Comments

I am sure most people interested in and knowledgeable about PNG Politics would have detected a number of errors when reading Professor Jan Kees van Donge’s recent article entitled ‘Peter O'Neill's statecraft: a skilful politician’; however since Stephen Howes, a Development Policy Blog editor, has basically invited me to identify some of the errors, here is my assessment in brief as follows: 1. The Professor stated: "The opposition is minute and, immediately after the 2012 election, consisted of only four seats." My response: Immediately after the 2012 election, the Opposition did NOT consist of only four seats. The Opposition, immediately after the 2012 election consisted of 17 seats. 2. Professor: “This increased when four members of Don Polye's T.H.E party joined the opposition after being expelled from the government coalition. It was striking, however, that they were very reluctant to join the opposition and defined themselves initially as being on the middle bench when O'Neill dismissed Don Polye as minister of finance." My response: At the material time, Prime Minister O'Neill did not dismiss Don Polye as Minister of Finance because James Marape was the Minister for Finance and still is the Minister for Finance. Don Polye at the time he was dismissed was the Minister for Treasury. Furthermore, Don Polye initially was silent about the reason why he was sacked and chose to stay on in government until after the UBS Deal was exposed by the then Opposition Leader Belden Namah. To my knowledge Don Polye was forced to move on his own to the middle bench, without any of his T.H.E Party members beside him, where he stayed for months (March-November) until his move to the Opposition with his remaining party members. 3. Professor: "The three ministers belonging to T.H.E. stayed on." My response: The professors’ comment implies that T.H.E party had three Ministers in government who stayed on as Ministers after T.H.E Party Leader Don Polye (Treasury) and Kikori Open MP Mark Maipaikai (Labour & Industrial Relations) were sacked, however there were four T.H.E party MP’s (and not three) who stayed on as Ministers: Deputy Prime Minister & Inter-Government Relations Minister Leo Dion, Labour and Industrial Relations Minister Benjamin Poponawa, Forest Minister Douglas Tomuriesa and Higher Education Minister Delilah Gore. Prior to this, three T.H.E Party members who were ministers had already been sacked – firstly T.H.E Party member David Arore was sacked followed by Don Polye and Mark Maipaikai. Although the member for Ijivitari David Arore lost his portfolio he decided to stay on in government by also joining PNC. Eventually after T.H.E Party acquired the distinction of possibly being the first political party in PNG to get thrown out of government (in late August/early September 2014) it seems that the remaining members of T.H.E Party had no choice but to join their Party Leader Don Polye. Five of them, including Don Polye, moved to the Opposition in the November sitting where I believe, based on legal advice (as per the Constitution & OLIPPAC), Don Polye then proceeded to have himself illegitimately elected as the Leader of the Opposition...but that's another story. 4. Professor: "Michael Somare's National Alliance also defined their position as on the middle bench when they formally left the coalition." My response: National Alliance never “also defined their position as on the middle bench when they formally left the coalition” because National Alliance never moved to the Middle Bench. National Alliance never formally or informally left the coalition. The parliamentary leader of National Alliance is Aitape-Lumi MP Patrick Pruaitch who replaced Don Polye as Treasury Minister. Former NA Leader Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare moved to the middle bench late last year at the end of the November sitting but not National Alliance. 5. Professor: “O'Neill quickly dismissed William Duma as minister of mines and established dominance in the resources sector." My Response: At the time, Hagen Open MP William Duma was Minister for Petroleum & Energy. Namatanai Open MP Byron Chan was/is the Minister for Mining. 6. Professor: "William Duma was succeeded by Francis Potape, whom Duma had succeeded in 2011." My response: The Professors comment implies that Francis Potape replaced William Duma as the Minister for Petroleum & Energy. This is incorrect. Madang Open MP, Nixon Duban took over the Petroleum & Energy portfolio from William Duma. 7. Professor: "Polye was sidelined as minister of finance when O'Neill clinched the major loan from UBS to buy the shares in Oil Search." My response: The Professor's comment is not entirely correct because Don Polye was the Minister for Treasury at the time. 8. Professor: "Most notable is the ten year prison sentence imposed on Paul Tientsen." My response: Paul Tiensten was not sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He was sentenced to nine years; however four years was suspended on condition he repays the money he was found guilty of misappropriating (by writing a foot note) so in fact he received a 5 year sentence but that’s a moot point. 9. Professor: "O'Neill has in fact taken control of the anti-corruption bodies, and that could be an important incentive to conform in PNG's political culture." My response: I believe that what the Professor stated as a fact when he claimed “O'Neill has in fact taken control of the anti-corruption bodies” is completely false. It is absolutely not true plus what were you trying to say at the end, Professor by suggesting “that could be an important incentive to conform in PNG's political culture”? I received a number of comments, publically and privately, regarding the Professor's article after I posted a link to his article. One commentator said: "As another person commented – it glosses over the facts and when it does deal with this issue of widespread and continuing allegations of corruption and the activities of the PNG authorities in regard to this its language is wishy washy. Examples: “controversial politician”. “Controversial issues surrounding predatory behaviour.” “Governance issues”. If Development Policy Blog is going to serve any purpose then let’s have the full truth and nothing but the truth. This is the article’s biggest error. It is the sin of omission and the giant one which makes it truly worthless. But there are others – and another one is an error of fact that insults everyone involved in the fight for truth and justice against official corruption. The article states that “O’Neill has taken control of the anti-corruption bodies." NO HE HAS NOT. The Ombudsman Commission remains independent. The judiciary remains independent. The vast bulk of the police force remains independent. Development Policy Blog owes them an apology. There are other equally ridiculous statements in the article, but I can’t really be bothered debating them.” Regarding typographical errors (typos) in the article I noticed only three typos. Former Prime Minister Pais Wingti’s name was incorrectly spelt "Pius Winti" plus former Pomio Open MP Paul Tiensten's last name was incorrectly spelt “Tientsen”. I could of course dispute other comments made by the Professor apparently based on his own perception of Peter O’Neill’s performance as Prime Minister but that would be time-consuming and pretty much a waste of my time. However, I will pose one more question to the Professor which maybe he can take the time later to answer: Professor: “He seemed to be in an almost existential struggle with Michael Somare in 2011-2012 during the O'Neill/Namah government. Each argued that the other should be in jail.” My response: Perhaps the Professor made his comment based on TV journalist Kathy Novak’s interview of Sir Michael Somare in which Sir Michael said “I’m not going to let it go. Peter will go to jail.” Where and when did Peter O’Neill argue or even say that Sir Michael Somare ‘should be in jail’? After Sir Michael Somare entered parliament during the political impasse and served court orders to the Speaker? Overall, I found the Professor's article interesting; however if I was to grade it for objectivity I would give him a “D” because of all the errors which I find inexcusable especially coming from a Professor of Political Science when the correct information is out there in the public domain and of course information could have been easily cross-checked and corrected in his article before publication. We all make mistakes, but I believe the Professor made one mistake too many in his article, an article which I note journalist Rowan Callick recently quoted part of in his article: 'Peter O'Neill: PNG's champion of progress' published by The Australian.

