Election Updates

As Solomon Islanders gear up for the general elections last minute tactics will be employed by candidates to try and win votes. Tonight is the devil's night! As as we head for the polls and for the election of a Prime MInister and the formation of government, this blog will be updated occassionally. For these updates go to the Solomon Islands Elections 2010 page of this blog to view or to make any comments.

DDP’s Policy on NPF- it's blooper!!

The Direct Development Party (DDP) has recently launched its policy manifesto and one of its main goals is to "open up NPF" for people who are not formally employed. Alfred Sasako, a trustee of DDP revealed this in his media publication. However, Anthony Makabo, General Manager of NPF clarified in another letter that this provision is already covered under the current NPF Act. Unsurprisingly, Sasako replied to this and tried to make some cover for DPP.


I read with interest the letters by Mr. Alfred Sasako and Mr. Anthony Makabo the General Manager of the National Provident Fund on the above matter and this is what I think.

First of all, Sasako’s first letter which touched on the issue of NPF membership as part of DDP’s manifesto amused me. Reading the letter, two things come to mind. Firstly, I was of the view that little or no effort was undertaken by DDP to examine existing legislation in regards to voluntary membership of NPF before finalizing their manifesto. Secondly, Mr. Sasako may have misquoted himself in the letter. These words which Mr. Sasako himself said and wrote says it all: “So far … NPF only benefits those who are in paid employment. But what about those work but are not formally employed? Can they be included under the NPF scheme?... DDP intends to open up NPF so that any Solomon Islander who wishes to can save in this important government financial institution”.

This statement clearly shows that DDP is of the view that the NPF scheme is not inclusive of people who are non-formally employed, which is not true, as Makabo has clarified in his letter. As Makabo stated, the NPF Act’s voluntary provision already includes “those who work but are not formally employed”. Thus, NPF is already “open up” and does not need DDP to do it for them. Should they have undertaken proper research of the NPF scheme and its membership requirements DPP would have known better that the particular area of their manifesto is already taken care of and should not be included, let alone published in the media as one of their priorities.

And if DDP understands this issue “perfectly” as Sasako described in his second letter, then they should avoid making misleading statements. The above quoted words would tell any reader that DPP is of the view that people who are not formally employed are not included in the NPF scheme as it is “not open” for them, which is not true at all.

I am raising this concern because I think this blooper by DDP is a typical illustration of what many political parties and intending candidates will be or are now doing to win votes in the up coming election; that is the political sugar-coating of somewhat non-pragmatic and unfeasible policy proposals, or in this case lack of proper assessment of people’s needs and priorities. Many people and parties will come up with sugary and mouth-watering manifestos and plans to convince voters. Many of these policy proposals may not be feasible and pragmatic given our current circumstances. And history has proven that most are formulated only to attract political support to win elections. On top of that, making drastic changes to our current system is easier said than done as how it is being ‘simplified’ by many of the political parties’ manifestations. So I only hope that people are not going to be hypnotised by the sugar-coated vocabulary of party and individual manifestos.

Mr. Sasako’s second letter, in his reply to Makabo has made clarifications on the position of DDP in the issue of NPF membership. His assertion that the NPF issue is but one of the many questions addressed in their manifesto is understandable. But I think the fact that they have chosen to highlight that particular issue in the media as an example of their various policy questions is a clear demonstration of the vitality of the issue in their policy platform. I am not surprised though for it is an attractive one, with potential of gaining the favour of thousands of rural Solomon Islanders.

As stated in the second letter, the issue for DDP on NPF is mainly on “why most rural Solomon Islanders have not joined the NPF scheme“ regardless of the voluntary membership provision already in place. In my opinion, this issue is not an economical one but one that is normative, raising questions on the how rural people value NPF membership as a means of social security as opposed to saving in banks, as well as how convenient this scheme can be for them should they become members. Many rural people already generate substantive incomes enough for them to be voluntary members. But they would rather save their money in the banks instead, where it is more convenient, than to go to NPF to open an account. The technicalities involving NPF membership is almost beyond practicality for rural dwellers. Unless DDP collaborates with NPF so that its services are decentralised to rural areas, this proposal will remain an item in our economic wish-list for some time.

