Who is the real Kelvyn Alp?

Want to know a little bit more about Kelvyn Alp who has been very vocal in the local media in Solomon Islands? Check the following New Zealand media articles out by clicking on each link: 


 1. Sunday Times Article
 2. Eastern Courier Article 
 3. New Zealand Herald Article 1 
 4. New Zealand Herald Article 2


You would see from these articles that Mr. Alp has a very radical reputation, even in his home country of New Zealand. 

New Malaita Premier calls for more help from Solomons government

[Radio New Zealand International, 13 January 2011] - The new premier of the Solomon Islands province of Malaita is calling on the national government and aid donors to work with his administration to provide more opportunities for the people of his province.

Edwin Suibaea, who is a former deputy premier and planning minister in the provincial government, was elected premier this week.

He says given its population size, Malaita has been left behind in the quality of its infrastructure such as roading and energy.

He says past national governments haven’t done enough for the province and he’s calling on the current government to do more.

“The national ministries should start working very closely with my government so that we start speeding up some of these projects. I’m hoping that if the national government would work together with the Malaita provincial government then we should speed up the process because employment opportunities is one of the key areas that we are looking at, encouraging more investment so that we create employment opportunities for our youth.”

Edwin Suibaea says education services also need to be improved and hospitals upgraded so the province is producing physically and mentally fit people.

POLITICAL ANALYST CAUTIONS PM PHILIP

[SIBC News, 30 December 2010] - Political analyst John Roughan says Prime Minister Danny Phillip needs to start 2011 with strong leadership.

Speaking to SIBC News Dr Roughan says the government's performance since taking office in September this year produces a mixed report card.

While he describes the government's Christmas visit to patients of the National Referral Hospital as a good step forward, the political critic says the Prime Minister is barely keeping his government together.

He says some issues were beyond the Prime Minister's control but the internal squabbling within the doors of government has indicated a lack of strong leadership by the Prime Minister.

He says it is important that Mr Phillip begins the new year with strong leadership.

That is a true and fair warning  that the Prime Minister must take seriously. So far he has proven his worth to be the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands and his ability to hold the various characters within his government together over the past few months must be given some credit.


However, as shown by the above article he has to be strong in his decisions so that the peoples' confidence on him and his government is maintained and enhanced and to avoid being seen as a 'puppet PM' who can be pulled by the nose even if his own integrity and that of the nation is at stake.


Above all, the task of trying to keep the numbers together, given the various differences in opinion and ambition within his government will remain the biggest task for the PM as long as he remains in power.And off course chances are that too if much energy and time will be put towards achieving that, the government's focus on issues of national importance will be distracted and that at the end of the day 'nothing more than just words' and sugar-coated rhetoric will be achieved.

[ABC Radio Australia News, 29 December 2010] - The Fiji Government will soon file a complaint against New Zealand media organizations for earlier reporting the rumoured 'death' of Fiji's interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama.

Rumours of the Commodore's death was aired via certain New Zealand media outlets while he was visiting China for a trade mission in late November.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has told FijiLive that a complaint will be lodged with the New Zealand Media Council soon.

Commodore Banimarama says the reports of his death had been invented in New Zealand, which has imposed travel sanctions barring him from visiting to seek medical attention for a heart condition.

A number of social websites were also reporting on his rumoured death in China from a heart attack

Problems in Temotu

Police reinforcements are expected to arrive in the capital of Temotu province this morning after trouble last night from supporters of a high-profile candidate.

The Returning Officer in Lata decided not to declare the result in Temotu Nende after clashes between some supporters who were celebrating and others who were angry.

One News reporter, Fred Osifelo, says the rival supporters clashed in the streets of Lata and this morning there is a lot of damage from stoning buildings including broken glass and damaged walls.

He says the crowds targeted the shop of one of the candidates, Commins Mewa.

He says supporters of outgoing MP Patterson Oti were at the heart of the problems.

Mr Osifelo says he understands that more RSIP officers will be flying to Lata from Honiara this morning to be present when the poll for Temotu Nende is declared at lunchtime.

[Source:www.peoplefirst.net.sb]

For more information and updates of the election, go to the elections update page of this blog or at Tutuvatu connection.

17 Proposed Parliamentary Seats- Why it should not be passed by Parliament.

As recently highlighted in the media, in the upcoming parliamentary sitting, the government is going to table a bill proposing to introduce seventeen new constituencies, and hence parliamentary seats.

 The Chairman of the Constituency Boundaries Commission (CBC) has clearly stated that according to the section 54 (4) of the Constitution of Solomon Islands, "(p)arliament may, by resolution, approve or reject the recommendations of the Constituency Boundaries Commission but may not vary them; and, if so approved, the recommendations shall have effect as from the next dissolution of Parliament". Thus, Parliament only has the power to 'pass or defeat' the bill but it will not change the principle contents of the bill. This is a constitutional requirement that Parliament must abide to.

 For many Solomon Islanders the introduction of seventeen new seats in our Parliament is a positive development because now they will be able to benefit more from the constituency funds such as Rural Constituency Development Fund (RCDF), and the Millennium Development Fund (MDF), the Rural Livelihood Fund (RLF), the Micro-Project Development Fund (MPDF) and the ROC Constituency Micro-Project Fund (ROC-CMPF). This is because demarcating the current constitutional boundaries would mean reducing the number of people within each constituency hence increasing the real economic gains of constituents when properly and effectively utilising such funds.

 Population, as stated in section 54 (3) of the Constitution is one of, if not the main criterion that the CBC has relied on to reach its decision for the additional seventeen constituencies. This is indeed a valid consideration as population size is the main determinant of how fair public funds are distributed and expended within each constituency, especially in ensuing the constitutional principle …"that the number of inhabitants of each constituency shall be as nearly equal as is reasonably practicable" is upheld.

 At the outset, given the Constitutional mandate of the CBC, the validity of the proposed constituencies is unquestionable. The CBC is mandated by the section 54 (2) of the Constitution to…"review the number and boundaries of the constituencies whenever they consider this to be desirable and shall do so not later than ten years after they last reviewed them…" Hence, the Constitutional validity and correctness of the proposed constituencies is one that requires no further reckoning.

 However, on the other hand it is an issue that requires thoughtful consideration by all stakeholders and more especially the government of the day and future governments for that matter. We have come a long way and thirty-one years on our economy is still striving to gain real momentum for progress. Economic growth is low, if not stagnant or declining. The country's economic base remains weak and fragile and we are still miles away from creating an environment that boosts investor confidence and one that is conducive to entrepreneurial creativity and innovation. Our balance of trade is unfavourable and we are caught up in the vicious cycle of dependency and heavy reliance on our donor partners' financial deliverance.

 Our economy is in a sad state and literally public expenditure has continued to rise while revenue generation continues to be slow and in some sectors worryingly declining. Therefore, while the economics of the proposed new constituencies is not a constitutional prerequisite to decision making by CBC, it is a moral factor that requires serious contemplation. Undoubtedly, it is a very expensive exercise and the government and parliament for that matter must be cautious in their actions to ensure our ailing economy is stretched no further than how it is now.

