship and coup by continuing to antagonise therelationship of the Melanesian Spear Head Group (MSG) with Samoa, Australia andNew Zealand, who have been calling on Fiji to respect human rights, mediafreedom and restore democracy in the island nation.

Fiji’s selfish agenda in joiningthe Melanesian group

Therecent action by Fiji has simply demonstrated the obvious: Fiji’s interest inMelanesia is always based on a selfish political agenda, which has nothing to enhancethe image, reputation and credibility of Melanesia internationally. In a way, Fiji’s association with Melanesiais opportunistic and leaders of the subregional body should be alerted to thelong term ramifications of harboring Fiji to regional security and political stability.

Onthe basis of ethnic connection, Fiji is the only non-Pijin speaking member of theMSG, which makes her union with Melanesia purely "economic" and "political opportunism". Fiji’sattitude towards Melanesia is always noncommittal. It was clearly demonstrated whenmembers of the original body of the MSG initially plotted the idea of establishinga Melanesian subregional economic trading bloc in 1993/4. Fiji did not send a delegation or observer,during the preliminary dialogue in Honiara. It was only after less than five years following the formation of the MSGand completion of ground works for free trade agreements between PNG, SolomonIslands and Vanuatu that Fiji’s former military coup-leader, Sitiveni Rabuka, realisedthe economic importance of the Melanesian bloc.

Rabukarequested an observer status for Fiji and few years later, his governmentrequested full membership. Although MSG members were excited about theinclusion of Fiji into its fold, its membership, was also viewed with someapprehension by the various section of the group. Since becoming a member ofthe MSG, Fiji has lived up to its billing as a smooth operator in Polynesianand Melanesian politics.

Sincethe aftermath of Frank Bainimarama’s military coup in 2006, Fiji has beencleverly using the Melanesian bloc as her apologist in nullifying calls byAustralia, New Zealand, Samoa and the international community, to place social(sports), political, and economic sanctions against its regime. Sadly, political leaders of the Melanesian regionhave allowed themselves to be shackled by the Fijian dictator into one corner ofthe political debate as his puppets.

This is where the story beginsand ends

Theonly country in the Pacific Islands region with a sense of responsibility is Samoabecause it has no economic, political and social interests in Melanesia, butout of concern, she reminded the Fiji dictator his existence in the region, isnot only a curse to Melanesia, but a huge threat to regional stability.

Onecould only hope that Melanesian leaders, whose countries are in the heart of theark of instability, can foresee the huge risks of harbouring Fiji. In thecontext of Solomon Islands, the failure by three successive former PrimeMinisters (Manasseh Sogavare, Dr Derek Sikua and Danny Philip) to take a firmstance against dictatorship and coup culture, is a reflection of the deeperproblems and uncertainties that the country and other Melanesian nations are facing.

Challenges facing the future of Melanesia

Oneof the biggest problems in the Melanesia bloc is quality leadership or the lackof it. This ongoing challenge has clearly exposed the root cause of past and currentpolitical, economic and social instability in Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islandsand Papua New Guinea. Luckily, PNG and Vanuatu are able to contain pastpolitical security issues and the threats of military and police coup, but thesame cannot be said about PNG’s Bougainville, Solomon Islands and Fiji, wherepoor leadership has become the catalyst to coups, ongoing security threats,political inspired-riots, social instability and ailing economies.

Theuncertainty in the region continues to allow corruption at every level ofgovernance in the country. Whilecorruption is a global phenomenon, its existence in the subregion is a majorworrying concern, not only to donor countries, but also to law abiding citizens.One cannot look further than the history of successive governments in SolomonIslands before and after the coup of June 2000. Corruption, in all itsdifferent forms, has grown out of proportion, despite the presence of theintervention force, RAMSI. The damage thatcorruption has caused and created for the medium and long termprospects of rebuilding the battered democratic institutions in thecountry is beyond repair.

Itis only fair to say that the Melanesian bloc, as a political entity and playerin regional developments, has proven to be an unreliable partner in the fightagainst corruption and efforts to deal with the root causes of social, economicand political instability in the subregion. At some stages, questions have to beasked of the Solomon Islands, PNG and Vanuatu leaders and their politicaladvisors as to –what economic, social and political benefits – they’ve derived fromsupporting the Fijian military dictator?