I am very passionate to learn about governance issues about Papua New Guinea and this study is a very good example of Papua New Guinean's understanding of the notion of corruption and ways we perceive ways in addressing these. ( A part of the issues with governance). I think it is something we Papua New Guinea's ourselves continue to struggle to understand and this study is good start. I had a quick read through and I think it would useful to explore further some of the recommendations made and its practicalities in PNG.

Hi Thanks for this comment. Matt's assessment is in relation to economic output not the value of damage & loss sustained - we won't have a dollar figure for that until we get the PDNA report on the 23rd. The payout is not designed to cover the cost of damage and loss, it is designed to provide a rapid injection of cash to governments to assist with the maintenance/restoration of critical services in a post-disaster scenario. And, unlike a lot of other things, the payout does not come from donors, it comes from the private sector (the global insurance market), leaving more of their funds available for other things. Governments generally self-insure when it comes to physical assets such as buildings so it would be odd for the government of Vanuatu to try and take out the sort of insurance cover you might have for your house where you would expect to receive a greater proportion of the value and/or cost of repair. Even if they did take this out (assuming it existed) it would not respond as promptly as this scheme has. As we know it is a pilot scheme so there are opportunities to refine its design and operation, including the modelling on which it is based if that is necessary. Or donors could set up a MDTF (or something similar) that can respond as quickly and to an equal or greater quantum if that is preferable, but it means they are carrying the risk that they may need to pay out to more than one country in a given period - under a scheme such as this the risk is transferred to the insurance market. For what it's worth I was just at a press conference at which the Minister of Finance made specific reference to this payout with approval and confirmed that Vanuatu would be maintaining its participation.

The article describes the nature of the PM. He is skilful by playing political parties and groups and provinces against each other. Also dangles carrots and lollies such as aged care free health or education to gain support and popularity from vulnerable majority of population... popularity policies may be a drain on the economy and cannot backfire.

Hi Tess. If the cost of the cyclone is something like $300 million, as Matt suggests in his blog today, it does make you wonder why the payout is only $1.9 million. Doesn't really seem like an insurance program, maybe a rapid early-payment scheme?