 Even with the current fifty constituencies, governing the country is already a very expensive exercise. For instance, taking the 2009 Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations into consideration, an individual ordinary Member of Parliament requires around SBD$200 000 a year for salary and other entitlements. This amount subsequently increases if an MP becomes a Minister or holds any other responsible position within parliament or government. This excludes the ex-gratia and terminal grants which together amounts to SBD$200, 000 for an individual Member within a parliamentary term. In addition, to subsidise development within a single constituency through the specified funds as the RCDF, MDF, RLF, MPDF and the ROC-CMPF, it requires more than SBD$2 million a year. So apparently, as it stands, the amount of money spent for each of the fifty constituency each year, including the entitlement of each constituency's respective ordinary Member of Parliament and the various development funds is more than SBD$2.5 million, which means that for a whole term of parliament the tax payers and donors have to provide more than SBD$10 million for each constituency to ensure that Solomon Islands is governed and that development is fairly distributed among the constituencies. This, as we know, is exclusive of the recurrent expenditure incurred in the normal functions and operations of government which makes up the biggest proportions of expenditure borne by the tax payers of Solomon Islands, both in the public and private sector.

 And as recently reported in the media, for the proposed additional seventeen Constituencies, the country will need to generate an additional amount of SBD$46.7 million a year to finance the undertaking. This is a lot of money that tax payers have to incur if the proposal is passed by Parliament. Indeed, the economic and social implications of the proposal are worrying for the private sector. For if parliament is to pass the proposal and hence finance it, much of the costs will be borne by the private sector, through increased taxes, rates and so forth and in a situation where investor confidence is low, such an objective would be highly detrimental for Solomon Islands in the long run.

 The focus Solomon Islands needs now is not so much for the increase of governance instruments, but on improving the state of our economy, through increased investor confidence and empowerment of current market tools that have been put in place to boost private sector investment and governmental initiatives that would help to stimulate growth in the economy.

 Hence, it would have been beneficial for Solomon Islanders if the CBC would have also make moral considerations, based on the economics and public-value perspectives of the issue, rather than just limiting their consideration around constitutional prerequisites. In the current state of our weakening economy this is necessary, for the issue of increasing public expenditure in light of our ailing economy was the major factor of consideration that resulted in the nullification of the Parliamentary Entitlement Commission's decision to award $50 000 for a spouse of a Member of Parliament as terminal grant previously. Hence, why has CBC seen it fit to come up with an expensive proposal just a few months after the previous PEC decision was nullified? This argument is still alive and true for Solomon Islands and will remain so for many more years to come. Logically, the CBC should have been strong to counter external influences and should have only allocated new constituencies where they are needed most than to succumb to all requests they have received and even going a step further by proposing demarcations where no proposals were received from particular provinces. This is ignorant practice and must be discouraged.

 There has never been a time more crucial in the history of parliamentary democracy in Solomon Islands that calls for responsible leadership that now. The people are divided over whether to support or oppose the proposal, given its mixed attributes. But one thing is clear, that our economy will not be able to afford and sustain an additional seventeen seats. The private sector is only beginning to recover and even the income-generation capacity of government has not improved.

 So, indeed while the proposal is genuine given its constitutional affirmations, the government and parliament are also morally obliged to act responsibly, and thoroughly consider both the economical and public-value aspects of venturing into such a very expensive undertaking. The gravity of the economic implications of the proposed new constituencies calls for rational judgment than one that is based on constitutional shrewdness or political ambitions. It calls for responsible governance based on public value and the economic morality, measuring against the values of representative democracy and political absolutism. The government therefore must tread carefully in considering the recommendation of the Commission.

 

WHY BEMOBILE? Digicel lelebet!

Dear Editor,

 After seeing a lot of views being shared in the media regarding the issue surrounding the right to provide mobile telephone services to Bemobile instead of Digicel by the Telecommunication Evaluation Committee (TEC), it became obvious that the decision was one that does not go down well with many Solomon Islanders, hence I too would like to share my views on the issue.

If I can recall correctly, the main reasons leading to the demand to open up the telecommunication market was three-fold. Firstly there was this issue of unreliable telecommunication services, especially with mobile telephone services and mainly mobile network congestions and so forth. Secondly there was this issue of cost, where the service provided was so costly and expensive that user talk time in Solomon Islands becomes relatively one of the most expensive in the world. The third issue was regarding the issue of accessibility to mobile telephone services, as the service was centralized only within urban areas, leaving out the rest of population residing in the rural areas. In Solomon Islands most people live in the rural areas and it is at the rural areas that the real economic base of Solomon Islands lies. Hence, there was this realization and recognition that the mobile telephone service must also be extended to the rural areas. 

So due to those three major issues, the ordinary people of Solomon Islands demanded a change of legislation so that another service provider is allowed to compete with the existing provider, which is none other than Our Telekom. The Telecommunication Act was consequently reviewed after some negotiations between the government and Out Telekom and the ordinary people were able to contribute their views in the process. During that time, an interested investor, Digicel was also very much involved in the process, even presenting as a party in the parliamentary review of the Telecommunication Act hence demonstrating its seriousness and genuine intention to invest in the telecommunication sector (mobile) in Solomon Islands. It even set up office in Honiara and went out on its own survey missions to identify best sites to set up mobile telephone infrastructure, equipment and facilities. Its commitment to invest in Solomon Islands therefore was unquestionable and unwavering regardless of the hostile environment it had found itself in, exacerbated by Solomon Telekom's tense dislike to free up the market. A brief look through the Bills and Legislations Committee's Hansard reports of the review will confirm this situation.

Consequently the Telecommunication Act was amended by Parliament and therefore a call for submission by tenderers was made. From what I gathered, and I stand to be corrected on this, only three companies responded, and out of the three only Bemobile and Digicel made genuine submissions. The TEC comprising all prominent Solomon Islanders, with the guidance and advice of the government-hired legal counsel from New York and elsewhere assessed the submissions and made their decision and as we all know the bid to provide mobile telephone service in Solomon Islands was won by Bemobile, a company that is based in Papua New Guinea.

 Bemobile, from my knowledge, which is subject for correction, has been based in Papua New Guinea for some time now and when it first came into operation in Papua New Guinea, its products were sold under PNG Telikom. In fact, some facts even show that Bemobile is a remake of B-mobile a defunct division of Telikom PNG. When its shares were sold, Telikom retained 50% while the other shares were divided among NASFUND (5%), Nambawan Super (5%), and the US-based Trilogy International Partners LLC (20%) and GEMS Ltd (20%). When this deal was announced in 2008 the PNG State Minister then described it as a "historic milestone for PNG's telecommunication industry" and indeed it was. But is the decision to have Bemobile instead of Digicel to provide mobile services in Solomon Islands also a milestone in Solomon Islands telecommunication services industry, especially for ordinary mobile service users?

Well the answer depends on how you look at it. However, looking back at the three main reasons as to why there was the need to open up the market, I strongly believe that it will never be the case at all for Solomon Islanders. The keywords in the whole equation are efficiency and reliability, two things that Bemobile has never been close to achieving in Papua New Guinea. As far as mobile service user's are concerned Bemobile has never made any great impacts in PNG's mobile services since its establishment. It has been described as highly ineffective providing a service that is expensive but very unreliable. On the other hand, no one can say those same sentiments about Digicel since it has entered PNG Telecommunication industry. All comments and feedbacks about Digicel have been very positive and encouraging. In addition, Digicel has wide experience in the industry, having operated in many other countries around the world hence its proven track record of success around the world. Bemobile is untested even around the region and its only hope is to bank on the experience of its Trilogy partners who are providing mobile services in New Zealand as 2 Degrees. However, even 2 Degrees remains greatly unpopular in New Zealand as it cannot compete with the might of other service providers such as Vodafone and Telstra. Having subscribed to their service myself at one point I have found it very costly and their promotion tactics misleading. I only used their service for a week to realise that I had made a wrong choice and had to switch back to Vodafone which is much more affordable and reliable.

