How does it feel...?

How does it feel…

…to be dragged out of your car,

…to be kicked with the boot,

…to be punched with the fist,

…to be helpless because your were outnumbered,

…to think that they would really kill you,

…to be stripped of your uniforms,

… to be denied the right and chance to speak,

…to be punched without reason,

…to be constantly gun-butted,

…to lie on the ground like criminals,

All the while knowing that you were innocent?

 Have you ever…

…dragged someone out of the car,

… hurt with a kick from your boot,

…punched without asking,

…outnumber and abused someone,

…hurt like you are going to kill,

…stripped a person of his clothing,

…denied someone the chance to speak,

…listened before punching,

…gun-butted an innocent,

…forced someone to lie on the ground like criminals,

All the while knowing the he was innocent?

The End of Democracy

Since I was unable to share the original article directly from the original site, I copied this article by PNG Attitude’s KEITH JACKSON to my blog, so that I can post on facebook.  

THERE’S AN EMAIL doing the rounds in Papua New Guinea today that, even if what it says is half true, reflects a worsening threat to democratic governance in that country.

   The statement alleges that five new bills will be passed through parliament today which will substantially erode PNG’s democratic fabric.
   However, as has happened repeatedly in recent months, parliament did not meet this morning because it lacked a quorum.
   I reproduce the statement here while warning readers that the assertions it makes may be wrong or exaggerated.
   But we cannot be too careful where attempts may be underway to remove or corrode people’s rights in the way the email suggests.

The end of democracy & the beginning of dictatorship

Dearest Beloved Fellow Citizen,

When Parliament sits today, Wednesday 18th 2012, we can expect our last few hours of Democracy to diminish, as this rogue government attempts to pass 5 reactive, retrospective Bills in their desperation to grapple at the last meager straws of power.

The following is a description of these bills: 

Bill to Amend the Judicial Conduct Act.

There are two certified copies of the JCA. One is the 30/3 JCA

The second is the 4/4 JCA. The second had extra clauses inserted.

The proposed bill to be tabled for passing is an amendment to the second act that basically adds on that the failure of one or a bench of judges to comply with the JCA will see them criminally charged and sentenced to prison of up to 7 years and lose all retirement benefits 

The second bill set to pass is the Parliamentary Privilege in Court Proceedings.

This states in principle that only the parliament Hansard may be used as evidence when interpreting parliament legislation and no other evidence. This is very biased and a judge should have all necessary facts and evidence before a decision is reached. 

A Supreme Court Amendment Bill that will render null and void the supreme court's order from last December that Sir Michael be reinstated as PM.

This is a no brainer and dead set wrong period. 

A Police Control Bill that fundamentally gives the parliamentarians more control over the police personnel. 

The most explosive one - a Media Control Bill, which will basically aim to control all forms of media (mainstream and social).

Anyone seen to be speaking out against the government is liable for dissension/treason and will be arrested and charged accordingly. That?s right they will take away your freedom of speech. 

Beloved fellow citizen, if you have been complacently going about your daily business, without a care or concern about these serious events that have been and are still taking place in obviously corrupt government, let this message now be a loud blaring siren in your ear.

   If we allow this government to stay in power, we will truly see Dictatorship come to pass in our generation? And what of our children?

   We continue to pray to our God for His will to be done, but are we willing to step out in faith and do what is necessary, like Moses, Daniel, and others? We all have social responsibilities, and now is the time to act.

   For your information, awareness, and serious consideration. Attached, please find the 1st and 2nd copies of the Judicial Conduct Bills, and the first 2 Bills on the list above. The other 3 will be forwarded to you in due time, fellow citizen.

   If you are concerned for the future generations of this nation, please forward to 10 or more people.

Source: http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2012/04/alarming-statement-forecasts-draconian-laws-for-png.html

Dissecting the Judicial Conduct Act

The author was fortunate to grab hold of an e-copy of the controversial Judicial Conduct Bill 2012. The Bill is made up of five (5) different sections, but the part most debated about is Section 5, which requires the judge “to perform duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.”

   Subsection 5(1) defines the instances where the Judges’ impartiality (the ability to show no favouritism or nepotism) is questioned, meaning that the judges have a higher chance of being biased. Such instances include cases involving clients and lawyers who are relatives of the judge, cases where the judge is himself a witness and cases where the judge was involved in as a lawyer before becoming a judge. Obviously, this is vital to strengthen role of the judiciary, especially in terms of maintaining and ensuring that members of the judiciary remain unbiased and unprejudiced. Being the constitutionally appointed interpreter of the laws of the nation does not mean that a judge cannot be judged.