In relation to asking the right questions, I believe in the case of NPF the question is not very much on asking “why” or “why not“ alone. This is because answering the “why” question alone would only lead to actions that would result only in ‘means’ and not ‘ends’. For instance, in answering why or why not rural people do not join NPF on voluntary basis, one might come up with a range of normative results which at the end of the day may not be action-oriented or are too aspirational to be useful course for action. So I believe that answering the questions of “why” or “why not” alone, in the case of NPF is not enough. It will only lead to further questions than answers.

Instead we should be asking both the “why” and the “how” questions. The reason as to why people do not join NPF or why nothing has been done about the issue will give us valuable information. But having such information alone is not enough. What the people in rural areas need is action and it is only when the question of “how” is being asked that things can be action-oriented and be prescriptive. So asking the question of “why” alone will not be enough to effectively address the issue of under-utilisation of NPF’s voluntary membership provision. It is not enough to the extent that asking it (why) alone would be the same as asking the wrong question.

Apparently, I am quite impressed by DDP’s proposed rural economic unit (REU) market model. For Solomon Islands to be economically independent we have to expand or broaden our economic base and in Solomon Islands there is no better way of doing that than to decentralise development initiatives to the rural areas. But I think the proposal is not something “new and radical”. Such units already exist in many communities, or at least at where I come from. The only task required is to have them properly organised and coordinated, which at the end of the day is really a process of capacity building and strengthening of existing local socio-economic and political structures and institutions. This approach is not new, let alone radical. It has been around in discussions of development and politics of Solomon Islands for many years.

On hindsight, turning constituencies into rural economic units is just another means of boosting rural development through community governance, proactive economic participation, sustainability and participatory democracy, which are the common vocabulary of most if not all of the other parties contesting the upcoming national general elections. Thus, it is yet another of the tentacles of the “bottom-up approach” to development policy of the GCCG and CNURA- nothing new and radical. The language may seem different but the ideology is the same. It is just sugar-coated.

Having said all the above, I would like to wish DDP and its members the best of luck in the upcoming elections. Hope you will be able to implement your policy proposals should any of your candidates are voted into parliament.

MAY GOD BLESS SOLOMON ISLANDS!!

Threat to Sell Ballot Papers real; West Makira Constituency

Hello wantoks,

The People First Network website (http://www.peoplefirst.net.sb/) has reported recently that some voters at West Makira constituency have threatened to sell their votes (ballot papers) in the upcoming general elections for $200 per paper. This they say is because "people there feel that they do not have any elected member representing them in parliament" as there has been lack of tangible development throughout the years within the Constituency since the death of long serving politician, and former West Makira MP, the late Solomon S Mamaloni.

 This situation exposes a very delicate issue in the politics and governance of Solomon Islands, and especially in West Makira constituency for that matter. At the outset this scenario would be quite funny to some. But looking at it more seriously, personally, I am not at all surprised by these sentiments and why some of the people of West Makira constituency have given up hope on our governance system. As a person coming from the rural West Makira, I have also seen and experienced for myself these frustrations and hence could understand very well the frustrations of West Makirans.

 West Makira constituency has experienced a period of political instability since the passing away of late Solo. He was one of the longest serving politicians of his time until his death. During his reign as MP for West Makira, there was political stability in the constituency. However, since 2000, when he died, West Makira constituency has gone through a period of political scouting to fill the vacuum he had left behind. Thus there is very high political turn-over and as expected in such situations development goals are often set to short or medium term perspectives and are not long term. In situations where they do have long-term implications, they are often politicised to fulfil the aggregate goal of winning future elections.

This strategy has resulted in what West Makira constituency is now today, a constituency with no major development and is filled with frustrated people who no longer have any trust on the government and politicians. For them the democratic value of elections and voting does not matter anymore, for there is no difference in whether or not they cast their votes; there will still be no developments.