The odds in the tender process in Solomon Islands therefore, taking into account the three basic issues mentioned earlier which gave rise to the need for an open telecommunication market were against Bemobile. Digicel was the stronger competitor and there was no logical reason that its bid was going to be turned down. As it turned out these odds were defied and the result was totally the other way round. The question now is, why did the TEC came up with the decision it made?

The Prime Minister made a public statement and emphasized that they (TEC and the legal counsel) had made careful assessment of the bids and based on their specified criteria selected Bemobile instead of Digicel. From his statement it was obvious that the decision swayed greatly from the original issues that needs addressing, namely efficiency and reliability, affordability and accessibility. These were the original concerns raised by ordinary Solomon Islanders which resulted in the review of the Telecommunication Act. I am sure you do not have to seek legal counsel from US-based experts to have a complete picture of the situation. These are people from developed countries who do not experience the everyday frustrations of ordinary Solomon Islanders in relation to the high cost of mobile services as well as its inefficiency and unreliability. Moreover, who would guess the independence of the US-based legal counsel when Bemobile is partly owned by two US-based Telecommunication companies?

Hence, in all regards, while I will not question the wisdom of TEC in regards to the decision it has made, I for one sees the decision to engage Bemobile as a highly economical and political one between Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea governments. It was a decision highly influenced by the economical situation of both countries (due to the global economic crisis and the ailing economic state of especially SIG) and the bilateral relations of the two countries (through MSG) both politically and economically. 

This was clearly highlighted in the Prime Minister's statement when mentioned that Bemobile was willing to provide around SBD$10 million (or some money amounting around that) as a show of their genuine intention to invest in Solomon Islands. I find this as a very lame excuse because Digicel has shown its intension to invest in Solomon Islands and has already been pouring money into the economy long before the million dollar guarantee was made by the untested and little-known Bemobile. Even the name itself, Bemobile, is not market-friendly in Solomon Islands as it can be used to mean various things that are insensitive to our normal day to day language (pidgin).

On the perspective of the TEC, definitely Bemobile will be the best competitor for Our Telekom because it is weak compared to the mighty Digicel. Hence, Our Telekom will be able to stay in the market and may be increase its revenue base which is good for Solomon Islands economy. As we all know SINPF is the biggest shareholder of Our Telekom and SIG owns SINPF. Thus an increase in the earning of Our Telekom will be a direct bonus to SIG. On the other hand PNG Government will also benefit because Telikom PNG, which is partly owned by the PNG Government will also expand its revenue base. This is a very simplistic view of the situation but the list of trickle-down effects of the economic returns of the deal can go on.

The biggest concern however will remain that the ordinary people of Solomon Islands will be the biggest immediate losers of the deal. While Bemobile has made many mouth-watering promises, from the PNG experience I am quite certain that there will still be limited competition and therefore mobile services in Solomon Islands will remain highly ineffective and unreliable, unaffordable and inaccessible. Until another service provider like Digicel enters the market this situation will still remain unchanged.

Above all, while I will refrain from questioning the wisdom of the TEC in reaching their decision, I wish to reiterate that it was a decision made based on reasons that swayed greatly from the original issues that have contributed to the need to open up the telecommunication industry of Solomon Islands. I may be tempted to say that it is a bit selfish of them to sway away from the original cries of ordinary Solomon Islanders, but I am also mindful that the real economic returns of such a deal are yet to be fully realized. However, it is undeniable that the decision will have no positive effect on the mobile telecommunication services in Solomon Islands unless another strong competitor is allowed to enter the market.

 

Youth Parliament in Solomon Islands - Is it worthy?

Dear Friends,
 Hello again! As you all know that National Parliament of Solomon Islands has recently convened the National Youth Parliament Program which coincided with the National Parliament Open Day. These are both very huge undertakings and to have them all in one go is indeed commendable achievement. Hence, first of all I would like to applaud the Speaker, Clerks and the hardworking staff of Parliament for successfully hosting the Youth Parliament Program and the Parliament Open Day all in a single week. You deserve all praise and commendation.


 Having said that, I do understand that there are people out there who do not subscribe to this line of thinking hence their open criticisms of the Parliamentary Youth Program. And while I do appreciate that everybody has a right and freedom of speech to voice out their views on issues, personally I was overly flabbergasted by some of the writers' blatant and ferocious attacks on program, making it to seem as if it was a total waste of money and resources and that nothing good will ever come from it. Some even stated that this is the first ever youth parliament they have heard of to have youths sitting in the seats of elected MP's on the floor of Parliament to openly debate political issues. Others went to the extent of questioning the 'cognitive ability' of the participants, labeling them as 'kids' and asserting that their level of understanding is still inadequate to fully grasp and digest issues of policy, governance and politics. But in all the arguments in opposition to the Youth Parliament Program it was obvious that the main line of argument was that the program was a 'nuisance', 'insane', 'irrelevant' and a waste of money that could have been used for better things such as economic development activities and for the provision basic essential services.

To me I think these are very superficial arguments that somehow have painted a very negative picture on the Youth Parliament Program. These criticisms have made it to seem as if that because of the Youth Parliament Program, all other sectors of the economy have been deprived of something valuable, whether it be money or an opportunity to learn and that we should not engage in new initiatives but to stick to our conventional ways of doing things, that 'old usual stuff' since 1978. Obviously personally I think these critics do not have a vision for our youths as future leaders, and they have failed to acknowledge and realise the important role and responsibility that Parliament has as an Institution to reach out to its people.

 The concept of Youth Parliament is common throughout the Commonwealth countries where youths are regarded as important cornerstone of society. In Solomon Islands youths make up the majority of our population, hence proving to be a very important part of our society. For this reason active youth participation and engagement is crucial for nation building. Our youths, therefore, must be allowed to actively engage and participate on issues of policy, governance and political debate at an early stage in life. Youths are like clay in the system. To come out with a desired end product of value, the potter has to mould the clay accordingly. And when youths are properly trained and moulded to become better citizens, they are like sparks that need no ignition. As the late US Senator, Robert Kennedy stated: "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the life of ease."

Hence, in Solomon Islands, if they are continuously ignored and suppressed, our youths are like a time bomb waiting to be ignited. One does not have to go back long into history to see how susceptible but precarious our youths are if they are engaged to achieve bitter ends. The concept of Youth Parliament therefore is to give young people the opportunity to have their views heard by key decision-makers and the general public and also to help them to fully realise their own potentials and hence their very important role in the society. It is a very effective way of raising the self-esteem of youths and empowering their participation in the democratic process. In relation to policy and governance the concept will help young people to understand and actively participate in parliamentary processes; to learn how to influence governmental decision-making as active citizens and to highlight the importance of helping young people to understand how decisions are made and how young people can be involved in influencing their worlds. Through the participation of the 50 Youth Parliamentary Representatives all our youths throughout the country can realise that they are being recognised as an important part of nation-building in Solomon Islands.

