An assessment of our political being


I REFER to Tapu Malo’s letter “PM must reflect people’s feelings” (Oct 11), a response to my article “Patronage has made Somare assertive” (Oct 5), is anchored in a particular persuasion that compromises the integrity of his position.
My article is neither a defence nor a support of Sir Michael Somare. It is an objective assessment about our political being.
No one will dispute the fact that Sir Michael is a living political history of PNG and there are others also.
When I refer to freedom as a personal goal, I refer to his own struggles with racial prejudice during the colonial era and how he continues to hold uncompromising contempt for actions or comments that amount to patronage from Australia.
We are not little children to be told by Australia how we should govern ourselves.
As a national goal, freedom is about economic independence; to able to depend less on Australia. That was exactly a statement from Sir Michael. I thought the contexts in which I had used the term were just so obvious to be misread.
Secondly, the consensus that Canberra’s patronage is a cause for current diplomatic tension is based on careful examination of analysis by prominent Australian academics, journalists as well as Australians I have encountered.
It is also based on views gathered locally.
I make no assumption about this and for the writer to reason that John Howard is the devil in the relationship between Canberra and Port Moresby to justify Sir Michael’s arrogance, is seriously flawed and self-defeating.
I don’t know if Sir Michael is arrogant but certainly he is assertive. You see the media in Australia and PNG has had it all written and televised for us. It was obvious.
Thirdly, my reason for using the Melbourne University experience is to explain the point that Howard may have lost it working with the Somare Government. It wasn’t to justify some abusive leader Malo thinks. It is just unfortunate he could use this totally out of context.
Furthermore, the writer’s concern for the lack of concrete evidence of patronage is conveniently subsumed in his apparent disconnection with a lot that has been said in the media on both sides.
I do not wish to be seen to be correcting someone’s ignorance here but I do wish to note that the very premise that we have never suffered at the hands of the Australians during the colonial era is utterly unforgivable. There is a lot in history Malo may have missed.
In all Malo’s views are very judgmental in that he refers to Sir Michael as a law breaker or abusive leader, a threat to democracy and this really shows his biasness, lack of objectivity and ultimately raises questions about the integrity of what he is saying.
If the writer reckons people’s views must be reflected by the PM, then I find it hard to believe how this very same people have decided through the ballot to return Sir Michael and National Alliance back to government with overwhelming majority.
People are just not interested anymore, if they were, in PM’s anti-Australian behaviour. But I agree the integrity of the office of the PM must be upheld at all times.

Trevor Meauri
Wewak