 In addition, this lack of long term development initiatives is also due to lack of visionary leadership. Well, at least long-term development goals are only cited and preached verbally and on paper, especially during campaigns but have never been implemented in any slight way. This is a major problem because the trend in West Makira has been that, most if not all intending candidates and MPs only focuses their plans and goals on "dead monies" 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). The named funds are money already allocated and made available to each constituency to utilise. The only task that is required to be done by the MP and his officers is to formulate sound development plans so that these funds are tapped and projects upraised, acquired and implemented according to a uniformed vision and outlook (plan); not in a disorganised and random manner as it is the case now.

However, I personally believe that MPs should also look for other development opportunities that are out there and not just to rely entirely on the named funds. I am sure that many donors are also genuinely willing to fund development initiatives but not on income-generating projects but social development projects that are not profit-motivated.

Hence, I would also envisage that West Makira MPs should not rely entirely only on the above named funds which focuses mainly on micro-income generating initiatives, but should also create development initiatives that would foster social growth and development in West Makira by working in partnership with donors and NGOs. This is important for we may have the entire "hard" infrastructure we need to have access to the basic social services, but if we lack intellectual capacity to manage development then we will never be able to achieve real change and growth. Therefore educating our young generations, and even the adult through adult literacy and learning is vital in ensuring that development is addressed and achieved holistically.

Undoubtedly, tangible and hard infrastructure is important for growth as it is the tool with which development is worked. But focussing on tangible infrastructure alone is not sustainable. West Makira MPs must also realise the human aspect of development, which arguably is the most crucial prerequisite to achieving real growth, progress and advancement. Without intellectual capacity and capability we will achieve nothing and people will continue to be frustrated and distrustful of their MPs and the government.

Consider this illustration to provide you with a clear picture of how important intellectual capacity is. Currently in West Makira, development activities are on-going. People are engaged in the production of cocoa, copra, timber, and logging operations are widespread. This has been the case since independence. But still looking around the constituency you will see only few development initiatives, and one of them is the ship building project at Bia Village, South Arosi. The question is; where does all the money from copra, cocoa and timber go? The answer is that they have been spent on food and other necessities and other luxury goods and beverages. Only few people do have the idea and thought to save money for the future of their children in financial institutions. I believe the main reason for this is the high illiteracy rate; that is the lack of soft infrastructure to boost and stimulate growth and development.

People do have the necessary resources to initiate major development activities, but since there is minimum or zero assistance from MPs or the government they have been left to struggle on their own. Hence, most of these individual efforts have failed or have remained stagnant or dormant. This situation is further exacerbated by the prevalent high rate of illiteracy in the constituency; a problem true for the whole of Solomon Islands, but is more true to some constituencies, like West Makira, than others.

Looking at the current situation in West Makira, it is a case whereby development is valued only on its political terms and tradeoffs and not on its economic, and especially social values and implications. In other words, development is so politicised that every project that is approved and paid out by the MP is often for an expected friendly gesture on the Election Day: "I approve your project now and in return please vote for me come the next round of elections." And in some occasions, if you are not a die-hard fan (supporter) of the MP you will not have your project approved. Or if you do, it will only be a partial payment. This is bad and stinky politics and a real obstacle to development and progress within West Makira constituency.

Mind you, I am not saying that this situation is true only for the current Parliament and MP. It is a prevalent situation that has been around for decades and has grown deep into the mentality of many rural people in West Makira constituency- that MPs only assist their supports and not all the people of the constituency. And who are we to judge them? This is a situation that they have encountered with their MPs for many years now and thus they have come to accept is as the political norm.

So to put it simply, many of our West Makira MPs so far have been too self-serving, dedicating all their time and energy only on maintaining their political strong-holds and grooving new converts, and in so doing ignoring the rest of the West Makira constituents. While some (MPs) may have tried tirelessly to initiate long term development in the constituency, the result and indication by far is that they have failed drastically and none of their ideas have worked. May be they have their own reasons for their failures but I for one strongly believes that the common attributing factor to this high failure rate to achieve real long term, sustainable development is lack of sound and pragmatic vision and plans, which often leads to "miss-prioritisation" of development needs. Above all another very obvious contributing factor is their personalised approach to political leadership, which is based on the goal of winning the next election. 