But there is even more to the Youth Parliament than that. It is an opportunity to learn a little more than many people know, about the distribution and the exercise of power. A vast number of people in Solomon Islands know little or nothing at all about how power is distributed and how our governance system operates. Many of the problems we face today in governance and politics are mainly due to our lack of - or mis-understanding of how the system works. For a better future, it is essential that we have a young generation now that better understands their political system and fully realises their place in the society so that they can participate and engage fully in it. It is important that our young people gains a deepening understanding of parliamentary democracy so that they do not hold misconstrued conceptions of it. By gaining such as a knowledge they can be able to uphold and advance its practices when it's their turn to lead the country, whether as politicians or as community leaders. After all, real power belongs to the people and as prescribed by the Constitution. But how can people responsibly exercise this power if they are ill-informed or are unaware of issues surrounding them? One may argue that that can be learned at school through the normal Secondary School Syllabus. But the reality is that there is no better place and way of learning about the system and how it works than being at Parliament itself and engaging in programs such as the Youth Parliament.

Furthermore, Solomon Islands is a member of the United Nations Organisation and therefore is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As a nation Solomon Islands is required to honour the commitments it has made in signing the Convention. Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention emphasises on the need to uphold the right of young people to have a say - to have the opportunity to express their views - on matters that affect them, and the convening of a Youth Parliament is a means of realising an important dimension of those Articles of the Convention.
 Financially, the above factors are all very important and immeasurable achievements that no money can buy. The critics have argued that consideration should be given to our ailing economy and the fact that we are the poorest country in the Pacific, and therefore in the world. Some argued that instead of using the money for Youth Parliament it should be channelled through the normal processes to encourage youth participation in rural economic development. However, I think this kind of analyses lacks forward thinking. How can you possibly develop a nation of peoples that lack proper and adequate knowledge on government and policy? Off course we are poor, thus educating our young people about politics and how they can fully engage in governance and policy debate is one way of alleviating poverty. We must understand that poverty alleviation and economic development is not only about tangible or 'hard' infrastructure. It is also about 'soft' infrastructure which concerns sound policies and empowering our mental capabilities to make rational decisions. We can spend all the money we have to encourage the youth to utilize their coconut plantation, cocoa plantations, fisheries, carpentry, sewing but how could you guarantee them a good future if they are ill-informed about issues that are affecting them? And not all of them will be farmers, or fishermen, carpenters or tailors. Some of them will be required to be leaders in their communities, in their provinces or states, or even at the national and international levels, and having proper understanding of governance and policies issues will be crucial.


 As I have mentioned earlier, the concept of Youth Parliament is widely practiced throughout the world. Fiji had a very successful Youth Parliament Program until the army took over the government. They even have an Alumnus according to which the program is run. In Tonga, its Youth Parliament Program was started in 2003 after a national survey indicated that the many people were not turning out to vote at elections times. The Youth Parliament therefore was designed to run as an outreach program "to enable all the youths of Tonga to be more involved and take positive actions in decision making and development of the Nation". The process was run exactly as the system of the National Parliament of Tonga where youths are engaged in debates on matters affecting them. The result of the program was overwhelming as it raised the profile of youths and parliament and contributed to more awareness of the governance system of Tonga. Hence, voter turnout increased as people become more informed of the importance of political participation.

In Zealand, Youth Parliament has been held every three to four years since 1994. For the Program, young people from around New Zealand are chosen by their local MP to be a Youth MP. During Youth Parliament Youth MPs have the opportunity to debate a mock Bill, engage in general debate, sit on Select Committees and ask parliamentary questions of Cabinet Ministers. The New Zealand Youth Parliament Program is made to be as real as possible. Government personnel and procedures are maintained throughout the whole program.

Similar programs are also run throughout all the Parliaments of the States of Australia, in Pakisatan, India, Scotland and even England, from whom our Westminster system was adopted. In all these practical cases, the results have been universal being that it is a very important opportunity to inculcate in youths with the values and spirit of democracy, the importance of dialogue, tolerance for others views, an understanding of the concept of Parliament and its role in democratic decision-making and oversight.

Apart from having youth parliaments in individual jurisdictions, Youth Parliaments are also held at regional levels. For instance the third Pan-Commonwealth Youth Parliament took place in Brisbane, Queensland from 19-23 April 2005 and over 70 delegates nominated by Legislatures across the Commonwealth took part in the event.  Sixty per cent of delegates were from developing countries. In convening the event the Speaker of the Acting Speaker of the Queensland Parliament, Hon. Jim Fouras MP, who was the Speaker of the Youth Parliament Program stated that: "The event will facilitate young people from all around the world being able to learn about and engage in the democratic process. I hope that it will also create an awareness of issues affecting youth around the world". There is also the European Youth Parliament (EYP) Program which was founded in 1987. The EYP encourages independent thinking and socio-political initiative in young people and facilitates the learning of crucial social and professional skills. Since its inauguration, many tens of thousands of young people have taken part in regional, national and international sessions, formed friendships and made international contacts across and beyond frontiers. It has thus made a vital contribution towards the uniting of Europe. Today the EYP is one of the largest European platforms for political debate, intercultural encounters, political educational work and the exchange of ideas among young people in Europe.

Looking at the above issues and factors, I strongly believe that the Solomon Islands Youth Parliament is far from being a 'nuisance', 'insane', or 'irrelevant'. It is a commonly practiced concept that is new to Solomon Island but one that can be very beneficial to our youths and Solomon Islands as a whole. I therefore 'rubbish' all the criticisms that have been made against it.

Youth Parliament commences in Solomon Islands

Dear Readers,

The National Parliament of Solomon Islands has finally hosted the Solomon Islands Youth Parliament. The event, indeed again marks another milestone in the path of parliamentary development and strenghtening in Solomon Islands and the leaders and staff of National Parliament, all donor partners and CNURA government should be applauded and congratulated for an overwhelming task and accomplishment.

From what I collected through the grape-vine there are 50 parliamentarians representing the various provinces of Solomon Islands. I believe all the provinces are well represented both numeratically and in relation to the debates in the House.

This first youth parliament is a great achievement. The task now is for us to built on the experience and work towards better things in the future.

GOD BLESS SOLOMON ISLANDS..

Change of PEC Leadership- What for?

Dear Frens,


And what on earth is the government planning to achieve with the change of PEC leadership? Are they trying to penalise the former PEC Chairman for the decisions made in relation to the PER 2009 and show to the public that the blame is on the him, or is it that the former PEC Chairman has spoken out in the media and have revealed too much; much more than he should have said at least in perspective of the government?

Since I could not find a much better possible reason, I personally believe that the former is the more likely scenario for such a move as the government is trying to save its face at the eleventh hour.  I recalled the statement by the Prime Minister when he announced that they (government) are taking the PEC to court because the Chairman (now former) has refused to take heed of goevrnment's advice to revoke the PER 2009, specifically the controversal $50 000 spousal grant. But what role does the government have in trying to influence the PEC when it has already made its decision? The government has no authority to call for the PEC to change a decision it has already made and has been passed through the Attorney-General's Office for eventual gazetting.

Be reminded that after the decision was made by PEC on PER 2009, it was processed through the government's 'screening process' and even the Attorney-General, as the chief legal advisor of the government has had the chance to provide appropriate legal advice to the government and PEC before the decisions were made to become legally binding and enforceable. The irony is that it is the Attorney-General, on behalf of the government, that is taking the PEC to court for the decisions it (PEC) has made on behalf of the Members of Parliament. And to an extent, it seems that the government or the Prime Minister for that matter is pre-empting the decision of the courts on the matter by demonstratting that the the PEC has made a wrong decision and as the person responsible, the Chairman is now removed.