Threats to Melanesian nations

Forleaders of the Melanesian regional body and countries, their unwavering supportof Fiji is a direct assault on democracy and an assuring message to former coupleaders, failed politicians, rogue members of military and police forces in theregion that overthrowing a democratically elected government through the barrelof a gun would be condoned and welcomed with open arms in Melanesia. Our leaders might be laughingnow, but they are digging their own graves by perpetuating instability in theirown backyards. The collective decision by leaders of the Melanesian bloc to be anapologist of the Bainimarama regime is noxious and regrettable. But it is not too late forthe newly elected prime minister of Solomon Islands, Gordon Darcy Lilo, to showhis true leadership credential.

Condoningcoup and dictatorship in Melanesia is likening to a slow motion suicidestrategy. For leaders of the MSG, history is not on our side. In 1980, Vanuatuwent through a pre-independent political upheaval, which almost ruined herquest for political independence from France and Britain. Fiji followed with acoup in 1987, which since then ingrained a coup-culture in the psyche ofmilitary personnel of the country until today. Over the past 20 years, the Fiji military hasoverthrown four civilian and democratically elected governments in fourseparate coups. PNG joined the arch of instability during the Bougainvillecrisis in 1988. Despite an uneasy calm on the island through ongoing internationalefforts to rebuild and rehabilitate the island; it continues to face threats from former roguemembers of the now disbanded BRA.

SolomonIslands joined the queue of instability in 1998, which was exacerbated by the MalaitaEagle Force (MEF) coup of June 2000. Despite the disbanding of the MEF armedmilitia group in 2003, following the Australian-led intervene force of RAMSI, formerarmed militia members continue to enforce a direct threat to national securityand stability. This ongoing threat continues to thrive in the political scene,where former MEF armed criminals and leaders, now hold positions of poweramongst the government as political advisors and leaders, including the currentgovernment of the Solomon Islands. In the case of the current government, ithas also appointed two former coup leaders of MEF armed militia, Andrew Nori andLesley Kwaiga, as government advisors on land reform, an issue that triggered theethnic conflict in 1998.

Thepresence of RAMSI in the Solomon Islands since June 2003 has played a huge rolein providing national security, though uneasy as it seems. But the future ofthe country is still uncertain due to the eminent departure of RAMSI. Sadly,our politicians appear to have learnt very little from the failures of pastleaders. Since the intervention of RAMSI, current political leaders have continuedto behave like their predecessors, who were part of major corruption cases and ongoing political instability.

Unfortunately,the inaction by Melanesian leaders to condemn Fiji’s dictator for his brutaltreatment of political opponents and the media appears to be the very basis ofwhy our leaders have failed to appreciate the contribution by Samoa, Australiaand New Zealand to the efforts of rebuilding and rehabilitating Solomon Islandsfrom the aftermaths of the coup in 2000. I guess generating “instability” inMelanesia is what matter most to our leaders.

Besides Australia and NewZealand, our leaders should thank Samoa for acting as a moral compass in aregion where the resource rich nations of the Melanesian bloc have been makingwaves for all the wrong reasons, but showing little quality in leadership. Theirsupport of Fiji is a mockery of the democratic principles that supposedly legitimisedtheir own existence.

Melanesianleaders should hang their heads in shame for allowing the MSG to be exploitedby a dictator, whose only interest is his political survival and crave forpower. It is high time for Melanesian leaders to talk the talk and walk thewalk and show true leadership ticker. At the end of the day, Samoa will havethe last laugh, because Melanesia is starring down the barrel of futureinstability.

Fafetailave Samoa for your vision in fighting and envisaging a truly Pacific(peaceful) Islands community where the rule of law and the values and virtuesof democracy are the corner stones of pursuing real happiness and obtainingtrue security and peace.

Melanesian Politics and the risk of harboring Fiji (Part 2)

2012-01-17T22:28:00.000-08:00

Background of Fijian and Samoan rivalry politics

Therivalry between Fiji and Samoa is not new. It becomes very clear in recentyears following the Fiji’s military coup in 2006 that ousted a democraticallyelected government, which immediately pitches Samoa – a pro-democracy advocator– against Fiji – a military regime, ruled by a self-appointed Prime Minister. Thisenmity can be traced back to the era before the arrival of Christianity in theEastern Pacific Islands region in the 1700s.

Butbefore you read and make sense of my next article, let’s put into context therivalry that trapped the Melanesian bloc in a rather messy feud that hasnothing to do with it.