   Subsection 5(2) provides that if it ‘appears’ to Parliament that a Judge has breach subsection 5(1), Parliament will refer the Judge to the Head of State. It can be inferred from this that if the Parliament, or a member of it, dislikes a judge (even for personal reasons), they can go to extremes to dig out any instances pursuant to subsection 5(1), and table it in Parliament as basis for a judge’s referral. This subsection is quite malicious, and can be both deadly venom, and saving antivenom.

   Subsection 5(3) provides that the tribunal investigating the Judge concerned will consist of a chairman and two others, each of whom must be a judge or a former judge in PNG or other countries that have the same legal systems as PNG. The Head of State will appoint the tribunal members.

   Subsection 5(4), if I understand it correctly, prevents any judges from issuing a stay or restraint order to prevent themselves from being investigated. Their arm that issue stay orders on decisions against themselves is being crippled. In actual fact, this piece of legislation prevents the judges from using (or abusing) their powers, ranks or title to stay investigations into their own alleged misconducts. If such is the case, they should do away with stay or restraint orders in the court systems, because it simply provides protection from the (whether rightly or wrongly) accused.

   Subsection 5(5) gives power to the Parliament to ‘take whatever action necessary’ on the judge if he is found to have breached subsection 5(1). It includes removal of the Judge in accordance with some sections of the Constitution. Now, considering that the three arms of government are constitutionally equal and independent, this particular section of legislation seems to make the Legislature (and the Executive, which are all parliamentarians forming the government) more powerful than the judiciary. Furthermore, what guarantee do we have that the Parliament itself won’t be biased?

   While the author agrees with most of the points outlined in the Bill, he disagrees with this particular one (subsection 5(5)). Since the three arms of the government (The National Parliament, The National Executive and The National Judiciary System) have (and must be kept) separate and distinct powers and functions as provided in Section 99 of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional for one to claim unlimited jurisdiction over the other. The Constitution in fact made it clear that these powers and functions of the three arms are “non-justiciable’ (cannot be tried in a court of law). Parliament, in passing the Act, has usurped the powers of the Judiciary, making itself the legal body to refer members of the Judiciary, who are constitutionally separate.

   Subsections 5(7) and 5(8) provide that the judge in question must step down from his role as a judge while being investigated. Any orders or judgment he made must be stayed (not effected for time being).

   Now note one particular sentence in the Bill that the author finds very illogical. Referring to the Bill, it said: Made by the Parliament to be deemed to have come into operation on 1 November 2011. Although the Bill was passed on the 13 of March, 2012, any misconduct by judges in the past (since November 1, 2011) is a breach of this law. This effectively means that any decision made by the Judge in question, prior to the passing of this Bill, is stayed, if not, null and void until the judge has been cleared off the allegations. This may be legal, but doesn’t sound logical. It is pathetically insane to make such a law. The implication and motive is clear: the Supreme Court’s decision on 12^th December 2011, to reinstate the Somare-government is been nullified or stayed because Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia has breached the new Act, even before it became an Act!

   Note too that Opposition Leader Lady Carol Kidu and Morobe Governor Luther Wenge said that while Parliament voted for and passed the Judicial Conduct Act, it was another version, the Judicial Control Act that was certified. The Speaker claimed that it was just a printing error. How in the world can the printer mistakenly print a different version of the Act, unless it has been ordered to do so? Scaringly, the Name Judicial Control Act sounds threateningly dictatorial.

   It seems that the Judicial Act, though trying to strengthen the Judiciary, gives unconstitutional jurisdiction to Parliament over the Judiciary.

   Being one arm of the government, the Parliament with its legislative powers, is not, and should not be the right body to refer a judge to the Head of State. Even having said thus, the Head of State is not a neutral body to set up a tribunal of judges because constitutionally, the Head of State is part of the National Executive (Section 139). Parliament can use its powers to suspend the Head of State as they did to Sir Michael Ogio.

   In the author’s opinion, the most neutral body is sadly the very authority that remained mute throughout the recent turnout of events – the Ombudsman Commission.