However, puting legality question aside, I find the move by the government to replace the PEC Chairman as very childish and a shallow attempt to shift the blame from itself and save its face. We all know that the Chairman is only part of a group of people (Commission) and that the decisions he endorses as Chairman of that group (Commission) are not his own but that of the whole. And we all know too that as logic would tell us, the only source from which the various submissions received by the Commission originated from are the Members of Parliament themselves. So effectively the Prime Minister has fired the Chairman because he has endorsed their (Member's of Parliament's) wishes (submissions) for increases to thier entitlements. The Chairman was acting on behalf of the Members of Parliament (including the Prime Minister) and now that public has disagreed with the decision he (former Chairman) made for them (MPs), he is the one to be fired and to take the whole blame. Isn't that hypocritical?

Yes, that's the simple fact; he (the Chairman) has been fired because he has endorsed the submissions to increase the MP's entitlements which were submitted by the MP's themselves. It was fortunate that the media and the public have taken notice and have spoken out putting pressure on the government to revisit the PEC/PER matter. But what if it has been the other way round? Consider this scenario for the Chairman: what would have happened if he had refused to endorse the submissions at the first instance when they were before the PEC and decided not the approve the PER increases? I guess he would have suffered the same fate as he does now and got himself fired because the Members of Parliament would not be too keen to have a PEC Chairman who does listen to thier wishes.

So to me the problem and source of controversy are Members of Parliament themselves and not the Chairman of PEC or the PEC itself. The former PEC Chairman is a victim of dirty miscalculated political games by the Members themselves and changing the PEC Chairmanship will make no difference to the 'gravitational' influence politicians have over the PEC. In fact it might even be worse because now they have set a very bad precedence that as Chairman of PEC one must be subjected to government (Members of Parliament's) directives and influence, and if one fails, you will face the axe even if it means being morally correct in speaking out and putting facts right.

To me, the move by the government is out of frustration and desperation to enable them to continue to loosely grip to power and regain public support and confidence, especially in the light of the upcoming judgment day (general elections). I doubt the move will remedy the current public distrust on the government at all but will only raise more questions than answers. The simple fact is that the truth is known that it is all part of a dirty game of political maneuvering and even a simple man along the street will be able to figure it out.

Monetary Award to Gold Medal Winners

Hello frens,

Our athletes participating at the current mini games have done us very proud, especially the two athletes, Mr. Chris Votu and Ms. Babalu. There have been calls in the media that they deserve recognition by the country and should be dully awarded for their great achievements. But there has been mixed reaction on the suggestion, with some people saying that the current economic situation we are in does not warrant such practices.

I for one strongly believe that rewarding our highest achieving athletes (gold medal winners) is not a bad idea. It is in fact a very good one as it is definitely not a ‘bad precedence’ but a much needed motivating factor that will encourage them to perform well and win. Winning is what we want and anything to encourage our athletes to win is a positive step towards sports development in Solomon Islands. Why do you think other regional and international athletes are so successful? It is partly because their welfare is well taken care of by their respective governments and sporting bodies, including proper rewards and recognitions to winners.

Our two athletes and lone gold medal winners have indeed done our country proud and have put us back in the winning maps of regional athleticism. And pondering the idea, I would assume that any rewards to them would not be even close to fifty thousand dollars.

However, obviously the only problem with the idea right now is that our country, as well as the rest of the world is going through a very difficult time economically (this is not to say that we were much better off pre-recession than now) and awarding the two hardworking athletes with a few thousand dollars will be detrimental to the state of our economy. Understandably so! It is unquestionable that with the current state of our economy, and given the $261 million budget shortfall, every single dollar we earn counts.

So the situation is critical, very critical. We do not have enough money to reward good deeds, like that of our athletes, or for a mere 5 percent pay rise for our public officers. The only money we have is to cater for the resolution of parliament, when our hardworking MPs will be awarded their rightful entitlements including their $100 000 each terminal grants and their spouses’ $50 000. Oh well, the courts will decide that for them soon, when they make their judgment on the matter. In the meantime, since our economy is hard hit on cash, the Finance Minister can decide on our behalf the best monetary tool there is to employ to keep us moving forward financially. The good news is that we can even trade at bargain prices.

Parliament Meeting Further Adjourned

The current meeting of Parliament has been further adjourned to November 12.

Prime Minister Derek Sikua moved a special motion of adjournment yesterday when Parliament resumed after just over three weeks break.

Dr Sikua cited the need for further public consultation on some very important bills which government needs to bring before this meeting.

The bills include the Political Parties Integrity Bill, a supporting constitutional amendment bill, and Electoral Act Amendment Bill 2009.

The Prime Minister says other matters that must be concluded before Parliament resumes meeting on November 12 include the work of special parliamentary select committees.

This include the work of a special select committee to look into the quality of services at the national referral hospital and the parliamentary house committee which is conducting an inquiry into the 50-thousand dollar terminal grant for M-P spouses.

Government is still holding public consultations throughout the provinces on the proposed Political Party Integrity Bill and other supporting constitutional reforms.

This week, chairman of the bills working committee John Keniapasia and other government officers are in the Makira provincial capital, KiraKira.

M-Ps who spoke on the motion, include the Opposition Leader and Leader of the Independent Group in Parliament.

Most of them spoke in support of the motion.


[Source: Solomontimes online- http://www.solomontimes.com/]

I Won't Step Down: PM Sikua

Prime Minister Derek Sikua has told Parliament he will not step down as Prime Minister because he has the support of his Ministers and Government backbenchers.

There has been calls from various statesmen including a former Governor General for Dr Sikua to step down as Prime Minister because he is no longer able to keep the government together.

But Dr Sikua says he is not losing control of government and that his support is rock solid.

He made the clarifications today while he delivered his statement to Parliament on a special adjournment motion to adjourn Parliament to November 12.

The adjournment ended a three-week recess which began on August 24 after Parliament sat for more than three months.

Prime Minister Sikua says he had adjourned parliament not because of any rift or instability in the Government as alluded to the media.

He says additional time for consultations is needed to complete work on various Bills that the government intends to table in parliament as well as various parliamentary committees are yet to complete their hearings.

Dr Sikua also says the committees are being served by the same parliamentary support.

He says the government attaches a lot of importance to their work hence the need for more time to put them together.

[Source: Solomontimes online- http://www.solomontimes.com/]

Bad Management and Corruption Hinders Development- PM Sikua from solomontimesonline

Dear Frens,

It is ironic to see PM Sikua making such statements in the media, especially in light of the many controversial decisions and issues  the CNURA government which he leads has gone through. While I hold a lot of respect and regard for the Prime Minister as a person, politically I have no reservations in voicing my opinion in this personal blog.

Consequently, the blooper of the PM's statement, I believe is the call that "if Solomon Islands want to develop, then disputes, violence, corruption and maladministration must be stopped". I find it really hard to accept that the PM himself is saying this to ordinary Solomon Islanders at a time when he it is quite obviouse that he can no longer control the behaviour of his Ministers, making prominent leaders to question his leadership capability, thus asking him to 'step down'.

