3 Responses

  1. Gus Lee
    Gus Lee April 12, 2016 at 1:15 am

    ” I would also argue that domestic pressures ended the Sandline misadventure”. No Bill treason by Singirok, the whole Australian & PNG media-press,radio,TV & Singirok&Co with help from his political opposition – encouragement of dissent & endlessly calling Sandline personnels murderers,heartless killers etc(emotive words) persuaded a lot of the general public to protests. I was in Port Moresby at that time and I sat in radio personality Roger Hauofa living room some of those evenings.
    Without Sir J intervention in Vanuatu it would be a divided country and a civil war would probably have eventuated with many loss of lives probably.If that military intervention ended in loss of PNG & civilian lives it could have ended his political career. More so with Sandline if a number of PNG soldiers & Bougainvillian civilians were killed, Sandline critics would have crucified Sir J. his political career would be over. Remember there was a general election coming up. Why would you Bill or anyone else risk doing something that you did not have to do that might end your career? Most people will not take the risk Sir J did what he thought would stop the fighting- his courage & conviction.

  2. John
    John April 5, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    There are at times when some one will actually speak his/her mind through written records like the Sir J’s memoir of his life in PNG politics. Australian can learn something from his past experiences in politics with its current relationships with PNG and current leaders of the country. Understanding the relationships with leaders in politics from the past and current PNG will do a lot/go a long way in shaping and improving development and trade policy between Australia & PNG. Personality plays a key role in the impact of policy relationship so understanding PNG leaders.

  3. Bill Standish
    Bill Standish March 22, 2016 at 10:04 am

    Forests policy has long been controversial. Chan introduced the 1971 Forestry (Private Dealings) Ordinance (later Act) which he mentions at p. 60. Critics argue that when combined with ministerial approval (see this page) the Act led to the widespread destruction of forests by unscrupulous members of the elite and foreign companies. It was only revoked forty years later, after the Barnett Forests Inquiry.

Leave a Reply