   The OC is an independent institution established directly by the Constitution, and aimed at providing good leadership and governance. In part, it aspires to ensure that all government bodies are responsible, fair and indiscriminative in the various services to the people, and it supervises the Leadership Code, guarding against the abuse of power by those in the public offices. It listens to the cry of the people affected and acts accordingly. Apart from being constitutionally rendered independent, and thus its neutrality, it is the appointment of the Commission that promises great neutrality.

   The OC is made up of the Chief Ombudsman, and two other Ombudsmen. They are appointed by the Governor-General, acting with and with advice from the Ombudsmen Appointment Committee. The Committee consists of the Prime Minister as Chairman, the Opposition Leader, the Chief Justice, the Chairman of the Public Services Commission and the Chairman of the Permanent Parliament Committee on Appointments.

   Because of the position of each member of the Ombudsman Appointment Committee, the author believes that the most neutral authority to set up leadership tribunals for members of the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary is the Ombudsman Commission. The three arms of the government each has a representative in the Ombudsman Appointment Committee.

   If the new Judicial Conduct Act is to be constitutionalised, it must be done so with subsection 5(5) amended such that the Ombudsman Commission is the authority to set up tribunals for judges rather than the Parliament doing so. This should distinctly maintain the jurisdiction, power and functions of each of the three arms of government: the National Executive, the National Judiciary System and the National Parliament (Legislature). When one of the arms behaves as if it is more powerful than the others, poor Mr. Democracy will melt like an ice berg, and disappear into the ocean of tyranny.

   Isn’t that the hidden agenda? Maybe.

1.      Click to read an argument to constitutionalise the Judicial Conduct Act. http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2012/04/lets-constitutionalise-the-judicial-conduct-bill.html

2.      http://www.pngperspective.com/news/the-oneill-govts-judicial-conduct-bill-which-is-now-an-act-/ Click on this link to see a copy of the controversial Judicial Conduct Act)

3.      Click on this link to find out more about the Ombudsman Commission http://www.lawandjustice.gov.pg/www/html/118-the-ombudsman.asp

A Crunchy Meal

His name is John, and he is such…a character. He is probably in his fifties, but still active, mostly when he’s playing cards.

   One day, luck found him during a card game. He won some good amount of cash, enough to buy rice for the dinner. Because he wanted to continue playing, he handed some money to his darling Miriam, to buy some rice for the night.

   After a while, he decided that he must go home to his family. His stomach rumbled as hunger terrorised the smooth muscle in search of some food to work on. Pocketing his last of the winnings into his dirty khaki short, he headed home. His wife and their two little girls had already gone to bed when he arrived home, tired and hungry.

   The faint yellow beams of light from the small tin lamp fought with the darkness, struggling to illuminate the house as he opened the door and stepped in. As the door closed quietly behind him, he tiptoed to the kitchen, not wanting to wake his dear Miriam and the kids.

   In the kitchen, he fumbled in the dark, and located his plate of rice. His mouth watered as he looked down at the food. It was white rice with aupa kumu, both topped with Indomie noodles that was mixed with Diana tinned tuna chunks.

   He sat down on the wooden stool, and took a bite at the kumu. He knew instantly that some tasty flavour was missing – salt. He fumbled again in the dark, and managed to grab the salt packet. Sprinkling it onto the aupa, and began eating.

   A single bite, and still there was no taste of salt. He sprinkled some more salt on and tasted it, but nothing changed. Hunger collided with frustration, as he emptied the packet of salt onto his food. He mixed the salt thoroughly with the aupa, rice and stew, and continued eating, though still not able to appreciate the salty flavour. “The salt has lost its savour,” he mumbled between bites.

   The rice was both soft and crunchy. He was crunching the rice as if crunching uncooked noodles. But since he was so hungry, he allow the sound of the crunch to pierce the silence of the house, as he transferred the rice to his rumbling stomach. Then, with a gulp of Tang juice, he washed the remnant of the rice in his mouth into the stomach.

   Finally, he retired for the night, tired but not hungry.

   He woke up the next morning to the sound of his dearest Miriam. From the tone of her voice, he could make out that she was cross.

   Sleepily, he got up and sat at the edge of the bed. He could hear Miriam interrogating their two little girls. “OK girls, who took the half-packet rice I left on the table yesterday?”

   Tears rolling down their cheeks,  the pair shook their heads.

   Then savvy struck John’s mind, lighting up his face with a smiling guilt. It was a realization that saved her girls from being spanked.

   “It was me,” he muttered sheepishly.

   “How could you, John?” Miriam looked confused.

   “It was dark, and I couldn’t see!”