Evidently, if media reports are anything to go by then the CNURA government is in total disarray. And the situation thus worsened by the mounting political pressures of a looming general election is one by which individual politics now overides the binding attire of a coalition government in its committment to pursuing and achieving and national development and growth.
The Prime Minister's statement that development cannot occur in the prevalence of disputes, violence, corruption and maladministration is unquestionable. Indeed development is an all encompassing responbility that is borne by all Solomon Islanders. But what does ordinary Solomon Islanders have to do with 'bad management of state finances'? While there are indirect correlations, obviously the solution to the issue is central only to the role and behaviour of the government of the day and instead of worsening the country's current state of fiscal stress, tightened fiscal and/or monetary policies should be employed.

Recently the government has been under immense pressure from the public to clean up its act or step aside. As the leader the PM bears the responsibility to either tighten the political grip of his coalition and make redress or otherwise relinquish prime ministership, and allow a new government or leadership to assume authority. The only reason why I believe he should opt for the former is because of the time factor as it is now too short for a new government to be formed.

So instead of making sweeping statements that are only aimed  at trying to shift the attention of the public on the government to peripheral issues,  the PM should make efforts to tighten his grip and control over his political flock before thier time is over.  By all means personally I believe that at the moment what we have as CNURA is a very weak government that is unable even to manage its own house-keeping.

We are now at the eleventh hour for another political chapter and so far it has been indeed a challenging journey for all us. Thirty-one years onwards, Solomon Islands as a country and people are still struggling. We only hope that come the next general elections we will be able to properly and effectively exercise our democratic rights to select a parliament and form a government that can take us forward in a more sustainable and amicable manner to the moment when real 'joy, peace, progress and prosperity' can be trully realised.

"Numbers to votes, hopes to dust"

Dear Readers,

I think the Prime Minister's respond to the SIPEU log of claims is demeaning of the CNURA government. For a long time the CNURA government has publicly pronounced and declared itself to be a "responsible government" and has tirelessly fought in parliament and in the media to maintain that reputation.

However, their recent actions regarding the PEC, SIPEU log of claims and on other matters of national interest (including the action of the Finance Minister to resell a confisticated vessel defying the orders of the courts) have not spoken well for the Sikua-led group.

I can't help but wonder why they can still claim to be a responsible government when their actions are speaking otherwise. The principle of 'responsible government' is an important virtue in the Westminster system of government, which Solomon Islands had adopted from the British upon gaining independence in 1978. However, as well all know, being responsible means being responsive to the needs of the people. It does not mean being ignorant and self-serving at all.

Under a responsible government leaders work to serve the people, and their interests are secondary to that of the State and the people. They work out of comittment to initiate tangible changes in development and growth, all for the common good.

The current (CNURA) government is a far cry from such a situation, and it is of no surprise that even prominent people, like the former Governor-General and Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Buddeley Devesi, have called on the Prime Minister to step aside. While such  a move would be untimely and makes no difference at this point in time when elections are looming, it is agreeable to say that the government lacks strong leadership and vision.

Even some Ministers are fighting and are back-stabbing each other. They are accusing each other of actions they do in the name of their own banner, CNURA. And what is the government (or the leadership of the government- the PM and the DPM) are doing to adress all these? Nothing. No wonder that not much has been achieved so far since they came into power. It is because there are lots of 'prime ministers' and 'finance ministers' within their ranks and all they do is to work for thenselves, not for the people to whom they are responsible.

Consequently, I am certain that is is true to think that if CNURA is really a 'responsible government' as they wish to believe that they are then it is a government responsible only to itself and NOT to the people.

Need to review/ audit SINPF

hello frens,

Am sure most of us are financial members of SINPF and are concerned one way or another on its affairs, especially in the manner in which the Fund invests and expends its finances. Indirectly, as contributors of the Fund we are its owners and so we are entitled to know whats going on in there.

Over the years, we have learnt through the media and through the Fund's reports that there have been massive investments, both locally and offshore by the Fund. One of the recent local investments by the Fund is its shareholding arrangement with South Pacific Oil. SINPF owns more than 50% of the company's shares.

Hence, I personally believe that the recent media revelation that the Company's (South Pacific Oil)Managing Director is living with a S100 000 monthly salary calls for an inquiry into the affairs of SINPF. I think we as members should be demanding that the Fund's financial dealings and spendings are audited so that we are aware of its activities. I think it is time that as members we are provided with independent information, rather than inside information that will always speak for the Fund and its Board and Management, such as the Fund's financial reports which are produced and published by the Fund.

If an independent financial audit is undertaken I am sure that many more irregularities and suspicious activities could be discovered. The $10 000 monthly salary of Mr Mike Hemmer, who also happens to be the Chairman of SICCI, is only a tip of the iceberg.

Solomon Islands Need Change- Sir Waena

Hello again,

Reading thru Solomon Star (solomonstarnews.com), I came across one very interesting piece of 'news', which appeared under the above subject.

It was interesting to see Sir Nathaniel Waena actively participating once again in the local political mainstream. His comments were made in relation to the political party bill which was tabled before Parliament in the last sitting.

Am sure this showing of the former G-G is an indication that he may be a standing candidate in the coming general elections. And why wouldn't he be? In this democratic world he is not prevented by anything whatsoever to rejoin politics and to run for elections.

However, looking at it more closely, I wondered that if I were him I would just keep out of active politics and dedicate my time to do other things that may help me to maintain the stature I have gained, being a one-time G-G, rather than opting to going back into the muddy waters of Solomon Islands politics.

Am not saying that being a politician would lower that stature. What am saying is that he can still do as much to help people and bring about change, being a former G-G. He does not have to be a politician or an MP to do so. Indeed he has gained a reputation that only a few Solomon Islanders have been able to acquire and putting this reputation to good use would not only benefit a lot of needy people but would bring about many changes just as much as a good politian would do.

However, as I have said, he has all the right to re-enter politics. I am raising this point only as a matter of personal interest questioning "whats life after being a G-G in Solomon Islands"? So far we have seen that there are only two things: One is to remain active by re-entering politics if not as an MP then as an advisor or political appointee, and two is to get out of the limelight and be unheard of unless ones perspective is sought.

Personally, this trend is saddening because I for one have envisaged a former G-G taking up a much more proactive and apolitical role in spear-heading charity activities and humantarian drives at least for a few years after being relieved of G-G before actual retirement into old age, rather than anything else.

But again this is just my own ignorant opinion.

Govt files case against PEC- Angered by failure to revoke decision....((????)).!!

Hello Frens,

Yes, you read it right. The governmet is suing or has sued the PEC for its failure to revoke its decision of granting terminal grant of $50 000 for a MP's spouse. This is how Solomon star reported the matter: that the government has filed a case against PEC,through the Attorney-General's Office because the PEC has failed to act on its (government's) advice for it (PEC) to revoke its decision on the said matter. I was reading through old news items (24 August 2009)at the Solomon Star website (www.solomonstarnews.com) when I came across the article. Having read about all the negative reactions that has been written in the media regarding the decision of PEC, I guess there is no better angle to view the issue than that.

It really striked me how politics is played nowadays. In the article it was quite funny how the Prime Minister makes it sound as if the government is really really angry with the PEC (an 'independent body')for not revoking its decision after it was told to do so by the government. What a turn of events, isn't it? And according to the article, the Prime Minister himself said that. Mind you I am not questioning the fact that the case has been referred to the court. What I am stunned about is the PM's unconscious revelation on the issue, as reported by the Star, that prior to filing the case the government has ordered the PEC to revoke its decision. He could just have said that they have refered the matter to the courts seeking declaration on the constitutionality of the issue rather than revealing that it only acted to refer the matter to the courts after PEC failed to listen to its advice or rather its directive.