I just had a glance at the blog and I decide to post this point for you to ponder over: What you have said may be true about Peter O'Neill's political skills. But this does not show that he is truly straight. He made sure his rival candidates for prime-ministerial post are eliminated: Paul Tiensten is in jail; Beldan Namah out of the way; Don Polye relegated to opposition; Mark Maipekai thrown out in the cold; and lately Richard Maru cautioned to stay out off the limelight. O'Neill was able to get into power. The events that unfolded during the last national election saw that he made sure his electorate of "Ialibu-Pangia" was the first electorate poling took place and that he was declared winner even before any other electorate polled. So O'Neill had the upper hand in shaping the outcome of the national election that led to the formation of his government. Check out the dates and the time (---etc;) and draw your conclusion from there.

I personally dream that one day PNG will change from developing nation to developed nation. So what about you? To change from no where to somewhere we as an individual must change ourselves, because external changes is determined by internal changes. You can not change someone until you change yourself. Therefore, as an educated person reading this comment, please turn from your bad character and try to be good so that others will follow you.. Thank you (Koni Poiye)

Hi Greg My thanks too for your important paper. To me, Fiji’s refusal to return to the Forum appears to be mainly about Prime Minister Bainimarama. Suva’s probably more isolated than Canberra at the moment, and the PIDF seems more and more a phantom menace. I agree with you, though, that it would be a mistake to view that with any sort of satisfaction. Bainimarama won a thumping victory at the polls so will be influential for years to come. And as Graeme Dobell puts it, the Forum without Fiji is like ASEAN would be without Indonesia (or perhaps Thailand). It remains viable but is greatly weakened. So you’re right a circuit-breaker’s still needed in the absence of other Pacific Islands support for the sort of summitry Ms Bishop and Mr Bainimarama proposed. While Australia and Fiji are both keen on different types of deeper reform of the Forum, I get the sense other Forum members would like Canberra and Suva to just get over themselves for now. If we’ve reached an impasse, perhaps Port Moresby’s hosting of the Forum leaders’ summit in September will provide an opportunity to move forward? That might seem an odd suggestion, given the rivalry between Moresby and Suva, and Papua New Guinea’s 40th birthday celebrations that month. But if PNG can show the sort of regional leadership it claims, and other members agree, Prime Minister O’Neill could invite Bainimarama to co-chair a special session on the future of the regional infrastructure to clear the air, let parties reconcile, and hopefully agree who needs to step forward or back a bit.

Thanks for this Greg and thanks for the discussion paper, which I would recommend to others interested in this topic. When the Sydney summit was announced late last year, Matthew Dornan and I <a href="https://devpolicy.org/another-review-of-the-pacific-regional-architecture-is-neither-warranted-nor-appropriate-20141111-2/" rel="nofollow">argued </a>that we thought it neither appropriate nor necessary. Based on what has happened since, including the most recent statement by the prime minister of Tonga, rejecting the position that Australia and New Zealand should leave the Forum (further to his previous assertion that he has more important things to think about), it would appear that our judgment is one that is shared.

The wonder Matt is that so many of the real development policies are not released on April 1 each year eg unpredictable aid support, lack of focus on the poor, funding to support donor country businesses, attempts to pretend that giving a tiny amount compared to need is really being very generous ... I don't think the day is long enough to cover everything.

Colin, This is a great article, thank you Colin. Your reflections are an excellent reminder to all those involved in aid work of the importance of applying lessons learned about good practice aid delivery. Vanuatu is applying the lessons learned from past experience about what works well: this is highly commendable and should be supported to be replicated more widely in emergency responses as well as long-term development practice. The application of lessons learned from past experience about what works well, contradicts the desire from many western donor countries for constant 'innovation.' It also appropriately challenges the desire of external players to be seen to be responsible for 'saving' lives in other countries, which can in effect sometimes undermine local sovereignty, leadership and ownership of the recovery process. Congratulations to the officials and communities of Vanuatu for their leadership and ownership of the response to Cyclone Pam and to those long-term development partners for supporting preparedness efforts. Colin's article is also terrific for its recognition and valuing, not just of local leadership but also use of local systems, knowledge, structures, values and capacity. When in-country responses are couched in understanding of these existing strengths, the longer term recovery process is likely to be much more relevant and therefore useful and sustainable. Thanks again Colin for an inspiring article.

Hi Alisa, At least three of the authors/speakers (I say "at least" because some publications, such as the Economist, while having female writers, don't attribute articles to individuals) we linked to above are women (Judith Thurman writing on languages; May Miller Dawkins on the SDGs; and Amanda Glassman). Beyond that: point taken and we will try and strive for something akin to gender balance. That said, the weekend links post is something we do quickly and for the purpose of sharing links we've found interesting. So it is hard to structure it too heavily around procedural goals. Thanks for your comment. Terence