Fiji and Samoa are class actors of island politics

Fordecades, the Fiji-Samoa rivalry has been simmering under the radar in everythingPacific. It escalated in the 1960s following the unwinding presence ofcolonialism in the region. It left a power vacuum in regional Western-inspired politicalleadership that allowed both countries to step up their traditional rivalry in acontemporary way: “Fijian - Samoan Pride Competition”, which exists inpolitics, economic development, education, sports, tourism and regional bodies.

Inthe late 1970s, Fiji appeared to have the upper hand as it hosted headquartersand headed regional bodies. The ledger appeared to be equated in the late1980s, when regional bodies such as the South Pacific Regional Environment Program(SPREP) and Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), were established and hosted outsideof Fiji. But, even with the establishment of new regional bodies outside ofFiji and Samoa, both nations continued to play influential roles in theappointments of executive staff.

Aclassic example of the above case is the appointments of the heads of regionalbodies in recent years. The Fiji-based SPS Forum Director General, TuilomaNeroni Slade, and the Director of the Forum Fisheries Agencies (FFA) in SolomonIslands, Su’a Tanielu, are Samoans. On the other hand, the Director General ofthe South Pacific Community (SPC) in New Caledonia is a Solomon Islander, DrJimmy Rogers; while the Vice Chancellor of the Fiji-based University of theSouth Pacific (USP), is an Indo-Fijian.

Inearly 1990s, this traditional rivalry took a new twist due to the decision byFiji to join the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), whose members are Papua NewGuinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, while West Papua and New Caledonia gainedobserver status. It was a strategic positioning in Fiji’s quest to exert majorinfluence on Melanesia as a power-bloc.

Fiji – the regional wizard

Geographically,Fiji is located at the crossroad of Polynesian and Melanesian subregions of theSouth Pacific. The racial makeup of Fiji’s indigenous population is splitbetween Polynesians and Melanesians. The inclusion of Indians– as a thirdparty– was of colonial making.

Fiji’sindigenous ethnic Polynesian population is a minority group. They are from theislands of Lau group, in the Eastern part of the country near Tonga, and RotumaIsland, on the Northern side. The indigenous Melanesian population of thecountry is spread across inland main islands of Viti Levu, Vanua Levu and theWestern islands of Fiji, the Yasawa. Interestingly, since the colonial erauntil 1987, the political leadership in Fiji has been always under thePolynesian chiefly system.

Theabove system is different to Melanesia and its “Big Man” system, whereleadership is achieved and legitimated through demonstrated abilities, accomplishmentsand accumulation of wealth. The Melanesian system is perceived as fluid anddemocratic.

Onthe contrary, the Polynesian system is hereditary, hierarchical and dictatorial.Leadership is only restricted to the children of chiefs. For decades, theintersection of these two contradictory systems complicated Fiji’s politicalsystem. It is a mixture of Western, Polynesian, Melanesian, Indian and themixed race.

Tofurther complicate matters, Fiji is a Melanesian country, but practises aPolynesian leadership system. Prior to the coup of 1987, the political systemof the country was highly structured and hierarchical, and only a chief couldbe appointed as Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Fiji Great Council ofChiefs. As a former British colony, the colonial administration adapted aPolynesian chiefly system.

FollowingFiji’s independence in 1970, its political leadership was vested in the handsof a traditional Chief, the late Sir Ratu Kamasese Mara. The name “Kamasese” isSamoan according to late Mara’s own explanation, which begged the question onwhether or not the late Sir Ratu Kamasese Mara possessed Samoan blood, besideshis Tongan ancestry. This blood connection also partly explained the reasonwhy, during the pre and post-colonial era in the Pacific Islands region, Fijiwas always allied with Polynesia up until the late 1990s.

Thedamage to the Fiji’s Polynesian system was done in 1987, when a Melanesiancommoner, then Fiji Military Commander, Sitiveni Rabuka, dismantled thetraditional chiefly influence on democratically-inspired institutions. Fewyears later, Sitiveni quit his military position and became the first commonerprime minister of Fiji. His revolutionary action also led to his appointmentten years later as Chairman of the Fiji’s Great Council of Chief – a positionthat prior to 1997, only reserved for chiefly-blood descendants.

Sincethe colonial days, Fiji’s racial and ethnic identity have been complicated byher Melanesian roots, Polynesian chiefly system, Western-inspired politicalinstitutions and Indo-Fijians ownership of the national economy and businesssector. For decades the above dynamics and population composition haveprevented Fiji from openly declaring its Melanesian connection.