The irony however is that, West Makira MPs focus too much on how they can win the next election that they fail to realise that all they have to do is to perform and do what is expected of them. Listen to the people and hear what their needs are. This can only be done effectively if you make yourself accessible to the people by visiting them occasionally and discussing with them their needs at their level, like, around an evening fire back in the village; not around shiny tables at hotels or restaurants. The underlying factor is performance. Just do what an MP is expected to do: be a good law-maker at the national level; be a good representative of your constituency in parliament; and initiate sound, sustainable and positive change and development in the constituency through visionary thinking and planning. Like the Nike slogan says, "Just do it!" that's what you should be doing to win elections (or to be re elected). There is no need to be involved in tricky business or stinky politics.

 I am not implying here that West Makira MPs should be playing the role of government by becoming the major players and agents for development. What I am saying is that given the available funding provided through the government and NGO's (donors) sustainable development is not unachievable and impossible like what we see now in West Makira. Our MPs should be the bridge between the people and the government and other source of assistance such as the NGO's to ensure that development programs and projects are implemented in a coordinated manner that would ensure effectiveness and sustainability.

On that note, I wish to encourage my fellow comrades of West Makira that selling your votes will not solve the problem for us in the long term. It will only help to worsen the problem and hence making us to suffer even more. Instead, I encourage you all to vote wisely and do not vote for whoever you know is not visionary and lacks the ability to lead with a heart for the people and also who lacks the intellectual capacity to formulate and implement sound and pragmatic plans and strategies.

 We now live in a world where knowledge is important, though wisdom is also vital. The government system we operate under in Solomon Islands, the Westminster system of government, is a Western (foreign) concept. Therefore, if a person who is voted into parliament lacks proper understanding of it, the only result will be failure.
 So, go for the polls and vote for a leader that will be able to take West Makira constituency into the future with diligence, determination, respect, hope and vision. Let us not be disheartened by our current situation, for better days are still to come.
GOD BLESS WEST MAKIRA CONSTITUENCY, GOD BLESS SOLOMON ISLANDS.

Allowances problem for SI students in Cuba

Hello again,

I wish to comment briefly on the above item which was highlighted in the media recently.

I understand and do acknowledge that sending money to Cuba, a communist country isolated and economically barred by some of the capitalist giants of the world, is difficult and hence the delay. But what took the authorities so long to react?

 I am really surprised to hear that after almost a year without allowances responsible authorities have only recently started to take the matter seriously. As reported, the students have not received any form of allowances from the government since June 2009. My question is; why does it have to take the responsible authorities seven solid months before they can be serious about addressing the issue?

According to media reports, it was only recently that serious formal high level arrangements were initiated between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to identify the best possible ways to send the money to our students in Cuba. Why have you taken the issue so lightly? I am sure that the authorities will say that they are taking the matter seriously. But it was only after the students threatened to boycott their exams that they were shaken.

Regardless, for such an important issue which involves the lives of Solomon Islanders, seven months is just too long a time for it to be properly addressed and resolved. I see this as grossly unacceptable and a total ignorance of duty by relevant authorities.

I would have thought that such arrangements, such as the means of paying the students allowances, would have been high in the agenda when the deal was sought and made between SIG and the Cuban government to initiate such a programme. However, it is now clear that these vital issues may have never been part of the discussion, or if they do, have been greatly understated and underestimated.

I only hope that the issue does not prevail over the years and is sorted once and for all so that in the future our students will not have to worry about such issues that are outside of their academic responsibilities.

And as sad and frustrating the issue can be, the lessons learnt from it must not be taken lightly. The government must tread carefully in the future when making deals with foreign countries, especially those known to be hostile to the Western world. And when entering into bilateral contracts with other countries, especially when dealing with training such as the case of our students in Cuba, all dimensions of the case at hand must be taken into consideration. For a good deal is not only measured by its economic merits but also its moral and social values.

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.