THAT Namson Tran is campaigning well ahead of others is an undeniable fact. It is public knowledge publicised in the papers and radio throughout Solomon Islands.
The gist of my article of 17/03/10, for purposes of clarification to people like David K. Wate and the public in general , was to address leadership and especially as it relates to how electors or voters can judge whether a candidate has the character(s) required of a leader or not.
Let me reiterate that “leadership in its purity cannot be sold or bought.” It is a rare attribute made and acquired through the experiences and challenges of life.
And so it is important that we use our common sense to choose people who are already leaders here (outside) by virtue of their daily conduct before being elected into the honourable house. We should not elect people with suspicious characters.
Secondly we need people who have some idea about democracy, constitution and other subsidiary laws of Solomon Islands as a sovereign nation.
They must be seen to be law abiding citizens as opposed to law breakers. It is becoming clear over the years that we have elected more leaders with suspicious characters than law makers into the honourable house.
The actions of Namson and his agents clearly showed either they do not know the requirements of the law that governs elections or the electoral process or it is an act of willful disobedience to the requirements of the law.
Either of these circumstances by their own measure disqualifies the candidate as a potential leader.
The National Parliament electoral provision Act Cap 87, part III section 24, clearly stipulates that the head of state, the Governor General (GG), must announce or declare the election date before nominations of candidates can take place and from henceforth candidates can go publicly with their campaign.
This is the law of the country that governs when public campaigning for all candidates should start.
In other words it provides for a common starting point for every candidate to start campaigning. This is to provide for a fair and just election for all candidates who are contesting in any constituency.
Let me illustrate this noble and fair intention of the Act Cap 87; section 24, in trying to provide a fair competition by using a scenario from the “athletics competition”.
Let’s use 400metre distance event as an example. First all runners must train hard for the event.
During the training period one is taught on how to develop the appropriate muscles for strength and endurance; how to start and take off and how to run and run well to win the race.
Now one of the most important things in any athletic event is to ensure that all runners take up their position and start at the same time.
If a runner starts before the others, then the race is called to start again.
Now if a runner keeps starting well ahead of the others; do you think the organisers will allow him or her to run or disqualify the runner?
Common sense has it that he or she will be disqualified from the competition. Full stop and no questions asked.
I have no objection to anyone who campaigns quietly without any public intention to contest. I first heard that Namson Tran was going to contest the west Honiara constituency seat in August of 2009 well ahead of any other contestants.
His dishing out of help to communities in west Honiara and other Honiara constituencies is done publicly and with the motive to contest.
This will be confirmed when he is nominated as a candidate and by then Namson Tran is already 100metres ahead of other competitors. How unfair and unjust for other contesting candidates.
I am writing here for Solomon Islanders and to protect the interest of this country from people who think they can do what they want without any opposition simply because they are wealthy.
Wealthiness does not allow anyone to go dishing out help indiscriminately and in actual fact the law only allows for a certain limit of expenditure per candidate.
Can you really justify campaigning well ahead of declaration on the basis of custom (culture) as espoused by David K Wate or the act of a Good Samaritan by Fakaia?
I repeat if Namson’s actions were done without public knowledge of his intention to contest the west Honiara seat, then you can be excused under the notion of culture and the Act of a Good Samaritan. Even then you can still be petitioned upon a victory.
With Namson’s intention already made known in 2009, and substantiated by public campaigning activities; your explanations to say otherwise are flimsy, does not hold water, and lacks substance.
What comes out clearly from your articles is the fact that Wate and Fakaia have actually publicly confirmed the assistance given by Namson to many communities in west Honiara.
Although you may want to hide such assistance under culture or Good Samaritan acts, you really cannot rule out bribery, treating and undue influence.
Further by campaigning well ahead of others a situation of unfair and unjust election playing ground for other intending candidates have been created.
Fakaia has confirmed this in his article of 25th March 2010 by the words “don’t run in the upcoming election for west Honiara because it is a one sided soccer match”.
This confirms that you were actually giving help for a ballot paper. You have already preempted the result of the election on the basis that you have have been buying people all these time.
Now I will clarify whether David K Wate can hide these illegal activities under culture or not; as presented in the Solomon star edition of 20/03/10. Let us use David K. Wate’s example as the premise upon which to explain the illegal actions of Namson.