Historical context of modernPacific Islands region

Politically,Samoa became one of the first Pacific Island nations to gain politicalindependence in 1962 and followed by Fiji in 1970. This political history ofthe Pacific Islands region initially gave Samoa, Fiji and Tonga, aconstitutional monarch, an upper hand in regional politics.

Itdisadvantaged the Melanesian countries of Papua New Guinea, which gained politicalindependence in 1976 shortly followed by the Solomon Islands in 1978, beforeVanuatu completed the process in 1980. The above brief history has partlyexplained the slow progression in Melanesian politics and leadership in theregion

Oneother contributing factors in the failure of Melanesian leaders to make animmediate impact in regional leadership was leaders of the newly independentcountries of the Melanesian bloc were young graduates of colleges in PNG, NewZealand and Solomon Islands with few years’ experience in national politics,let alone regional and international politics. Additionally, not one receiveduniversity education. Michael Somare, the PNG’s post independent Prime Minister,was a journalist with the country’s National Broadcasting Commission (NBC)prior to entering politics. Peter Kenilorea, now Sir Peter, of the SolomonIslands, was a college graduate from New Zealand and only joined the Britishcolonial administration in late 1960s and few years later, he became thecountry’s Prime Minister.

Thethen Prime Minister of Vanuatu, late Father Walter Lini, was a graduate of theBritish colonial owned secondary schools in the Solomon Islands, King George VINational Secondary School. Following his secondary education, the young Lini attendeda seminary, where he graduated as a priest. In all, pioneer political leadersof the Melanesian bloc were young with limited experiences in regional andinternational politics. Despite their limited experience, they negotiated thepolitical future of their countries.

Duringthe 1970s, Polynesia was given a free reign in regional politics. One of theadvantages that aided Polynesian dominance of regional politics and leadershipsince the 1970s was the traditional chiefly system of the Polynesia whereleaders are identified at earlier stages and given early exposer and groomingto leadership positions. While in the context of Melanesia, leaders wereeducated by Christian churches and fought their ways through colonial administrations’red-tapes to realise their political leadership aspirations. It led to a bitterdislike amongst Melanesian leaders and the educated elite of former colonialrulers.

Duringthe late 1970s and early 1980s, when young elected leaders of the Melanesianregion began the process of learning to walk the walk and talk the talk ofregional and international politics, leaders of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, wereshaping regional politics. It disadvantaged Melanesian nations in influencingand shaping regional political and economic interests.

Butthe dominance by the Polynesian nations of regional leadership and politicsover the past two to three decades has simply united Melanesian nations. Unlikethe Polynesian nations of the region, which have no common link, except ahistory of traditional rivalry, the Melanesians are socially and culturallylinked by a common language of Pijin, which is spoken at grassroots level andknown in PNG as Tok Pisin, Bislama in Vanuatu and Pijin in Solomon Islands.

Thissense of unity in Melanesia bonds people easily and partly played a role in theformation of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in 1994. The organisation hassince developed into a major trading bloc and over the past two decades,despite political and economic instability, gradually shifted the powerbase ofregional politics from the Eastern Pacific Islands region of Polynesia, to theWestern subregion of Melanesia.

Despitethe political instability in Melanesia over the past ten years (1980s – 2011),the MSG has become a highly influential regional body. Collectively, Melanesia has a number ofthings working in her favour. It has the biggest landmass with huge naturalresources of the three subregions of the Pacific Islands subregions ofMelanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. It is also has the highest population ofnear 9 million with a single market bloc in the Pacific Islands region. Inrecent years, the Melanesian bloc has also forced our traditional donors,especially Australia and New Zealand, to reassess their aid distribution in theregion, despite new attached conditions.

Thenew found fame of Melanesian countries has partially contributed to the Fiji’sdictator, Frank Bainimarama, consistent refusal to buckle under political,economic and social sanctions from Australian, New Zealand, European Union, andthe United States since 2006. It alsoperpetuated the rivalry of the Melanesia and Polynesia subregions; and since2010; the Fijian dictator snubbed the Prime Ministers of Samoa, Australia andNew Zealand over their concerns about his failure to honour his promises toreturn Fiji to democratic rule.

