Dear Editor – I read with much interest the exchange of words and counter-argument between Mr. Dora and Mr. Tuhanuku on the SIPA saga.
The latest being Mr. Tuhanuku’s explanation as appeared on Issue 2295 on 21st May 2016 of the Weekend Sun; which to me presented a strong and honest position that any intelligent reader should accept instead of continuing the current aversion.
I used to have a great affinity, respect and support for Mr. Yow’s reform, like Mr. Dora and used to argue for the reform insisting that anyone who speaks against such innovation does not deserve any public audience in your paper.
However, after just several weeks of events unfolding, and following my professional intelligent assessment, I totally turned against Mr. Yow’s SIPA reform.
I wish to make a public confession to all readers of your paper that I quickly de-taste the so call “reform” because I realized that it was all cosmetic, fake and riddled with allegations and corrupt motives.
But, surprisingly, Mr. Yow was allowed to succeed in the process because he tactically designed his plan, and pulled together a bunch or a class of people with or of the same caliber, reputation and character.
The latest High Court ruling deserves my congratulation.
In late 1990s and early2000, I was very much involved in reform programmes both in the country as well as Pacific islands under ADB, so am fully versed with the mechanics of public sector reform.
If anyone wants to know the authenticity of the reform programmer in relation to what Mr. Yow is doing, let me explain very briefly.
There is simply no reform agenda in the case of SIPA. Formulating and implementing a strategic plan may not necessary be equated to a reform programme.
What you have at SIPA is just an administrative overhaul and action orientated corporate management that is focused on an authoritarian regime, but is based only on the process of appeasement to satisfy the bosses and only a very few.
Let me explain. Mr. Yow has no written agenda or strategy to support his action.
In his office, he does not work on papers, only desk and chairs with tablets or phones. Instructions are given through meetings and electronically transmitted.
Some may call this a high-tech development administration and modern management. I know a few administration who adopt this style of management, but they remain only a few and certainly not acceptable in SIPA – a government SOE.
The reform does not have any verifiable indicators to show the intended outputs or quantifiable results for SIPA. Instead of being non-exclusivity, it picks and prey on its adversaries.
And lastly the SIPA reform does not have an implementation strategy that is related to national port operation both in short and long term. It fell misery in this context.
What we praised Mr. Yow for was actually started by the former management, and as far as I could see, Mr. Yow received the glorification he does not deserve, and turn SIPA into a white collar criminal corporate body which all of us will be ashamed of in years to come
Let me just explain for a layman’s sake. Let’s take selling of rice for example, there is no strategic action designed to sale such product (that is why we still have containers still piling up in the warehouse full of rotten low grade rice), and there is no direct linkage to the issue of providing an efficient Port operation which is the ultimate goal of SIPA (there is no relationship between rice and port efficiency and effectiveness).
Ports Act s.10 is very clear on the powers of the authority, and any diversion should never be allowed. It appears that the reform does not have any structural change element, and appropriate mechanism to satisfy SIPA’s overall mandate.
That is why we still have congestion in the port, and our handling of containers has been very slow and inefficient, whilst the rural people are suffering from high fees and inadequate port facilities.
The so call reform is too shallow, and camouflaged with rhetoric message of “standing for the indigenous people’s right” as well as “all other companies are foreign-owned and are ripping you off, I am here to save and protect you”.
To tell you the truth, I find difficulty in tracing the flow and trickle-effects of benefits of SIPA reform to rural indigenous people as claimed by Mr. Yow.
This is only a process of appeasement I raised earlier. Most likely, it is a scam and a money laundering scheme.
The termination of workers does not relate to any right-sizing and productivity strategy, as provided for under section 17 of the Ports Act, but purely because of membership of an union.
That is just an example of why Mr. Yow’s reform does not meet any reputable reform definition or any standard I know, am sorry to say.
Now coming back to Mr. Tuhanuku vs Mr. Dora’s argument, I find that Dora’s argument does not have much credibility, it is based on very shallow analysis of facts, and lacks in-depth research.
It seems to me that Mr. Dora does not know what he is talking about or what is going on under his nose. That is why the only option for him is to resort to character assassination.
May be he is blind folded by the support he gets from Mr. Yow. Mr. Dora’s argument lacks clarity, balance and objective analysis to any depth on what Mr. Tuhanuku is saying; and deserves no attention at all. His argument is basically immature. Mr. Dora’s argument lacks validity and reliability overall.
Mr. Tuhanuku’s argument is based on facts which can be verified, and legal interpretation which are proven behold reasonable doubt.
His explanation of the RIPEL saga is comprehensive and accurate, complete, logic and as much as possible it is reliable.
Therefore, I hereby call on Mr. Dora to humble himself apologize to Mr. Tuhanuku. Enough of damaging this country. “Nafu nao Mr. Dora”.
Remember the two most important ingredients in any evaluation are validity & reliability, and Mr. Tuhanuku meets those requirements.
As for myself; I survived the net influence of Mr. Yow, because after following him closely, I run away just in time before he had a chance to catch me in his net .
I escaped the public money laundering scheme which Mr. Yaw has thrown around, unfortunately there are people including Ministers, who are caught in the whole SIPA saga, and tried their very best to justify the engagement of Mr. Yow.
This is nothing but the power of money. We need everybody to understand this and support a genuine reform programme and not the one proposed by Mr. Yow.
May God bless SIPA and Solomon Islands. Thanks.
Socrates DJ Kiko,
Honiara