I can write more on my culture and how it is applied and for what reasons; but space won’t allow me to do so and that it would be unnecessary as it does not have any relevance to the matter in question.
In the north Malaita culture, it is important to note that the bridegroom’s father is either an uncle, brother, grandfather or a blood relative from the paternal or the maternal side. Please note carefully that the binding factor is blood relationship.
This is what I mean by the fact that culture is practiced by and among people with values or traditions that were handed down from generation to generation to maintain close relationship with distant blood relatives.
This is so as not to lose the blood link that may extend to other tribes and other parts of Malaita.
In our day and age this may involve marriages to other provinces or outside of the country. So the culture of giving and taking is applied in that kind of context.
It is not indiscriminate. To say that Namson is applying culture in what he is doing in Honiara, is an abuse and or over use of culture which is not right. Something or anything that is not right is wrong.
In the cultural context, people who give often do not impose repayment rather they only pass word around to other blood relatives if and when they need assistance (reciprocation).
And there is no insistence of support equivalent to what was rendered rather it can be less, equivalent or more.
The help and support is always there regardless by virtue of the blood relationship. Any help is accepted all the same in good faith.
The point here is that giving and taking in our culture is not something that is done indiscriminately to anyone and to everyone, however, noble and good it is; as David K. Wate and Fakaia would like us to believe in support of what Namson is doing.
And so to apply culture to justify Namson’s illegal activities is out of context for the following reasons; that the motive to contest is already public knowledge, the giving is indiscriminate, and Namson is not a blood relative of all Malaita for the culture to apply. It’s out of context full stop.
Finally to use the cases of Mr Wate vs Folotalu 1993, and Fugui v Maetia 1989 to Justify Namson’s indiscriminate dishing out of help in Honiara as part of our culture, is out of context; as both cases are to do with constituencies in Malaita (not Honiara); where our culture can sensibly apply.
But you cannot apply Malaita culture in the context of Honiara with a multi-ethnic setting. Common sense, isn’t it?
Culture has its own sphere of application and therefore you cannot apply it anywhere and everywhere to suit yourself and your corrupt intentions.
In other words you cannot help applying the law that governs elections in Solomon Islands to the circumstances in question, to mean something else other than bribery, treating and or undue influence.
Remember that the law (Cap 87) is there to guide anyone and everyone who intends to contest any National General elections to play it by the rules.
If you willingly or willfully disobey the law then you have by your very own actions disqualify yourself to become a law maker; the very position that you are applying for.
Finally I wish to tell Fakaia in no uncertain terms that in my role as a hospital manager and later permanent secretary for health ministry, I do not mix wantok system in my capacity in any of the roles I held.
I brought with me to the ministry integrity and leadership that is consistent with GO, public services regulations, and common sense.
I do not play around with subordinates in matters relating to their duties and expect officers to perform to their best as service providers for government and people of the country.
Lest Faikaia should forget that I did not advise some inanimate object but I give direct advice to a minister but indirectly to ministers of the cabinet only on matters to do with health not on fiscal policies and economics.
They as leaders have absolute power to accept such advice or to reject as they are humans being with more power than myself and a mind of their own.
I have played some significant role in instituting change in NRH and the ministry during my time as PS considering the very short period I held those roles.
I was a CEO for only a few months before I became the Permanent secretary.
In the roles I held in Solomon Islands especially in the public service, I doubt very much if anyone who works with me will ever deny the attributes of true leadership that I have displayed under varying and sometimes difficult circumstances.
In the matter of contesting the east Honiara seat in the up coming election, as an individual I have laid my case to rest in 2006 reiterated in the by election of 2008, that I am not going to contest in this election because as highlighted by Fakaia it is not people with good leadership character that will win the election rather it is dishing out of money under culture and good Samaritan that will win at the end of the day. I do not eat my words.
The result of such election influence (Buying of votes) has had its toll on the country in the poor service delivery that we now have; which is the result of a poor economy because of poor leadership at the political level.
It is a vicious cycle and with people like David K Wate and Fakaia around the cycle will continue forever.
By DR GEORGE MANIMU
Honiara
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