Gordon Darcy Lilo's politics and logging connection

2012-01-05T17:36:00.000-08:00

Pijin:

“Boss yah, hem smatman lo saed lo con and hem gud tumas lo manupuletem man. Mi skul wetem hem loform wan to form five lo Betikama en later mi tufala waka lo govman en lo PrimeMinister’s ofis en mi savve gud lo wei blo hem. Wei blo hem, hem no savvechenisim nao….. lo taem lo PM ofis, hem savve kam wetem aedia wea hem savve hemwrong, bat bae hem trae fo twistim… if iu talem hem hem wrong, bae hem go anleita kam bak wetem sem aedia bat bae hem putim lo diferen wei moa… hem na weiblo boss yah”.

English:

“Gordon is a smartconman and a good manipulator. We attended school together at BetikamaSeventh-Day Adventist High School (now College) from form one to form five. Welater worked alongside each other at the Prime Minister’s Office, when he wasthe Permanent Secretary of Finance. I know him very well. His doggy ways ofdealing have never changed. He would come with an idea that was not the rightthing to do, but if he was told that it was not the right way of dealing withit, he would go away and later returned with the same idea, but arranged in adifferent way. This is Lilo’s way of dealing business”.

The above abstractwas taken from a conversation with one of Gordon Darcy Lilo’s former school andwork mates at Betikama Adventist High School (now College) and the PrimeMinister’s Office in Honiara, Solomon Islands.

Lilo’s background

Gordon Darcy Lilois from Ghatere Village, Kolobangara Island, Western Province. Before enteringpolitics, Lilo came into the national scene in the mid-1990s, when the thenPrime Minister, late Solomon Mamaloni, plucked him out of obscurity as a non-seniorpublic servant of the Ministry of Mines and Energy, to become a seniorbureaucrat and Permanent Secretary (PS) of the Ministry of Finance. At thattime, it was assumed that Lilo and the late Mamaloni were good friends andregulars of the casino social scene in Honiara. Back then, the Mamalonigovernment was embroiled in a number of controversial cases of systematiccorruption that was allegedly aided by the logging and casino industries.

Demonstrators took to the streets of Honiara demanding the immediate resignation of the newly elected Prime Minister, Gordon Darcy Lilo.

The problem ofcorruption within the government machinery and public institutions in Solomon Islands over the years was highlightedby a motion of no-confidence that successfully removed the Francis BillyHilly-led government in 1994. It was reported that the motion was bankrolled by thelogging industry, which had allegedly bribed three government Ministers, FrancisOrodani, Alfred Maetia and Alan Paul, to quit their portfolios and join theParliamentary Opposition in removing the government. As a reward for their rolein removing the government, Maetia, Orodani and Paul, supposedly receivedfinancial inducements, hotel accommodation and rental cars, from the loggingindustry and one of its major clients, Robert Goh Chartered Accountant.

The downfall of theBilly Hilly-led government was triggered by a Logging Bill, which was successfullypassed in parliament. The main features of the bill were: (1) phasing out of majorlogging operations throughout the country by the end of 1997, (2) reducing thenumber of logging licences by 50%, (3) establishing downgrade processing of roundlogs locally and (4) introducing new logging levies, which became effective in 1994.

As a good friend ofthe late Solomon Mamaloni, Lilo was appointed on the basis of his loyalty tothe former prime minister. He became the number one “go to man”, which thegovernment had entrusted to carry out its dirty deals. Following few years inthe job, he was rewarded by the government with an AusAid scholarship to studyDevelopmental Administration at the Australian National University (ANU),Canberra, where he successfully completed and graduated with a MA.

Lilo returned tothe Solomon Islands in the late 1990s and briefly re-joined the Ministry ofFinance. But his brief stint was entangled in yet another controversy, in whichhe was reported to have been the last person seen leaving the Ministry ofFinance building in the early hours of the day in which a fire destroyedgovernment filing systems and computers. A police investigation into the firewent cold, leaving the case unresolved till today.

Lilo’s loggingconnection

Lilo’s career inthe logging industry began in 1999, when he established a logging companycalled, Viuru Development Trust (VDT). The company began in controversialcircumstances due to strong opposition from landowning groups. Despiteincreasing hostility and resentment from local landowners, Lilo’s company beganlogging, under the chairmanship of James Rizu, who at that time was alsoworking as a Senior Water and Sanitation Health Inspector of Western Province.

The ethnic conflictin Solomon Islands during 2000 and 2001 greatly impacted the logging operationsundertaken by the Viuru Development Trust. As one of the managing directors,Lilo was accused along with his chairman, Rizu, of failure to pay the loggingroyalties owed to local landowners. In the 2001 national election, Lilocontested and won the parliamentary seat of Gizo-Kolobangara, Western Province,from its former holder, Jackson Piasi, a lawyer and anti-logger and strongadvocator of good governance.

