Exploiting motions of no-confidence

 I REFER to your report “Treasurer hits back at K112 million claim” (Feb 8). 

The organic law relating to political parties and candidates instituted by the Morata government has, so far, contributed to political stability.

But it is still in its infancy and it seems quite clear that political stability may not be all that it has been contributing to, it is being exploited mercilessly by those in position. 

The suffering public has heard claims and counter-claims about the greasing of palms to shore up coalition ranks in the face of motions of no-confidence in parliament.  

Several attempts, after much noise, have been blocked or rejected by the speaker’s office.  

The public has also heard, seen and experienced long delays in release, by the departments of Treasury & Finance and Planning, of funds duly allocated by successive governments and the NEC for many worthwhile initiatives.

It is always intriguing, but unfortunately should not be a surprise, when there is a sudden flurry of funds being released into the direct care or oversight of “elected members” who are closely aligned to certain people. 

Considering the motions of no-confidence, the (superficially inept) processes whereby the “issues of substance” that they are based on (and who is directly involved in a position of power when they are created), and the relationships between release of funds and apparent biases amongst beneficiaries, one might also question whether the processes surrounding motions of no-confidence (whether formally lodged or just threatened) might not fast becoming a highly lucrative, institutionalised industry unto themselves within the halls of political power in PNG.  

It seems that the more these challenges can be initiated, regardless of merit, and the more coalition partners make noises of changing camps, but fail to do so when the chips are laid out, coalition partners (irrespective of political persuasion) stand to gain from each successive challenge. 

If so, who is responsible and how long might it be before the credibility of political systems, opposition, stability, coalitions, middle and back benches, the functions of public services, and all things in between, are totally shot and discredited regardless of the organic law? 

Does it mean there is inevitably an elite group of winners regardless of circumstances and shall remain that way for the foreseeable future? 

This is food for thought to all Papua New Guineans with genuine, fair and just minds. 

FFB

Via email