Remember PEC is an independent body and even the government should not influence its decisions through unregulated means, whatever the circumstances, except through the judicial or law-making processes. Reading the statement of the PM as reported by the article only made me to become even more suspicious that even prior to reaching its decision to award the spousal terminal grant, PEC has received external influences and pressure to decide the way it did.

Reading the article makes me to further ponder on the issue and can't help but wonder how and from whom the PEC has received the submissions for the increases in entitlements at the first place, and on what grounds those decisions were reached. Given the lack of information and my failure to settle on any logical reasoning I silently resolved that it would really be a very interesting thing if this information is exposed and PEC settles its score on the sheet

However, reading the article I was quite disappointed that it had failed to highlight with enthusiasm the driving force behind the immediate reactions of the government, the PEC and now the courts: that is the victory of the voice of the people. This is unprecendented in Solomon Islands and we must all be proud that our voices have been finally heard. It should serve as an eye-opener for a shift towards better collaboration and consultation between the people and state apparatus in the future when dealing with affairs that can have overaching effects and consequences. And we should now be convinced that peoples' power can actually work when the system allows it to.

While the finality of the case is still unknown the fact that system is being used to 'check' itself in its enforcement is a positive development. We only hope that if the courts rule that the PEC's decision is revoked then at least some of the items in the log of claims of SIPEU could now be afforded, or at least seriously considered. With our fingers crossed, lets just hope for the better.

At least the point has been made and heard. Hopefully if the claims are not addressed now (given the global economic turmoil and the sorry state of our economy)then it better be soon because for sure they will never be reversed and hence will always be used as bargaining chips by SIPEU in the future. The government should know better and at least show some committment in addressing them now, if not later. It (government) should realise that addressing the claims is inevitable and an outright ignorance on its part would be detrimental.

In relation to the PEC and spousal grant, I believe that the current government's reaction, is but an indication that the system that we have is workable and is useful in achieving many of our political problems; that is, if it is properly understood and utilised to achieve common good. On the other hand it can also be abused to the benefit of others, a pocket of the society who are somewhere up there in the hierarchy of social stratification.

The constitutionality of the $50 000 terminal grant for MP’s spouses: A layman’s perspective.

Dear Readers,

As reported in the media, the $50 000 spousal grant awarded by the Parliamentary Entitlements Commission (PEC) to MP's spouses has been referred to the Parliamentary House Committee for inquiry and/or review. This procedure is provided for under Section 70 of the Standing Orders of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands, which allows the Parliamentary House Committee "to consider and advise appropriate authorities on such matters that are connected with Members' terms and conditions of service" and "to examine and make recommendations on any matters which are connected with the provisions of sections 62 and 69 of the Constitution" to name but a few of its functions. Also the Attorney-General on behalf of the government has also referred the matter to the courts for clarifications. These are two totally separate processes and the decision of the court will not affect the outcome of the parliamentary inquiry into the matter, and vice versa.

Thus I hereby wish to share my layman's perspective on the issue and hopefully generate some discussions and in so doing we can all share and learn from each others thoughts.

My layman's view of the $50 000 terminal grant for MP's spouses is that it is unconstitutional and does not serve as a good precedence for the future of Solomon Islands in relation to responsible governance and sound democracy. I will present my argument based on Constitutional provisions related to the following:
(1)The purpose and function of the PEC and,
(2)Factors of consideration required for the determination and/or amendment of parliamentary entitlements by PEC.

The purpose and function of PEC .

As you are aware, the PEC is established under the Section 69A of the Constitution of Solomon Islands ... "to determine the entitlements of the parliamentarians and to amend them by yearly review..." [Section 69B (1) of the Constitution].

Entitlements is defined by Section 69C (2)(a) to "include salaries, allowances and such other benefits, services or facilities, whether in cash or otherwise, as the Members of Parliament (Entitlements) Commission may consider it necessary to be provided to the Parliamentarians to enable them to maintain the dignity of their office". A parliamentarian is defined by Section 69C (2)(b) to mean "the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Independent Group, the Deputy Speaker and all other members of Parliament, whether or not, Parliament is in session or in sitting".

Hence, obviously the main function of PEC is to determine the entitlements of parliamentarians who, as defined are elected politicians. That responsibility is exclusive and only people who fall under the definition of being a parliamentarian are eligible to 'receive' or 'benefit' from the entitlements. Sections 69B (1), 69B (2)(b)(iii), 69B(2)(c)(i), 69B(2)(c)(iv), 69B (3)(b), 69C (1) and 69C (2)(a) of the Constitution all used the word parliamentarian and never in the Constitution has the word 'parliamentarian's spouse' appeared. The only provision that comes close to including a parliamentarian's spouse is Section 69B (3)(a). However, the use of the word and in 'parliamentarians and their families' instead of or to me implies that their families are not mutually exclusive of the parliamentarians and hence they can only 'receive' and 'benefit' indirectly through the parliamentarian. It emphasises that in between the PEC and the family is the parliamentarian and the family is related or connected to the PEC through the parliamentarian. Therefore, it is wrong for the PEC to directly award the 'family' which includes the spouse with any benefits without channelling it through the parliamentarian entitlements. Any benefits that the family should receive must or can only be awarded and considered as part of the 'parliamentarian's entitlement'.

In addition, awarding the spousal terminal grant would create a dangerous paradigm that by being part of a parliamentarian's family equals automatic qualification for direct benefits from the PEC. It would mean that even the sons and daughters of a parliamentarian can be given terminal grants if approved by PEC. And by directly awarding the terminal grant to the spouses outside of the normal parliamentarian's entitlements payment the PEC literally recognises the spouse as a parliamentarian. This judgment is made based on the understanding that at the end of the term the spousal terminal grant of $50 000 will be paid directly to the spouse and not through the parliamentarian as this is totally separate from the parliamentarians terminal of $100 000. Obviously, in the long run the current spousal grant will only create more controversy and confusion by the public in the functions of the PEC. A spouse is a 'wife' or 'husband' and not a parliamentarian as defined by Section 69C (2)(b) of the Constitution and the PEC only determines the entitlements of Members of Parliament, as clearly stipulated by Section 69B (1). The law as it currently stands does not regard a spouse of a parliamentarian as having similar privileges as the parliamentarian himself hence they are not entitled any direct benefits under the PER.

Factors to consider by the PEC in its determination and/or amendment of Parliamentary Entitlements.

I will now move on to the second ground of my submission, which is based on the factors provided for by the Constitution for the PEC to consider in its determination and/or amendment of Parliamentary Entitlements.

Section 69B (2) (a), (b) & (c) of the Constitution outlines a number of factors that the PEC has to consider in exercising its powers. Section 69B (2)(b) (i) & (i) includes:
(i) the state of the national economy and the financial position of the Government;
(ii) movements in the level of the pay and other entitlements admissible to other persons in employment;

Sections 69B (3)(b) stipulates that (3) "In making or amending the regulations, the Members of Parliament (Entitlements) Commission shall –
(b) secure that the salaries and other entitlements of Parliamentarians increase at no less a rate than the rate of increase, if any, of salaries and entitlements (taken as a whole) of the public officers.