Following theelection, Lilo’s opponents allegedly accused him of vote-buying. It was allegedthat Lilo made a secret agreement with Earthmovers Logging Company, a Malaysianlogging company, with huge logging concessions in Guadalcanal, Isabel, Makira,and Western provinces, to support his candidacy. As part of the deal, the Earthmoversbank-rolled Lilo’s election campaign with an undisclosed amount of money,rumoured to be in the tens of thousands of dollars. The money was distributedto voters at the eve of the election. Since then, it has been alleged thatLilo’s supporters, who have consistently requested financial help from him,would often as directed by Lilo, meet him at either inside or outside of theoffice of Earthmovers, where he would give them money.

Despite thecontroversies over Lilo’s ongoing alleged under table dealings, he successfullyretained his parliamentary seat in the 2006 and 2011 national generalelections. Over the past eight years, Lilo has been appointed and re-appointedas a government minister of finance by four successive governments. It is alsoalleged that during the past three national elections, Lilo’s politicalcampaigns have been bankrolled by Earth Movers and other Asian loggingcompanies. Additionally, since Lilo became a politician, Earthmovers loggingcompany’s interests have been well protected.

The appointing of aMalaysian national and Earthmovers Managing Director, to various positions onthe board of directors of a number of different government statutoryauthorities, including the National Provident Fund (NPF), has embroiled him infurther controversy.

Lilo’s allegedcorruption cases

Police provided security at Parliament house during the election proceeding of the PM

In 2010, as a loggerand former Minister of Finance in the Dr Sikua-led government, Lilo was yetinvolved in another controversy involving his release of an Earthmover’stug-boat, which was currently held under police custody, for its involvement inillegal activities. When ordered to pay $2m by the High Court of Solomon Islands for illegal activities, Lilo,intervened, ordering the release of the boat with a fine of a mere $200,00,claiming that the Earthmover’ Company will continue to pay millions ingovernment taxes. Despite the unprecedented nature of the case, the then PrimeMinister. Dr Derek Sikua, and his cabinet bowed down to Lilo’s decision.

But Lilo’s undertable dealings did not end there. Other allegations of corruption also surfacedwhen as the then Minister of Finance in the Sogavare-led government in 2006/7,Lilo was accused of misappropriation of multi-million dollar aid funds, whichwere donated by foreign governments and aid donors to rebuild infrastructuresand entire villages in the Western Province, devastated by the 2007 tsunami.The funds were intended to provide immediate relief shelter, food, water whilstproviding financial aid in the rebuilding of the township and provincialcapital of the Western Province, Gizo. At the same time, Lilo was also accusedof fraud over a government multi-million-dollar computer school project, which hewas coordinating as the Minister responsible. Initial reports alleged thatLilo, subcontracted an IT firm owned by one of his relatives, Anthony Gona,to deliver the project. Allegations were raised that the IT firm had orderedsecond-hand computers; way below market values but with inflated costs anddistributed them to a few schools, less than the ones earmarked to benefit fromthe whole project.

The failure of the ITfirm to deliver the project and the apparent non-action by Lilo, who hasbeen a Minister of Finance in the past two successive executive governments hasprompted a number of former and current leaders and backbenchers of theParliamentary Opposition, to call upon the government to either establishcommission of enquiries into the alleged cases of corruption or initiate Policeinvestigations. But despite the calls, successive governments have refused totake action.

One of the difficulties in carrying out an investigation into theabove alleged corrupt cases have been partly due to the presence of Lilo as aMinister of Finance in the past three successive executive governments. Theonly probe into the tsunami funds was carried up by the Auditor General Officefew years ago, but the report has been vetoed by the past and now the newlyelected Prime Minister, Lilo, from publication, citing various dubiousgovernment provisions. As such, the chances of investigating corruption caseswithin the current government system are now looking remotely unlikely tohappen anytime soon. In recent days, the Acting Commissioner of Police, WalterKola, has weighed into the debate and claimed that the Prime Minister has nocase to answer.

