Comments

If the PNG Govt. coffers are so outstretched & the Economy is so limited as reported here, & they can't assist local communities in accessing mobile phone usage; then how can they afford to buy 40x Masserati cars & 8x Bentleigh cars which cost Millions of dollars & these have now been given to various politicians to drive around in whilst the money would have been better spent on education, health & communication access for PNG people.

First of all how can they (NICTA) possibly get all digicel users in PNG to register their SIM cards when they can't get people from the remote areas of PNG to register their SIMs? Common sense. Digicel cannot risk losing its customers when it has been putting great efforts into maintaining its business to grow in the Country. Whether the court agrees or disagrees with the Ombudsman Commission his point is totally and completely valid because it is concerning people from the remote parts of the country as no one has the right to deprive them of their rights to services provided in the country. The court has to take this into consideration or even better come up with ways to resolve this issue as we are all are entitled to our rights as individuals protected under the constitutional law. If NICTA wants to implement policies with regards to network security or other acts concerned then they have to consider people living in the remotest areas in the country because they are the ones missing out on everyday services and it will only be fair if they are also being served just as the people living in towns and cities.

How can you track on the use of mobile phone if the SIM is registered or not. Even those who registered, will the user still be able to track the use of his/her Mobile phone. The supreme court's decision, how will it benefit the general public? I believe Dr. Amanda Watson can answer these questions because it is the area of her expertise. Thank you! JP.

Thank you Mr Moses Sakai for this blog post on a most interesting topic. I have three questions. I was interested to read that the current Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea (PNG), James Marape, seems to be saying that there should be consideration of whether or not the death penalty should remain in the criminal code. Indeed, in the article you give a hyperlink to, he said in July this year that “I will allow Justice Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Davis Steven to pick up this conversation and for us to decide whether we still maintain the death penalty or shift away from that to life imprisonment.” This seems to suggest that Marape may be in favour of dropping the death penalty. Is that your reading of his view on the matter? How does his position differ from the stance that was held by former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill? Perhaps the current head of state is less firm about the need to enforce the death penalty. Is that correct? What is your analysis of that? The second question is about the so-called ‘study tour’ that was made a few years back I think into the possible execution methods that could be used if PNG wants to carry out the death penalty. I believe the team went to a few different countries to see how it is done elsewhere. It is an awful topic really, but what became of that? Presumably this multi-country tour cost PNG a lot of money and yet nothing has come of it. Am I correct? My third question is about PNG’s position in the international community on this issue. You state that “PNG has consistently voted against or abstained from UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty”. That seems to suggest that PNG’s position generally is one of resisting calls for the abolition of the death penalty. However, you also state “Back in 2003, PNG was one of 75 countries that supported the UN Commission on Human Rights in passing a resolution encouraging all countries to abolish the death penalty and establish a moratorium on executions.” This seems to go against the earlier comment, or perhaps I have misunderstood, or maybe this occasion was an exception to the general practice of PNG in regard to most votes on the matter. Could you please explain this point? Thanks again for the thought-provoking piece. Dr Amanda H A Watson

It's a poor prosecution by the Ombudsman, if the first question didn't cite any act/regulation that breached a  specific freedom (I assume the citizen's right to freedom of expression). Begs the question, does the Ombudsman have competent lawyers to present complaints against the state at the Supreme Court level?  Second, if 40% of SIM owners are unregistered, then the telecommunications companies have just as much interest in getting these SIMS registered as the unregistered SIM owners. I assume the 40% are users in remote areas, who would use these SIMs largely to text and call only. However, if this is true, and if the telecommunications companies' largest revenue comes from other things such as internet services, then the companies wouldn't be motivated to register these SIMs. In Manus, the Digicel tower responsible for connecting islands to the south has not been operating since 2017, when locals stole the tower's solar panels. If this was a large revenue base, Digicel would have had the tower's solar panels replaced and guards stationed by now; as it is, Digicel can let these remote customers go, as richer, urban customers subsidise the cost of losing rural customers (the same issue with PNG Power and BSP). 

it Really saddens me about how we going to achieve that Goal of making "PNG Richest Black Nation in next 10 years" this isn't practicable . 80% of our total population is still influenced by Cultures.

I would love to see a simple migration path for our Pacific neighbours who wish to make Australia their permanent home - but I also believe that a general work visa for Pacific workers to come to Australia is very much needed - in any region and in any field of work. I will never downplay the significance of the SWP and the subsequent PLS and its economic benefits to those Pacific workers who are lucky enough to be chosen to participate. These programs have brought huge economic benefit back home to their communities. There are those Pacific Islanders who do not want to make Australia their permanent home but simply need employment to bring much-needed cash to their villages. Many return workers under the program invest in business opportunities back home which would never have been possible if it weren't for these programs. But they want to live with their families in the village that their forefathers built. They want to improve their own community's way of life, education, access to medical treatment and to create a thriving environment in their isolated villages. This means making the sacrifice of being away from their loved ones for many months under the labour mobility programs - working in Australia. The highly regulated SWP and PLS are not enough as mentioned in this article. Currently there are many Pacific Islanders in Australia working illegally for cash who have entered Aus under a visitors visa. These people have not been given the chance of legal employment under the 403 visas so they choose to come in, work for cash and sometimes overstay their visitor visa deadlines taking the gamble to earn as much money as they can until they are forced to return home to their own country. These people are desperate to get cash back home to their loved ones but if there was a simple Pacific working visa for Australia they could dictate their own timeframes without having to resort to working for unscrupulous employers who know these workers can never complain or report underpayments or mistreatment in the workplace. The work ethic of most Pacific Islanders is incredible. They are focused & highly motivated to earn money and send remittances home. They will work hard in Australia and be a benefit to their Australian employers building strong bonds between us and them. These ties carry over for generations; for example, our children's school now visits our workers' village every year bringing students and teachers from Queensland into their isolated jungle community schools. Friendships have formed which will last a lifetime. Let's bring in a simple working visa and let the workers direct their wages back home to where it is needed most. Let's empower them with opportunity to improve their home countries with economic benefit, hope and a sense of self worth. It's a no-brainer. We need them and they need us.