When looking at these constitutional provisions in relation to the PEC's award of spousal terminal grant, it is to very obvious that the members of the PEC have not complied with the above factors of consideration.

Solomon Islands is still recovering from the experience of the ethnic tension which has brought chaos to the social and economic systems of the country. Hence, the fiscal position of the economy is far from being stable and the peace and security in the society is still very fragile. Additionally, it has been predicted that in the 5 to 10 years time logging revenue, the economy's biggest earner, will drop due to depletion of our trees. The fishery industry continues to struggle financially and the challenges faced by the tourism are far from over. Above all, with the current global economic crisis, there has never been a time in our short history that our economy needs salvaging. Therefore, obviously the state of the national economy does not warrant for the award of $50 000 spousal grant, let alone further increases to the parliamentary entitlements.

Since 2000 the parliamentary entitlements have increased to almost 100% in total. Comparably, increases in the minimum wage of employees, the COLA and other salary/allowance adjustments/entitlements of public officers have not even reached 10%. The SIPEU log of claims and other outstanding claims by other peoples within the country have been long ignored by successive governments. Yet the PEC has seen it fit to approve the $50 000 spousal terminal grant, which in itself is a total payment of $2,500,000, to be paid out from public funds. This amount, added to the current parliamentary entitlements will create a massive burden on the government and economy of the country when the current parliament dissolves and all the payments are due.

Given these considerations, it does not require much effort to figure out that the above factors of consideration, provided for by the Constitution to the PEC in the exercise of its powers have not been adhered to by the Members of PEC when the spousal grant was determined. Hence, in my layman's view I strongly believe that the award of the spousal terminal grant of $50 000 by PEC is not only unconstitutional but sets a bad precedence for responsible governance and sound democracy in Solomon Islands. Thus, it must be nullified and the PEC's decision revoked.

‘JM SAGA’- Gaining a Loss

Once upon a time in the history of Solomon Islands, the JM saga was the sweetest talk among the people. JM or 'Julian Moti' was the name most spoken and written about in every radio, newspaper and internet news sites in Solomon Islands, Australia and regional media. This was the period when the person bearing the name, JM, was appointed and served as the Attorney-General of Solomon Islands.

In Canberra, JM was the worst enemy, the most wanted man. Details of his past and present years in life were analysed, scrutinised and explained in relation to his strengths and mostly weaknesses. All aspects of his life were put under the x-ray. Standing out of all these were the child sex crimes he allegedly committed in Vanuatu in late 90s, which according to media reports were thrown out of court, as the presiding magistrate ruled that he had no case to answer. A Fijian-born Australian citizen, JM had spent most of his time prior to his appointment as Attorney – General of Solomon Islands travelling in and out of that Australia. All these time he was unnoticed and ignored by Australiand authorities. His appointment as Attorney – General however ignited Canberra's interest on JM. Australian claimed that it has found new evidence of the case and the media reported that the Vanuatu magistrate who heard the case against JM had been bribed by JM to dismiss the case in exchange for JM's paying for the magistrate to study at the University of Western Sydney. The report cited university records and evidence obtained by the Australian Federal Police in September 2004. His appointment as Solomon Islands Attorney-General by the Sogavare-led Grand Coalition for Change Government (GCCG) therefore was heavily criticised by Canberra, and a mad media campaign was launched against this government decision. On several occasions, the then Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Hon. Alexander Downer even wrote open letters to the Solomon Islands media, explanation Canberra's stand on the matter.

Among the Forum Island states, JM was the common denominator of their rows. Because of JM Melanesian solidarity was tested. Papua New Guinea's (PNG) Grand Chief and Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare was implicated in a 'Delta Force-like' airlift of JM from PNG, where he was being released on bail and was awaiting court on charges relating to breach of PNG's immigration laws. He was dropped at an isolated Munda Airstrip by the PNG Defence Force Plane that airlifted him to Solomon Islands. Both Prime Ministers of PNG and Solomon Islands immediately denied involvement in the 'airlift'. Vanuatu was also dragged into the JM saga as the child sex charges, which Canberra now has new evidences to put to retrial under its own laws, were committed there. Through the Pacific Islands Forum, Fiji and the islands of the region were involved in the saga as the Forum, then chaired by the Prime Minister of Samoa, strongly criticised Solomon Island's boycott of the Forum Meetings in 2007. The Solomon Islands Prime Minister, Manasseh Sogavare decided not to attend the Forum Meeting in protest of what he sees as "heavy Australian influence on the sovereign affairs of an independent state" of Solomon Islands relating to the MJ saga.

Sogavare's own course of actions and decisions in relation to the JM saga, himself being a personal friend of JM, may have cost him his grip of power and common political support within his coalition government and among the people. Many members of his government expressed displeasure in his decision to boycott the forum meeting in Apia and on how he has handled the JM saga. The Prime Minister's Office was raided by police, led by members of the Participating Police Force under RAMSI and the office fax machine was confisticated to seek evidence of the Prime Minister's involvement in the 'airlift'. The Minister of Immigration was also arrested and questioned for his role in the matter. For Canberra a shift in the political 'status quo' in Solomon Islands and a change of government was the greatest wish at that time. They must have been wishing too hard- but with little measurable collateral such as the expulsion of their High Commissioner- as in December, 2007 this wish was granted. The GCCG was removed from office on the floor of parliament through a motion of no confidence, moved by the current Prime Minister, making it to be the first no confidence motion to succeed in the history of Solomon Islands.

I can still clearly recall that day, it was the second Thursday of December 2007 and JM as the Attorney-General was also in parliamentary attendance. A very unwavering individual, despite the obvious shift in numbers to his disadvantage, the then Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare was quite content to see it through to the end and defied the practice in Solomon Islands whereby Prime Ministers tend to resign on the floor of parliament in the eve of a motion of no confidence they were certain to lose. The motion was passed and it was obvious that the outcome of the no confidence vote was a shock to JM. That day unlike any other, he remained in parliament hours after it was adjourned, basically I guessed just to allow time for him to really come to terms with the reality of the situation. He was laughing but his face showed it all that it was indeed not the best day of his entire life. That day, Thursday 13^th December 2007, marked the beginning of the end in the sweetness of the name "Julian Moti" in the taste of the media in Solomon Islands and in Australian and regional media.

Not long after the current Coalition for National Unity and Rural Advancement (CNURA) government took office JM was deported to Australia to face justice. For me personally, that was the last time I have ever heard of the JM saga.

While the outcome of his case is nothing of a concern at all to me, my uneasiness lies on the current silence of the media on the case. Why the sudden lose of interest? Mind you, I am not saying that the media has stopped reporting on the issue. What I am saying is that it is evident that there has been significant loss of interest on the case. This turn of events is quite disappointing because for me the JM saga has just reached its most interesting segment. This is where the media has been trying to justify or show otherwise; the outcome being that the alleged culprit is finally put to justice or whether the conspiracy that many commentators have sought to believe will be proven to be true- Canberra hated JM because of his strong criticisms of Australian foreign policy and did not want him to be the Attorney-General General of a 'fragile, weak neighbour'.

On reflection, the JM saga has indeed tested the potency of many aspects of regionalism in the region, exposing weaknesses and reinforcing strengths. It has contributed to the fall of a sovereign government and to an extent reemphasised Australia's neo-colonialist 'police state' approach to foreign policy and regionalism in the region.