Meanwhile, since2005, Lilo’s logging interests in the island of Kolobangara have also comeunder closer scrutiny by tribal land owning groups, one of which has taken a HighCourt injunction against Lilo’s logging operations. Despite the Court case, thenewly elected Prime Minister’s logging interests have been expanded to threelogging concessions in Kolobangara Island, with a fourth one in Rendova Island.According to a source close to the tribal group, the land owning group had claimedthat Lilo’s logging concessions were acquired illegally and included areas thatare not his. In the traditional history of Ghatere village, Lilo’s maternal familycomes from a non-landowning group. His father is from Rendova, where the formerPrime Minister, Danny Philip, is originally from.

Philip, Rini and Lilo's family values

Former PrimeMinister Danny Philip (now back bencher), and his former Minister of Planningand Aid Coordination, Snyder Rini (reappointed), and former Finance Ministerand now newly elected Prime Minister, Gordon Darcy Lilo, are said to berelatives. The trio were former graduates of Betikama Seventh-Day Adventist HighSchool in the 1970s and 1980s. Currently, they are non-practicing members ofthe Seventh-Day Church. Lilo, Philip and Rini, have either divorced orseparated from their first wives. Philip has been living in de facto relationshipswith women from the Western Province, Rennell and Bellona, Samoa and nowKiribati-Solomon Islander; while Rini initially married a woman from Papua NewGuinea (PNG) and now is with an ethnic Malaitan woman, Alice, while the newlyelected Prime Minister is with a second partner.

During the earlyyears of his political career, Lilo left his wife, from the Western Province.He is now in a de facto relationship with Bronwyn Noda Meke, who was alsoseparated from her former ethnic Malaitan husband, John Meke. Bronwyn is partMalaitan from Langalanga region, near Auki, and Guadalcanal (Weather Coast).The Solomon Islands Pijin word for a second or third partner is 02 or 03 and soon. The term is derived from the numbering of patrol boats that the Australiangovernment had supplied to the Solomon Islands, since independence in 1978,which are numbered 01, 02, 03, 04, and so on.

Politics of undermining leadership in the Solomons

2011-12-29T23:04:00.000-08:00

· The following "Opinion" piece was writtenfor a number of academic friends following the recent political instability inSolomon Islands.

Lilo'spolitics

The recent political instabilityin Solomon Islands has once again highlighted the fragile nature of Melanesianpolitics, which is sad, but not surprising in the context of Solomon Islands.My personal observation is this –the attempt by the sacked former Minister ofFinance, Gordon Darcy Lilo, to oust his cousin and caretaker Prime Minister,Danny Philip, appears to be a long term project that he was setting up toachieve following the election of this government. But it comes at an opportunetime for him and his political backers to fundraise for financial inducementfrom Asian logging companies that have been the financial backers of everygovernment that Lilo has joined since entering politics in 2001.

In all fairness, no one inSolomon Islands and the international community should read too much into thecurrent political situation in Solomon Islands. At the end of the day, it ispolitics as usual in Honiara as politicians have already made up their mind ofwhom they will vote as the next Prime Minister. But as part of the new"culture" of money-politics in Solomon Islands, politicians arebuying time to ensure that the betting game for their political support wouldinflate. Sadly a change of government or Prime Minister would not make anydifference in addressing pressing issues that are slowing down the efforts ofrebuilding the country’s economy, political and social stability, land reform,corruption, weak governance, holding crooks accountable, exploitation ofgovernment finance and providing a new sense of direction. Rest assure, none ofthe above issues will be fixed after the election of a new PM and at the end ofhis tenure.

And there are good reasons thatthe public in Solomon Islands should be weary of or pessimistic about if thesetwo political leaders are taking control of any new executive government. Onlyfew months ago, the current sacked Minister of Finance, Gordon Darcy Lilo(current candidate for the PM’s post), and his partner in crime, caretakerMinister of Planning and Aid Coordination, Snyder Rini, were implicated ina number of multi-million dollar corruption cases and yet no government has ever takenup the challenge of taking them on. To their credit, Lilo and Rini have beenshifting political allegiances from one executive government to the othersince 2001 as a way of preventing any new government from possibly investigatingor taking legal action against them.

The history of Gordon andSnyder’s involvement in past controversial cases of corruption, misused ofpublic and aid monies, facilitating crooks and giving favours to politicalcronies are palpable. Not that they are different from former Prime Ministerssuch as Manasseh Sogavare and Dr Derek Sikua. They seem to share similarpolitical traits in their leadership style. And no one could easily forgottenLilo and Snyder's separate decisions few months ago, as former governmentministers in the then Dr Derek Sikua-led government, to release an Asianlogging tag-boat and allowing the exportation of prohibited marine resources(then under a government moratorium) in contempt of a Solomon Islands HighCourt order and a Customs Department decision to prosecute both Asian companiesfor breaching the conditions of their business activities in the SolomonIslands. The only reason given by Lilo then was the companies have beencontributing huge taxes to the national coffer.