Dear Rohan, This has been a personal struggle for me as well. I am happy that I asked for help on Twitter and it led me to this portal. Thank you very much Rohan for this much needed initiative.

Thanks Stephen for the nice discussion I would like to offer some counterproductive options to the Pacific Labour Mobility (PLM) and the discussion that it would be a best outcome of the “Pacific Step Up”. Indeed the Pacific nations have a pressing need for employment opportunities that their countries are unable to afford. However, this pressing need is not in the agriculture or farming sector, nor in any opportunity that would help them to make an income for spending a few months on a farmland in the out sketch of Australia. After all, it would be unsustainable. Pacific Islanders are already farmers when they are born into the family. For them to work in a farmland in Australia is not something new but doing the same farm work in a different location. Compare that to a British student picking fruits in Australia, which would be a new adventure for the visitor. The Pacific Step Up Policy is to build something deeper and more innovative action for the Pacific Islanders to increase the people-to-people relationships not only with Australia and New Zealand but within the Pacific Islanders themselves. Why saying this? For example, Chinese have lived in the villages and homes of the Pacific Islanders; marry the locals and engaged in small-scale entrepreneurs and create lifetime employment for the locals. Now the Chinese finds it easy to do business with the local government and make more investments. At the national level, the Chinese would easily sign in big investments and make way for even more across the Pacific. Building a solid people-to-people relationships shapes the bigger political landscapes at the national level. This view holds truth in Papua New Guinea. In response to the four areas of labour mobility discussed in the blog, there are other view as well. Firstly, the SWP and the PLS would give Islanders an opportunity to earn a cash income, but not so much in building a long lasting relationships and sustaining same income opportunity elsewhere. Parties within the schemes would exploit and abuse the schemes; we have witness agents of labour recruitment soliciting funds from aspiring individuals in the past. Secondly, we have witness Australia giving wider opportunity for refugees from the Arab world to settle in Australia with or without tradesman skills but non-to the Pacific Islanders. The chances for them through the Pacific Step Up is unlikely, New Zealand is doing a fantastic job in that context by giving opportunity to Islanders to settle in NZ. Third, both SWP and PLS should not focus on agriculture or farmland jobs, but turn to semi-technical work that would build the human resource base of the Islanders. Blue and white-collar work is also a good battleground for the Islanders as well. Filipinos worked in these areas in Australia and how about giving an opportunity to the Pacific Islanders? Something to look into with the Pacific Step Up. Fourth, there would be middle agents and go in between people who would take advantage of the Pacific Step Up Policy and scavenge the good intend of the policy. The SWP and PLS schemes would not work well for the Islanders in the long run, it would be a temporary measure but to counteract the influence of China; Australia and NZ would need to undertake concrete actions.

I see absolutely no reason why it would be. If anything I think it's fairer to be skeptical of the role played by consultants who think (and write) in English. But fascinating as debates over the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis might be, they have no real relevance to the issue of tourism policy in Timor-Leste. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-your-language-influence-how-you-think/ The 'resource curse' might be a more useful framework to understand some of TL's struggles with diversifying its economy, although even then it's not that simple. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-natural-resources-are-a-curse-on-developing-countries-and-how-to-fix-it/256508/

Thanks Emma for the nice discussion Just to add few thoughts on violence against women and girls. In a balance discourse, what would be a nice definition of violence against women and girls from a Western perspective including Australia and what is adopted by countries in the Asia Pacific region? Especially in some Pacific nations, the principles as adopted in this article may not necessarily apply, given local context including traditions; myths; customs and societal norms. One would need to look into the elements of violence against women and girls in the traditional context. Sometimes, people cannot dismiss these ancestral creed in violence against women and girls and quickly "westernised or modernised" the act or context into something as unlawful or as illegal. Learning the circumstances/contexts why the violence took place between a man and woman or girl is important to appropriately brand a clear meaning to the act or context, especially in the Asia Pacific regions. Whilst in the Western world, we would simply say it is a violence against women and girls. Modern laws guiding against violence to protect women and girls is not the only development framework to build a strong family or society; understanding and adopting traditional ways of lives for women and girls as well as men and boys equates a stable society. Violence is a society’s developmental aspect. Especially in the Asia Pacific region, many studies would say; violence against women and girls have not improved, or many measures taken to combat the issue have not succeeded, it is simply because violence against women and girls is a two way out, not a one way solution, it is an evolving phenomenon than a discreet event.

Why can't these issues just get fixed?!! Is thinking in Portuguese the problem?