But no one knows or tells me howmany thousands of dollars that Lilo and Rini have both received in reciprocatefrom the Asian companies for intervening and acting in their best interests.

The current political climate inSolomon Islands is simply a symptom of a real poisonous government system,where corruption is a mainstay of the executive and administration governments,who will only act on self-interests. In a sense, the current politicalwrangling has nothing to do with policy direction or any effort to provide goodgovernance, but all to do with self-interests. Remember this – thesepoliticians are the same individuals who've had partly contributed to thegradual demise of the Solomon Islands and in recent months deliberatelyfrustrated the Dr Sikua-led government and other efforts since 2003, tolegislate laws that could stop political promiscuity as the basis of politicalinstability in the democratic process of the country.

Essentially, the then role playedby Lilo and Rini in preventing efforts to fix the political abnormalities inthe Solomon Islands electoral system, is a true measure of their leadershipcredentials. So in my observation, there is no alternative solution to providepolitical stability as the basis of rebuilding Solomon Islands economically andpolitically, when the main culprits of corruption are the very people who arein national leadership positions. At present, the bureaucracy and the executivegovernment in Solomon Islands are so corrupt that relying on them to fix ourcurrent mess will be liken to a dream.

With the way things are going,the country is running out of options to prevent itself from re-descending intototal social chaos and political oblivion, similar to the cases of Sierra Leoneand Mogadishu in Africa. Solomon Islands needs to prosecute and jailpoliticians and their cronies, who are exploiting public institutions and aidmonies for their own political gain, as a deterrence to future crooks. Theprocess of democracy won’t fix the country’s highly compromised publicinstitutions and politicians, who will be using their political leverage toensure that nothing is going to threaten their interests.

There is no other way…… theinternational community has proven since the intervention of RAMSI in mid-2003until now that they cannot provide every single solution to very problem thatour country is facing. Our leaders are not cooperating and playing their partin the process of rebuilding the nation.

· Followingthe election of Lilo as the new Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, FatherTerry Brown, sent a news update confirming that the 29 members of parliament,who voted for Lilo, had each received $SBD500,000 from unidentifiedfinancial backers. Only Lilo knows the financiers.

Next articles:

·"Lilo's political background and his loggingconnection".

· "Melanesian politics and the risks ofharbouring Fiji".

Welkam to Wantoks International

2011-12-26T18:26:00.000-08:00

Welcome to you all,

As you will now realise, the Pasifik Wantoks International, is a new media entitythat is legally registered in Australia. The name, Pasifik Wantoks, is derivedfrom two English words: Pacific and One Talk. Putting the two words togethermean: "One Language, One Community, One People, One Nation and OneRegion".

My decision to publish under the name, Pasifik Wantoks International, is anattempt to differentiate my identity from other news media outlets andorganisations around the Pacific Islands region. The name Pasifik Wantoks isspelled in Solomon Islands Pijin English, which is also similar in Papua NewGuinea (PNG)’s Tok Pisin and Vanuatu’s Bislama.

The content of this weblog will be trilingual: Solomon Islands Pijin, Englishand my mother tongue, Te Langusi a Mungiki. My decision to publish this weblogis the result of my long term commitment to freedom of expression, in a regionwhere freedom of the media is often facing many cultural and traditional challengesin the hybrid communities of the region.

Based on the above background, I decide to take up the challenge, despite myown discomfort and apprehension of dealing with similar challenges that led tomy forced evacuation from the Solomon Islands in early 2001.

It is my sincere hope that this forum will provide an avenue where lightminded people, especially in the Melanesian Pijin speaking countries and the Pacific Islands region, willparticipate in debates and discussions of issues and events without fear ofbeing bullied or threaten by crook political leaders and their cronies ingovernment bureaucracy and private sector.

You are welcome to participate in this forum by penning down your name andaddress as a mark of your seriousness about accountability. Using fake name orpen names – simply to attack contributors – is an indication of people, who’veno moral and ethical standard.

There's an exception that is professionally and ethically acceptable injournalism under this category so give me a buzz if you are not comfortable. Iwill love to hear from you.

Aue kia tekoutou katoa (thanks to you one and all)